trueblue 64 53 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 No company board in the world would sign over their biggest assets to their customers in return for their custom. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Want a bet? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Lol. Very good. So no dispute of the points. Thing is I also had the impression that they were claiming neither of these moves would be necessary if they got what the transparency wanted from the board, but this pretty much says we now want security over Ibrox regardless? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Very few companies if any ask for a years custom up front. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Very few companies if any ask for a years custom up front. Apart from football clubs 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 So no dispute of the points. Thing is I also had the impression that they were claiming neither of these moves would be necessary if they got what the transparency wanted from the board, but this pretty much says we now want security over Ibrox regardless? Ibrox should be in a trust so it can never be removed from the club and fans anyway. But while we totter on the brink of bankruptcy it's even more vital and we clearly are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Ibrox should be in a trust so it can never be removed from the club and fans anyway. But while we totter on the brink of bankruptcy it's even more vital and we clearly are. So that about maybe not being necessary was a lie then? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 So that about maybe not being necessary was a lie then? Not sure what you mean but if the board said it history suggests it was probably a lie. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 No company board in the world would sign over their biggest assets to their customers in return for their custom. That is, at best, disingenuous. A football club is not like any other company. If a fan is unhappy with the product he or she doesn't just go to the competitor club and start following them. In the case of a football club, not only are the fans are the biggest asset, they are also the only constant. Staff, players and directors come and go, but the fans remain. One would have to ask why a company board wouldn't jump at the opportunity of placing its most expensive assets into the safest hands possible to ensure the continuation and safeguarding of those assets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Not sure what you mean but if the board said it history suggests it was probably a lie. I mean people saying there'd be no need for either of King's initiatives if they got the 'transparency' from the board they wanted. Now it sounds like they want security over Ibrox come what may. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.