Liars to the end

[simplythebest 0]

If Rome is burning will the fire brigade state a time to extinguish it? If you buy a pack mince at the supermarket do you wait till the last day of the sell by date to see if it is right. Surely you see now we have been lied too. That is not speculation but fact. Sorry but I think you ejaculate at going against the grain. It happens too often to be to be a one time happening. I think you love trawling.

You don't have to walk in line with everyone you do have the right to your opinion but you seem to be blind to anything wrong on the running of Rangers until the barn door has burnt down.

I hardly even post on here anymore, responses like this probably being the main reason. So because I don't believe we're doomed and want to give someone with a good rep the specific time period they asked for i'm on the wind up?

[Thinker 857]

How am I even supposed to say either way before his 120 day review is up?

 

The last thing I get out of all this is a kick.

 

Regardless of the 120 day review, that loan deal seems like bad business. Surely you can see how it would set alarm bells ringing for some people?

 

Anyway, here's a genuine question for you STB: What information do you expect the review to contain? (What do you hope to see confirmed and what refuted? What are the areas which you hope to see clarified?)

[simplythebest 0]

Regardless of the 120 day review, that loan deal seems like bad business. Surely you can see how it would set alarm bells ringing for some people?

 

Anyway, here's a genuine question for you STB: What information do you expect the review to contain? (What do you hope to see confirmed and what refuted? What are the areas which you hope to see clarified?)

 

The loan deal seems like a method of us getting extra capital, it's never been any secret that our cost base it too high right now. Even this alternative people keep going on about still involves the guy getting 75k from us, businessmen wanting some return is just a reality. I mean would you rather have negated the need for a loan by us selling Lee Wallace in January?

 

I expect it'll contain full information about cost cutting measures and the business plan going forward for our top flight return. I know i'm not being very specific there but i'm not a businessman, basically I hope it'll confirm and clarify exactly what our financial situation is short term and also what the board are planning in the longer term. I'd think it'll refute that administration is any threat although Wallace is constantly denying that anyway.

[der Berliner 3,245]

If Rome is burning will the fire brigade state a time to extinguish it? If you buy a pack mince at the supermarket do you wait till the last day of the sell by date to see if it is right. Surely you see now we have been lied too. That is not speculation but fact. Sorry but I think you ejaculate at going against the grain. It happens too often to be to be a one time happening. I think you love trawling.

You don't have to walk in line with everyone you do have the right to your opinion but you seem to be blind to anything wrong on the running of Rangers until the barn door has burnt down.

 

A wee bit over the top a reply, don't you think, pete?

 

Generally, I see no reason not to give Wallace his 120 days. If he doesn't come up with serious stuff and decent plans, there's still enough time to give him flak.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

Once then 'spivs' have gone who will replace them? Who will be in the boardroom? Can someone answer that please and maybe enlighten us exactly who the 'spivs' are?

[Scott7 5,156]

By their actions shall ye know them.

[Thinker 857]

The loan deal seems like a method of us getting extra capital, it's never been any secret that our cost base it too high right now. Even this alternative people keep going on about still involves the guy getting 75k from us, businessmen wanting some return is just a reality. I mean would you rather have negated the need for a loan by us selling Lee Wallace in January?

 

Well, in an ideal world we wouldn't have required a loan at all, but what's done is done I guess. The most pressing questions for me are:

 

1) How did we end up in the position of needing a loan? (i.e. Where did all our money go?)

2) How can we be sure that it's not going to happen again with the coming season's ST money.

 

My suspicion is that much of the money was frittered away on A) poorly-tendered contracts etc. that are of far less benefit to the club than they are to the "external" (though probably not completely unconnected) party, and B) arrangement fees / commission for individuals such as Ahmad and Green. Basically I'm worried that the club was being run in a way that benefited influential individuals or their businesses / crony's businesses over the future of the club.

 

So you can see how the loan deal would reinforce my suspicions - On the face of it, it seems to be a generous deal given from Rangers to our largest share holder.

 

I expect it'll contain full information about cost cutting measures and the business plan going forward for our top flight return. I know i'm not being very specific there but i'm not a businessman, basically I hope it'll confirm and clarify exactly what our financial situation is short term and also what the board are planning in the longer term. I'd think it'll refute that administration is any threat although Wallace is constantly denying that anyway.

 

I'm no businessman either, but presenting a happy, "here's what you want to hear" plan for how the future should go is not going to be enough for me. I want to know what's being going wrong, and how they're going to prevent it from going wrong again. I should stress, I want to be proven wrong about my suspicions.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

By their actions shall ye know them.

 

Who? Name them

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The loan deal seems like a method of us getting extra capital, it's never been any secret that our cost base it too high right now. Even this alternative people keep going on about still involves the guy getting 75k from us, businessmen wanting some return is just a reality. I mean would you rather have negated the need for a loan by us selling Lee Wallace in January?

 

I expect it'll contain full information about cost cutting measures and the business plan going forward for our top flight return. I know i'm not being very specific there but i'm not a businessman, basically I hope it'll confirm and clarify exactly what our financial situation is short term and also what the board are planning in the longer term. I'd think it'll refute that administration is any threat although Wallace is constantly denying that anyway.

 

 

clearly the wallace deal wasn't enough cash up front to get us through.

[pete 2,499]

I hardly even post on here anymore, responses like this probably being the main reason. So because I don't believe we're doomed and want to give someone with a good rep the specific time period they asked for i'm on the wind up?

Whether you come on is your choice I won't change that as everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is the great thing about the Gersnet. You only appear on threads where you can go against the grain and do so even although the evidence is 100% proven. Wallace lied about the loan and therefore it is worth questioning if he should be allowed 120 days. As I say, simply the ostrich, stick your head in the sand but thankfully we have supporters who dare to ask questions of the board and where the money has gone. Everyone was willing to give Wallace the time but when you lie it comes back to bite you on the arse.