Laxey loan

[TheTinMan99 0]

Never seen Frankie so irate, must be serious.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

It quite frankly amazes me that even in the most clear issues folk refuse to alter their viewpoint on some stuff. No-one is saying you suddenly need to carry the lad Houston on your shoulder to the next game but just that criticism of the club is occasionally wholly correct and concerning. We seen the same phenomenon under Whyte and Green - it's really bizarre!

 

I think it's a variation of Stockholm syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[Frankie 8,182]

Never seen Frankie so irate, must be serious.

 

Not irate - just puzzled.

 

I completely respect that people may take a different viewpoint of some issues which is why forums such as this are fun places. However, now and again, there are some subjects which are completely cut and dried.

 

In this case, the RFC board agreed an inflated working capital loan deal while just weeks previously suggesting such funds were not needed. Yet they're to be praised for changing the terms of the deal after having their bluff called by an ordinary fan? Or we're simply not to mention it?

[Frankie 8,182]

I think it's a variation of Stockholm syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

 

Some folk want to be positive as possible and I'm usually glad they'd rather look on the bright side than wallow in the negativity that is often counter-productive. However, now and again, failing to acknowledge worrying issues can have an even worse adverse affect.

[der Berliner 3,282]

...

It quite frankly amazes me that even in the most clear issues folk refuse to alter their viewpoint on some stuff. No-one is saying you suddenly need to carry the lad Houston on your shoulder to the next game but just that criticism of the club is occasionally wholly correct and concerning. We seen the same phenomenon under Whyte and Green - it's really bizarre!

 

What is "most clear" about either that loan deal or Houston? I see nothing clear, but quite a lot of people utilizing it to fuel their anger at and dislike of the board. And if you ask IMHO relevant questions, you end up being marked as pro-board or pro-**** and the like.

Whyte was of a different dimension altogether, though even having said that, who actually knew what he was up to up until it happened? On hindsight some will obviously dance their litte jigs and fs never stops telling me how correct he and how fogged my view was. (We've got a saying over here for such a behaivour: Even a blind hen will eventually find some grain.)

 

I fully understand if people think they have seen and heard enough and made up their mind about "the board" and some of the investors. Thus far I have not made my mind up about Wallace, Nash and Co., i.e. the current board, at least when it comes at running the club. Easdale is another matter. King, the saviour to so many "board-haters", said as much. That is: give them the time they want and see what comes of it. They arranged a shyte loan deal, revoked it and that's that. Not that Letham goes away empty handed either.

 

We'll see soon enough what that capital was required for, if at all.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

Some folk want to be positive as possible and I'm usually glad they'd rather look on the bright side than wallow in the negativity that is often counter-productive. However, now and again, failing to acknowledge worrying issues can have an even worse adverse affect.

 

I think that's called Stickin' Yer Heid in the Sand syndrome

[the gunslinger 3,366]

what if the blind hen is the first one to find the grain every time?

[TheTinMan99 0]

Not irate - just puzzled.

 

I completely respect that people may take a different viewpoint of some issues which is why forums such as this are fun places. However, now and again, there are some subjects which are completely cut and dried.

 

In this case, the RFC board agreed an inflated working capital loan deal while just weeks previously suggesting such funds were not needed. Yet they're to be praised for changing the terms of the deal after having their bluff called by an ordinary fan? Or we're simply not to mention it?

 

I totally agree with all the points, but you just normally see things from both sides relatively impartially. This incident, which is by no means the worst thing that they have done, just seems to have really riled you. The fact you have dropped the "devils advocate" stance on this issue was just noticeable.

 

You maybe feel better if you just ban stb, and get it over with.

[Frankie 8,182]

What is "most clear" about either that loan deal or Houston? I see nothing clear, but quite a lot of people utilizing it to fuel their anger at and dislike of the board. And if you ask IMHO relevant questions, you end up being marked as pro-board or pro-**** and the like.

Whyte was of a different dimension altogether, though even having said that, who actually knew what he was up to up until it happened? On hindsight some will obviously dance their litte jigs and fs never stops telling me how correct he and how fogged my view was. (We've got a saying over here for such a behaivour: Even a blind hen will eventually find some grain.)

 

I fully understand if people think they have seen and heard enough and made up their mind about "the board" and some of the investors. Thus far I have not made my mind up about Wallace, Nash and Co., i.e. the current board, at least when it comes at running the club. Easdale is another matter. King, the saviour to so many "board-haters", said as much. That is: give them the time they want and see what comes of it. They arranged a shyte loan deal, revoked it and that's that. Not that Letham goes away empty handed either.

 

We'll see soon enough what that capital was required for, if at all.

 

I'm neither pro-board nor pro-King but reserve the right to ask questions of them both and, indeed, any issue related to the club. That's why we have this forum.

 

What is abundantly clear here is the board organised a loan at inflated terms and has only been forced to change due to the timely intervention of a Rangers fan. This, despite the same board during the previous few weeks saying such monies were not needed.

 

Now, it shouldn't matter whether someone is pro-board or pro-King but they should find that obvious inconsistency and questionable performance a concern.

 

What other 'shyte deals' have they done and does this one 'shyte deal' suggest their review will be equally 'shyte'? Surely that's the pertinent questions here rather than saying forget about it?

 

We have a saying over here for such behaviour - live and learn.

[der Berliner 3,282]

BTW - and just to make that clear - I am far from happy that we needed the loan, one way or another, which is intimated above. I'm sure not missing the worrying issues as such, just like to know (reasonable) answers rather than repeated broadsides at e.g. the board which at the end of the day yield no info whatsoever.

 

The board needs to answer that loan stuff, of course. I'm also left puzzled why we do not have a decent bank giving us some floating charge et al to guide us through difficult periods without producing any great debt.

 

NB: I was citing King with regards to looking to the future. Quite a few people on here like to hare after "the board" for stuff done by "boards" of the past, no ifs and buts. That's rather strange as well.