Dave King statement

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You have to wonder who it is that cheers the players at Ibrox.

 

There's dB, Darther and Brahim, all of whom for various reasons are willing to tolerate the board. Intelligent guys with coherently argued views (not that I agree with them). Then there's the yappy wee dugs who are called out whenever anything board related is in the news. It's not hard to spot the difference and it's not easy to resist the obvious conclusion that some people are working to order.

 

 

Thank you for the compliment and I assume that you are not categorising me in the second group as well.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

I watched David Murray stage-manage AGMs because he didn't want the hassle of having to answer pertinent questions, so they became farcical and valueless.

 

 

I agree with most of what you say in this thread but that simply isn't true. The only time I can recall that happening was when McClelland was Chair and he didn't get away with it.

 

I attended the AGM's for many years and never had any difficulty asking any question I wanted to ask and most times got answers even if I didn't agree with them.

 

In fact Martin Bain once said, that I was the "bain" (sic) of his life at AGM's.

Edited April 12, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It is common cause that the club is not a going concern without access to the season ticket loan from the fans. It is also common cause that the season ticket money will only provide partial relief in advance of a more permanent recapitalisation. I have hitherto urged restraint in dealing with the board, however due to this extreme act of bad faith I believe that it is vital that fans now withhold season ticket money from this board and similarly refuse to support the club by way of the purchase of replica kit or any other retail product.

 

So DK acknowledges that the action he proposes would render the club not a going concern. What would be his motives for suggesting such a disastrous course of action?

 

Whether you agree with DK's scheme or not (and of course it is well known hereabouts that I do not); his comments about a "loan" or monies "advanced" to " the Board" are complete and utter nonsense and he is intelligent enough to know that full well.

 

For a start it is NOT a loan. It is payment for the entertainment offered by RFC. As such there is no justification whasoever in asking for security for such a payment. As in the cinema example from GS, if you make the payment you get to see the games/movies if you don't you dont. Yes you can pay as you go but in the cinema example you don't get a discount and in Rangers case you don't get your regular seat. You don't get security over the cinema. The choice is yours. If enough people stop going to the cinema, there won't be a cinema.

 

Secondly it is NOT a payment or loan to the Board; that's just deliberately inflammatory, emotive nonsense. It's a payment to RFC. You may or may not like the directors of ABC cinemas, you may have been a patron for many years, you may think that the movies you see now are not half as good as the ones you saw in yesteryear, the stars may not shine as brightly in your eyes, you may even think that if the directors of ABC cinemas continue on their current course there won't be an ABC cinemas but unless you are a shareholder you don't get to elect them.

 

So he's right that if a large number of people do not renew then the club will not be a going concern and that might lead to resignations from the Board but it will also mean the club may not be able to trade solvently and that only leads in one direction.

 

As paying customers all of us have that choice (as we do about going to the cinema) but referring to a non-existent loan and suggesting putting the money in a trust serves no purpose other than raising the false hope of security in return for a few million of ST money which he knows isn't going to happen.

 

Now I'm off to get my tin hat and flak jacket.

Edited April 12, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[bluebear54 0]

A lot of these scenarios are gigantic leaps of faith, and silly parallels or metaphoric comparisons don't help.

Dave King has a long successful history as a business man.

Do you think he's just been lucky, or do you think he knows how to run a business?

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

You have to wonder who it is that cheers the players at Ibrox.

 

Davie Cooper was my first hero (well, actually it was Jim Bett - I thought he was on a different planet passing wise, but he sodded off) and we're told (by Spiers, admittedly) that we used to shout abuse at him for being lazy.

 

Then Terry Butcher came and turned what was a chore into a dream. He is now treated as a leper by some.

 

Sandy Jardine was apparently not Mr Popular until his illness.

 

McCoist must be slated because he does charity work for Sciaf.

 

Now Gough is a money grabbing so and so.

 

There's dB, Darther and Brahim, all of whom for various reasons are willing to tolerate the board. Intelligent guys with coherently argued views (not that I agree with them). Then there's the yappy wee dugs who are called out whenever anything board related is in the news. It's not hard to spot the difference and it's not easy to resist the obvious conclusion that some people are working to order.

 

Maybe, to rest my suspicious mind, they could stand up at the game this weekend and let us know, in loud voices, what they think of all these (and, no doubt, many other) turncoat lickspittle former Ibrox heroes. I'd love to see the reception - who knows, maybe they are right!

