Have the club blinked? Wallace meets UOF

[Hildy 0]

The problem for the UOF, if they agree a deal, is whether they can deliver their end of the bargain, and that means many thousands of ST renewals.

 

I'm not sure there is a mood to compromise now. If an unsatisfactory deal is agreed, it isn't going to be enough for those who want rid of the present regime and sense that it is on the run.

 

It reminds me of the Iraq/Kuwait situation back in the last century. Kuwait was liberated but the root of the problem wasn't dealt with until a later date. If Ibrox and Murray Park are given a limited form of protection, will this really be satisfactory if the nasty ogre remains in power?

 

Between the garbage served up on the pitch and a growing militancy off it, it may be difficult for the UoF to agree to anything which is a less than a decisive victory. It really can't risk alienating its own side - not after so many people have shown a willingness to finally take a stand against the club being badly run.

[Frankie 8,186]

The problem for the UOF, if they agree a deal, is whether they can deliver their end of the bargain, and that means many thousands of ST renewals.

 

I'm not sure there is a mood to compromise now. If an unsatisfactory deal is agreed, it isn't going to be enough for those who want rid of the present regime and sense that it is on the run.

 

It reminds me of the Iraq/Kuwait situation back in the last century. Kuwait was liberated but the root of the problem wasn't dealt with until a later date. If Ibrox and Murray Park are given a limited form of protection, will this really be satisfactory if the nasty ogre remains in power?

 

Between the garbage served up on the pitch and a growing militancy off it, it may be difficult for the UoF to agree to anything which is a less than a decisive victory. It really can't risk alienating its own side - not after so many people have shown a willingness to finally take a stand against the club being badly run.

 

That's where the board have been quite clever. Agree to some sort of compromise which can sideline UoF and buy themselves more time.

 

As for renewals, I think any deal would help but perhaps not to the kind of 36000+ levels some of the more misguided commentators claim. I think there will still be a marked reduction from last season unless something else is put into action before August - mainly investment (and lots of it).

[buster. 4,808]

Yeah, I've been making that point for a few weeks now. There has been next to no marketing/PR in terms of renewal persuasion. A couple of terse emails and a Twitter Q&A - that's it.

 

Doesn't make sense.

 

Not forgetting the transparent Mark Hately interview.

 

You'd almost think the club weren't sure if they wanted the ST money and were deliberating over an insolvency event sooner rather than kicking the can down the road.

Now you have them coming to the table in an apparent effort to get ST renewal money flowing.

It's confusing !

 

Ever since the turn of the year there seems to have been two sides to the board regarding what to do next with GW in the middle.

You have the hedge fund and then you have the Easdale proxies.

Oh to be the fly on the wall at board meetings.

Edited May 15, 2014 by buster.

[Stimpy 0]

The problem for the UOF, if they agree a deal, is whether they can deliver their end of the bargain, and that means many thousands of ST renewals.

 

I'm not sure there is a mood to compromise now. If an unsatisfactory deal is agreed, it isn't going to be enough for those who want rid of the present regime and sense that it is on the run.

 

It reminds me of the Iraq/Kuwait situation back in the last century. Kuwait was liberated but the root of the problem wasn't dealt with until a later date. If Ibrox and Murray Park are given a limited form of protection, will this really be satisfactory if the nasty ogre remains in power?

 

Between the garbage served up on the pitch and a growing militancy off it, it may be difficult for the UoF to agree to anything which is a less than a decisive victory. It really can't risk alienating its own side - not after so many people have shown a willingness to finally take a stand against the club being badly run.

 

I don't think it does mate. If a deal is agreed then the uof can simply state that they're renewing and look forward to the club's marketing campaign, then stay quiet whilst the renewal process is under-way. I would go further and have the UoF encourage the club to engage supporters in fan forums etc. Free advice which keeps the ball in the court of the club.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

remember that one of the uof goals is proper investement levels to get us back to the top.

[buster. 4,808]

I don't think it does mate. If a deal is agreed then the uof can simply state that they're renewing and look forward to the club's marketing campaign, then stay quiet whilst the renewal process is under-way. I would go further and have the UoF encourage the club to engage supporters in fan forums etc. Free advice which keeps the ball in the court of the club.

 

The crux of the matter is TRUST, or rather the lack of it.

 

The endgoal is surely to have an executive board in control of the club that can be fully trusted and for there to be sufficient meaningful transparency and engagement towards achieving that aim.

 

That may need changes on the board and an end to spinning contracts.

[Frankie 8,186]

Not forgetting the transparent Mark Hately interview.

 

You'd almost think the club weren't sure if they wanted the ST money and were deliberating over an insolvency event sooner rather than kicking the can down the road.

Now you have them coming to the table in an apparent effort to get ST renewal money flowing.

It's confusing !

 

Ever since the turn of the year there seems to have been two sides to the board regarding what to do next with GW in the middle.

You have the hedge fund and then yoiu have the Easdale proxies.

Oh to be the fly on the wall for board meetings.

 

Mixed messages perhaps indicates a split at board level.

 

Might explain why Easdale had to attend as some sort of chaperon at yesterday's meeting.

[Tom Davison 0]

The questions and doubts are both valid and legitimate but it seems churlish not to concede that things are a bit brighter than they were yesterday.

[Zappa 0]

Might explain why Easdale had to attend as some sort of chaperon at yesterday's meeting.

 

That could just have been a plain and simple attempt to intimidate the fans who attended. It certainly wouldn't be the first instance of intimidation since the upstanding transport tycoons arrived on the scene.

[buster. 4,808]

Mixed messages perhaps indicates a split at board level.

 

Might explain why Easdale had to attend as some sort of chaperon at yesterday's meeting.

 

You have the old sp.ivs fronted by the Easdales that include the mysterious Blue Pitch and Margarita.

The Easdales came in as replacements for Charles Green, although Sandy may not have been able to get on the PLC board because of his conviction.

 

 

Then you have the hedge fund, Laxey Partners who over a period of time increased their stake, leading up to the pre-AGM when Crighton was appointed to the board. Note that Kingsworth said Crighton wasn't there for Laxey but at the AGM Norman himself said that he was.

The advertised proposed approach from Laxey pre-AGM was probably what got 'floating' institutional investors on board.

 

 

It's normal for a board to have differing interests and opinions for the way forward but I don't think I'd like either of the above, or a combination.

 

 

 

You need UoF to make as much hay as they can of the latest development.

With approximately 12% of a stakeholding, it would be a positive step to have a supporter representative in the boardroom.

Edited May 15, 2014 by buster.