Club statement

[the gunslinger 3,366]

If it was going to happen it would have been done by now

 

hardly. they will hope and prey for a miracle to the last minute.

[Hildy 0]

Fan ownership won't happen not in the immediate future anyway.

Where did all the scaremongering about selling Ibrox & Auchenhowie come from anyway? Is there any concrete evidence this is being considered or is it just made up?

 

You won't find it written anywhere. You won't find hard evidence that it is going to happen, but we know that the club is owned by a regime that is over-generous with remuneration, careless with public statements, and with no obvious blueprint about how it is going to address a difficult future while more and more fans give up on it.

 

We also know that David Murray contemplated the idea until the RST- thank goodness - got wind of it and went public with it, so sale and leaseback is not an uncommon idea.

 

SDM backed off, but I'm not convinced that this regime would back off in the face of fan upset. Should we take a chance and see how things pan out, or should we fear the worst and actually prepare for it?

 

The question, as I see it, isn't a difficult one.

[jhunter 0]

He just writes whatever his mate Imran tells him.

 

forlan is there any truth or ring of truth to events he has said have happened in the past year?

[forlanssister 3,061]

forlan is there any truth or ring of truth to events he has said have happened in the past year?

 

I'm sure you can reach your own conclusion on that.

[buster. 4,812]

I think that what might be missing from the media reports is something along the lines of The UoF presented the conditions set out by Ibrox 1972 Ltd for the payment of pledged ST money to the Club in response to which "A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance,".

 

That said, it is clear that the Board have duly “considered” and rejected the proposal to offer “legally binding undertakings…… in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park.”

 

I think it is perfectly understandable that the Board would view those who have renewed as “loyal”; but I would agree that the inference that those who have not renewed are not loyal is unfortunate to say the least; if for no other reason than it seems that a large majority of them plan to go game to game on a selective basis and whilst that might not be viewed as wholehearted support, it is certainly not disloyal. I have mentioned before several times that the Board just don't get the fans psyche.

 

That said it must surely be absolutely clear now to all who have or had intended pledging their ST money to Ibrox 1972 Ltd (yes, even GS ) that that is a futile gesture.

 

I'm not sure exactly why you are speculating on what might or should have been reported.

 

What I was pointing out was simply that the UoF issued a statement where it said ""A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance,"

 

And that the board in their statement tonight said “Whilst the Board is reported to have offered legally binding undertakings during a fan group discussion in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park, this is not the case."

 

What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board want to appear as though they are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement about 'considering the legally binding undertakings'.

The UoF went away from that meeting waiting for a call because they had been told the legally binding undertakings were under consideration.

Apparently there was no call.

Tonight, the board deny reports of having offered legally binding undertakings........(What reports and from where ?)

They don't deny having considered it.

 

However the wording used is (as so much of board communications) to confuse rather than inform and gives the impression that things were resolved at the meeting and needed no futher communication.

 

------------------------------------------

 

I see a similar hand at work here as that who wrote the answer for GW on the question of 'blaming fans' in the twitter Q&A.

Edited May 17, 2014 by buster.

[Zappa 0]

Once again the board appear to be being economical with the truth and treating us like mugs.

[der Berliner 3,292]

I'm not sure exactly why you are speculating on what might or should have been reported.

 

What I was pointing out was simply that the UoF issued a statement where it said ""A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance,"

 

And that the board in their statement tonight said “Whilst the Board is reported to have offered legally binding undertakings during a fan group discussion in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park, this is not the case."

 

What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement.

The UoF went away from that meeting waiting for a call because they had been told the legally binding undertakings were under consideration.

Apparently there was no call.

Tonight, the board deny reports of having offered legally binding undertakings........(What reports and from where ?)

They don't deny having considered it.

 

However the wording used is (as so much of board communications) to confuse rather than inform and gives the impression that things were resolved at the meeting and needed no futher communication.

 

------------------------------------------

 

I see a similar hand at work here as that who wrote the answer for GW on the question of 'blaming fans' in the twitter Q&A.

 

You see things you want to see. IMHO, the board simply replied to stuff like this:

 

Rangers board u-turn over potential Ibrox sale

 

IT APPEARS the Rangers board have had their hand forced by disgruntled fans over the future of Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park.

 

The ‘Ibrox 1972 Fund’ set up by The Union of Fans, Dave King and Richard Gough to collect season ticket money and used as collateral to ensure the club does not sell or borrow money against Ibrox stadium or Murray Park. The group were demanding a legally-binding document to safeguard the club’s main assets and it appears that their demands are being met.

Initially the Rangers board has refused to accept any such demands, but it seems that the clubs hand has now been forced as they u-turn their stance. The lack of season-ticket renewals ahead of Friday’s deadline was clearly of real concern for the board.

 

The Union of Fans met with chief executive Graham Wallace, non-executive director Norman Crighton and Sandy Easdale to discuss the issue.

 

A statement by the supporters coalition said: “A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance.”

 

Similar measures were also demanded for the Murray Park training complex, as the group added; “We made it clear to Mr Wallace that we felt it was also appropriate that they provide the same undertaking for Murray Park.

 

“Mr Wallace and non-executive director Norman Crighton agreed to discuss this with the rest of the PLC board as a matter of urgency, and further discussions between the PLC board and Union of Fans will continue once this board meeting has taken place.

 

“Any proposal by the board will be evaluated by our lawyers and a decision will then be taken on how to move forward. We will keep fans fully informed as discussions continue.”

 

Scotsman

 

I see not much contradiction, just people checking out semantics for any sort of misunderstandings or double-meanings. This I would consider desperate too.

[buster. 4,812]

You see things you want to see. IMHO, the board simply replied to stuff like this:

 

 

 

Scotsman

 

I see not much contradiction, just people checking out semantics for any sort of misunderstandings or double-meanings. This I would consider desperate too.

 

It's late and I made a mistake in the line about 'contradiction' which I have now edited.

 

It now reads........What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board want to appear as though they are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement about 'cosidering the legally binding undertakings'.

 

 

The Scotsman article you quote contains the UoF statement where it plainly says 'consider'.

Do the board think it more relevant to refer to reports rather than what was actually said at the meeting between the two parties ?

[forlanssister 3,061]

Not sure where that comes from FS?

 

I can confirm that I'm not looking for a sugar daddy for ANY purpose.

 

Now a big sugar mama, perhaps...........

 

Ah such modesty!

 

Am I the first to bestow that particular trait upon you?

 

I was elected to

the Board of RST at the AGM in September 2009 and I was appointed Secretary with

a place on our Management Executive Committee (MEC) in February this year. In

these positions I have been heavily involved in discussions with the representatives of

parties who have indicated an interest in purchasing or supporting the purchase of the

issued share capital of the Club.

[andy steel 0]

Although I'd have been tempted to leave the room when Easdale walked in, engagement is engagement, even with him. So that's a positive.

 

Chances are the stadium and possibly the training park will be safeguarded, which they most certainly were not previously, so that's a positive.

 

The fans will surely be aware after this of the leverage they possess, so that's a positive.

 

It defuses the moronic air of confrontation, so that's a positive.

 

There's nothing here that merits anything other than a positive reception to something which, while by no means peace in our time or a universal panacea, is a grown up step in the right direction. Long may it continue!

 

I was wrong on every count. Ah well.