Darther and Brahim perhaps, but I've set to read an intelligent debate from then with regard to supporting the board.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Do you think he's just been lucky, or do you think he knows how to run a business?

 

That's exactly why I find so much of his plan (or lack of it) and statement so surprising and why I think there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

 

He obviously knows it's not a "loan" and he obviously knows the ST money doesn't go to the Board, so why sprout this nonsense.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Going to take years for kings plan to build momentum here. Will be lucky if the trust gets a million this year. But if we fail to get promotion or languish behind Celtc it will fast build funds and momentum.

 

Even at a million it would be crazy of the board to turn away.

 

The real danger is people looking at what the board are offering and just walking away.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

That's exactly why I find so much of his plan (or lack of it) and statement so surprising and why I think there's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

 

He obviously knows it's not a "loan" and he obviously knows the ST money doesn't go to the Board, so why sprout this nonsense.

 

Seems fairly obvious he's setting it up as a loan so security will be provided.

[Hildy 0]

I agree with most of what you say in this thread but that simply isn't true. The only time I can recall that happening was when MClelland was Chair and he didn't get away with it.

 

I attended the AGM's for many years and never had any difficulty asking any question I wanted to ask and most times got answers even if I didn't agree with them.

 

In fact Martin Bain once said, that I was the "bain" (sic) of his life at AGM's.

 

Supplementary questions were ruled out.

 

This meant that questions could be ducked or answered feebly. The excuse, if I remember correctly, was to allow more people to ask questions, but it stopped the board being pinned down on certain subjects and made life considerably easier for the top table.

 

The unseemly haste to conclude meetings was another area of legitimate concern.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

So DK acknowledges that the action he proposes would render the club not a going concern. What would be his motives for suggesting such a disastrous course of action?

 

Whether you agree with DK's scheme or not (and of course it is well known hereabouts that I do not); his comments about a "loan" or monies "advanced" to " the Board" are complete and utter nonsense and he is intelligent enough to know that full well.

 

For a start it is NOT a loan. It is payment for the entertainment offered by RFC. As such there is no justification whasoever in asking for security for such a payment. As in the cinema example from GS, if you make the payment you get to see the games/movies if you don't you dont. Yes you can pay as you go but in the cinema example you don't get a discount and in Rangers case you don't get your regular seat. You don't get security over the cinema. The choice is yours. If enough people stop going to the cinema, there won't be a cinema.

 

Secondly it is NOT a payment or loan to the Board; that's just deliberately inflammatory, emotive nonsense. It's a payment to RFC. You may or may not like the directors of ABC cinemas, you may have been a patron for many years, you may think that the movies you see now are not half as good as the ones you saw in yesteryear, the stars may not shine as brightly in your eyes, you may even think that if the directors of ABC cinemas continue on their current course there won't be an ABC cinemas but unless you are a shareholder you don't get to elect them.

 

So he's right that if a large number of people do not renew then the club will not be a going concern and that might lead to resignations from the Board but it will also mean the club may not be able to trade solvently and that only leads in one direction.

 

As paying customers all of us have that choice (as we do about going to the cinema) but referring to a non-existent loan and suggesting putting the money in a trust serves no purpose other than raising the false hope of security in return for a few million of ST money which he knows isn't going to happen.

 

Now I'm off to get my tin hat and flak jacket.

 

your cinema analogy actually disproves your argument.

 

If you want to see a movie, you pay your entrance fee, watch the film then go home happy.

If you want to follow Rangers, you have to go 36 times to see how it turns out. If they cancel the season half way through, it's all been a waste of time and money.

 

If I don't like how the directors are running the Roxy, I can go to the Regal. If they close the Regal, I'll watch the movie on DVD. I'm not particulalry fussed since it's the film I want to see. The product and the delivery vehicle are separate.

If I don't like how Ibrox is being run I can't go to Fir Park to watch Rangers. The product and the delivery vehicle are one and the same.

 

if the movie stinks, or the cinema is falling to bits, you can watch another movie or go to another venue.

If Rangers is falling to bits, what do we do? Go to Paisley to watch St Mirren?

 

if the directors of ABC cinemas are pocketing the income, then any money you pay to ABC cinemas is not going to ABC cinemas, it's going to the directors pension funds.

 

Now, do you sit on your hands while the directors destroy the cinema or do you take whatever action is necessary to force them out in order to save the long term future of the cinema?