Question.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Not everything is black and white, do we know that the board even had anything to do with the initial refusal for example? There are secretaries and administrators after all that very possibly got it wrong. As for the AGM issue, Bluedell even said Wallace was entitled to believe what he was told by Stockbridge at the time.

 

I don't believe this board have got a fair chance after inheriting a mess and it doesn't look like they'll get one.

 

bluedell also points out a 3rd illegal action by the board this month.

[Frankie 8,184]

Not everything is black and white, do we know that the board even had anything to do with the initial refusal for example? There are secretaries and administrators after all that very possibly got it wrong. As for the AGM issue, Bluedell even said Wallace was entitled to believe what he was told by Stockbridge at the time.

 

I don't believe this board have got a fair chance after inheriting a mess and it doesn't look like they'll get one.

 

Initial refusal appears to be in line with Mr Wallace's previous protestations. Ergo, transparency not as much of a priority as he'd have us believe.

 

I absolutely agree there needs to be shades of grey when it comes to the debate. However, now and again, when some issues are clearly defined, they are clearly defined.

 

In this case, the club's actions have been less than convincing and continue to point towards poor corporate governance. That should be a disappointment for us all but, once again, some are insistent on deflecting from that for reasons known only to themselves.

 

To be absolutely clear, if the 'new' board want a fair chance then they should be open and honest with fans. So far that has not been the case. As such, there is so surprise people continue to be cynical about their performance.

 

The Rangers board can and should be blowing all criticism out of the water via open, accountable debate and information sharing with fans/shareholders. Instead, so far at least, they are hiding from such while apparently breaking laws.

 

If you find that acceptable then fair enough but please don't complain when others rightly do take umbrage at wanting to avoid the events of recent years.

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

Not everything is black and white, do we know that the board even had anything to do with the initial refusal for example? There are secretaries and administrators after all that very possibly got it wrong. As for the AGM issue, Bluedell even said Wallace was entitled to believe what he was told by Stockbridge at the time.

 

I don't believe this board have got a fair chance after inheriting a mess and it doesn't look like they'll get one.

 

If and when this board go they'll be replaced by another one.

QUESTION: And who'll select the new board?

ANSWER: the owners i.e. the shareholders who own RIFC. Not DK, UoF, SoS etc

[Frankie 8,184]

If and when this board go they'll be replaced by another one.

QUESTION: And who'll select the new board?

ANSWER: the owners i.e. the shareholders who own RIFC. Not DK, UoF, SoS etc

 

Some of us have been making that point for long enough.

 

The issue is not with the board per se but with those who appoint them and make the rest of the decisions. Unfortunately, as long as they wish to remain anonymous, then their employees will, rightly or wrongly, take the flak.

 

Not to mention, we should all take responsibility for our own actions.

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

Some of us have been making that point for long enough.

 

The issue is not with the board per se but with those who appoint them and make the rest of the decisions. Unfortunately, as long as they wish to remain anonymous, then their employees will, rightly or wrongly, take the flak.

 

Not to mention, we should all take responsibility for our own actions.

 

and rather than grandstanding on the outside if Dave King wants change he should use some of his alleged wealth to buy some shares and force change..........

[simplythebest 0]

Initial refusal appears to be in line with Mr Wallace's previous protestations. Ergo, transparency not as much of a priority as he'd have us believe.

 

I absolutely agree there needs to be shades of grey when it comes to the debate. However, now and again, when some issues are clearly defined, they are clearly defined.

 

In this case, the club's actions have been less than convincing and continue to point towards poor corporate governance. That should be a disappointment for us all but, once again, some are insistent on deflecting from that for reasons known only to themselves.

 

To be absolutely clear, if the 'new' board want a fair chance then they should be open and honest with fans. So far that has not been the case. As such, there is so surprise people continue to be cynical about their performance.

 

The Rangers board can and should be blowing all criticism out of the water via open, accountable debate and information sharing with fans/shareholders. Instead, so far at least, they are hiding from such while apparently breaking laws.

 

If you find that acceptable then fair enough but please don't complain when others rightly do take umbrage at wanting to avoid the events of recent years.

 

The review contained plenty of transparency about how much money we've wasted, yet it's been lambasted with the likes of Dave King throwing about rather childish insults. My belief is that not everything can be told and done overnight, call me naive for that, I said if Wallace hadn't followed up the review with proper action more months down the line i'd be very concerned myself yet it's not even been a week and mind's appear to be made up.

 

I want to avoid the events of recent years myself hence why this season ticket withholding talk has got me so worried.

[Frankie 8,184]

The review contained plenty of transparency about how much money we've wasted, yet it's been lambasted with the likes of Dave King throwing about rather childish insults. My belief is that not everything can be told and done overnight, call me naive for that, I said if Wallace hadn't followed up the review with proper action more months down the line i'd be very concerned myself yet it's not even been a week and mind's appear to be made up.

 

I want to avoid the events of recent years myself hence why this season ticket withholding talk has got me so worried.

 

The review did not contain the detail the 120 days should have given it. For example, IIRC, you said you were looking forward to some scouting detail. There was none. In general the report was very generic, bland and certainly nothing to get excited about without clear evidence and timelines of how the positive ideas were to be funded and introduced.

 

People are not renewing because of the wastage, the lack of detail, the poor performance, the uncertainty and the constant efforts to hide from accountability. King and the UoF are almost an irrelevance in that sense. All the above is/was happening regardless.

 

Again, the Rangers board can change that. Again, they are not. That's why the future is a concern not because of people moaning from the sidelines as much as some want to perpetuate that particular myth.

[Frankie 8,184]

and rather than grandstanding on the outside if Dave King wants change he should use some of his alleged wealth to buy some shares and force change..........

 

Absolutely - I've also made that point many times.

 

However, as I'm pointing out to STB, there are plenty more fans/shareholders concerned about the progress of the club that can't afford to buy the club or large holdings. Therefore, their only method of forcing change is to withhold their money. That doesn't make them disloyal or somehow contributing to the club's downfall.

 

The only people responsible for that are those that continue to lurk in the shadows for reasons best known to themselves.

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

Absolutely - I've also made that point many times.

 

However, as I'm pointing out to STB, there are plenty more fans/shareholders concerned about the progress of the club that can't afford to buy the club or large holdings. Therefore, their only method of forcing change is to withhold their money. That doesn't make them disloyal or somehow contributing to the club's downfall.

 

The only people responsible for that are those that continue to lurk in the shadows for reasons best known to themselves.

 

I'd disagree Frankie. Withholding money will contribute to the club's downfall. These are not normal times.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

no point replacing this lot with new patsys and idiots.