BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I'm only commenting on bloggers who do not use their influence to unite the support. I think that's somewhat less than generous, D'Art presents his arguments in a fair and balanced way IMHO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I think that's somewhat less than generous, D'Art presents his arguments in a fair and balanced way IMHO. Many may agree with you, I can only comment on what I have read in his article and it seems one side is being made out to be threatening the other. I don't see that as being balanced IMHO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Many may agree with you, I can only comment on what I have read in his article and it seems one side is being made out to be threatening the other. I don't see that as being balanced IMHO. He commented that "Their insistence on being so deliberately confrontational with our current board, as well as their sometimes puerile rhetoric, may go down well with those already in their camp but it doesn’t necessarily resonate with all the support. As I’ve written previously, when the man you are openly supporting suggests some are “looking for a fight” it’s surely worthy of re-assessing how you are coming across to people." That seems quite balanced to me and he also reported that a fan was threatened for not singing "sack the board"; given D' Art's background I very much doubt if he would have reported that if it had not reached him from a very good source. How would he balance such a report - by saying that many fans who did not sing "sack the board" were not threatened? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 874 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I’m going to start this blog with a warning – We must ensure' date=' for the future of our club, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. I say that because it is important we focus on the facts and not the personalities involved. There is a considerable amount of information circulating at the moment and it’s vital we scrutinise it in a totally objective manner. Not only because it is the right thing to do – but because the future of our club may depend on our ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. [/quote'] In my opinion, if we wish to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, the most pressing question that needs to be answered is: Why have we been run so badly for two years? I've been awake thinking about it all night, and I've tried my best to go through the possibilities in a fair and balanced way - I'm not sure I've succeeded though. As I see it, there are 4 possible explanations. 1: INCOMPETENCE. The guys in charge (Green, Ahmad, Stockbridge, et al) had no idea what they were doing and were unaware of the damage that they were causing. - IMHO it seems highly unlikely that experienced businessmen could unwittingly get it so badly wrong. 2: INDIFFERENCE. The guys calling the shots (the same ones mentioned above) only ever intended to stick around for a couple of years whilst drawing fat salaries and bonuses - they simply didn't care what state they left the club in. - For this to be the case, the aforementioned gentlemen would have to have pulled the wool over the share holders' eyes (including Blue Pitch and Margarita). While this is plausible, I find it hard to believe that the institutional investors were kept so completely in the dark. Maybe I'm wrong about that though... 3: MISAPPROPRIATION. The contracts which were so badly negotiated from our point of view are clearly sweet deals for the other parties involved. It could be the case that some shareholders used their influence to have the club strike deals which benefit their other financial interests. For example, I'd be very interested to see the precise details of the Sports Direct deal - how good it is for them compared to us, and how the signing of it relates to Ashley's purchase of shares. - For this to be the case, the major shareholders would have to be in on the wrong-doing, and we're still in danger. 4: MALICE. The club was deliberately badly run and had cashed drained out of it by parties who wish to see us fail. - This seems like a conspiracy theory, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. To get to the bottom of this we really need to know: 1: Who signed off the bad financial decisions (so that we can be sure that they are no longer in the picture). 2: Who benefited from the club's profligacy (so that we can see whether or not anyone with an influence at Rangers was on the make). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 He commented that "Their insistence on being so deliberately confrontational with our current board, as well as their sometimes puerile rhetoric, may go down well with those already in their camp but it doesn’t necessarily resonate with all the support. As I’ve written previously, when the man you are openly supporting suggests some are “looking for a fight” it’s surely worthy of re-assessing how you are coming across to people." That seems quite balanced to me and he also reported that a fan was threatened for not singing "sack the board"; given D' Art's background I very much doubt if he would have reported that if it had not reached him from a very good source. How would he balance such a report - by saying that many fans who did not sing "sack the board" were not threatened? I read on Saturday night about someone who was given abuse FOR singing 'sack the board'. I suppose it depends how much credence you give to either side. As for the 'deliberately confrontational' and ' puerile rhetoric', also the 'looking for a fight', after reading some of the threats and intimidation on twitter by others, to me it seems one sided. Now I am neither a 'blogger' or hold any position in any organisation, only a common poster on GersNet, but it is my opinion and an honest one at that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 3: MISAPPROPRIATION. The contracts which were so badly negotiated from our point of view are clearly sweet deals for the other parties involved. It could be the case that some shareholders used their influence to have the club strike deals which benefit their other financial interests. For example, I'd be very interested to see the precise details of the Sports Direct deal - how good it is for them compared to us, and how the signing of it relates to Ashley's purchase of shares. It would be interesting to find out about the connections with 32Red and the Shareholders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 3: MISAPPROPRIATION. The contracts which were so badly negotiated from our point of view are clearly sweet deals for the other parties involved. It could be the case that some shareholders used their influence to have the club strike deals which benefit their other financial interests. For example, I'd be very interested to see the precise details of the Sports Direct deal - how good it is for them compared to us, and how the signing of it relates to Ashley's purchase of shares. It would be interesting to find out about the connections with 32Red and the Shareholders. Directors are obliged by law to avoid benefitng from conflicts of interest and failure to declare such is a criminal offence. "An interest can be direct or indirect. A conflict of interest could occur, for example, where a director is a director of another company which is a competitor, a major supplier, or a customer of the first company. An example of an indirect conflict of interest could be where a director represents a major shareholder in the company whose interests conflict with those of the company." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Directors are obliged by law to avoid benefitng from conflicts of interest and failure to declare such is a criminal offence. "An interest can be direct or indirect. A conflict of interest could occur, for example, where a director is a director of another company which is a competitor, a major supplier, or a customer of the first company. An example of an indirect conflict of interest could be where a director represents a major shareholder in the company whose interests conflict with those of the company." The Law and Rangers !!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 The Law and Rangers !!!! If anyone has evidence that directors benefited from undeclared conflicts of interest then I am sure that the police would take an interest. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 If anyone has evidence that directors benefited from undeclared conflicts of interest then I am sure that the police would take an interest. No law needed to be broken for Rangers not to be the main beneficiaries. 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.