UOF statement tonight

[der Berliner 3,287]

All fair and well. "Disingenuous" is sure not a word that will make any future dealings with the board any easier. Wonder why no-one had the ingenious idea to tape it all, if only for avoidance of doubt.

 

By the looks of it ... Wallace offered that they look into that agreement (so "the board" did not exactly "offer it" - if word-pinching is required). Hence, the UoF's assumption that Wallace ain't calling "all" the shots might be true ... or they did not want to disuss it right in front of the fans. Much of the rest of the statement is filled with interesting information not seen before, but also littered with assumption and conjecture. Those may very well come to pass, the "flexibility over Murray Park" obviously is a concern, though making sense for the club in so far as they probably need it as a security for any future loan et al to get them over next season. Accusations from either side don't get us anywhere though, just build up more frustration. All parties concerned should do better.

[andy steel 0]

All fair and well. "Disingenuous" is sure not a word that will make any future dealings with the board any easier. Wonder why no-one had the ingenious idea to tape it all, if only for avoidance of doubt.

 

By the looks of it ... Wallace offered that they look into that agreement (so "the board" did not exactly "offer it" - if word-pinching is required). Hence, the UoF's assumption that Wallace ain't calling "all" the shots might be true ... or they did not want to disuss it right in front of the fans. Much of the rest of the statement is filled with interesting information not seen before, but also littered with assumption and conjecture. Those may very well come to pass, the "flexibility over Murray Park" obviously is a concern, though making sense for the club in so far as they probably need it as a security for any future loan et al to get them over next season. Accusations from either side don't get us anywhere though, just build up more frustration. All parties concerned should do better.

 

OK. So if someone said to you that they would get back to you in a couple of days with an answer to some business dealing, then ignored you, what would you think of them? 'They're being flexible'? 'They're making sense'? or 'They are (at the very best) treating me with a bit of contempt here?' And would you accept any more work from them? Or put them on a list of 'people I'd rather not do business with?'

[buster. 4,808]

All fair and well. "Disingenuous" is sure not a word that will make any future dealings with the board any easier. Wonder why no-one had the ingenious idea to tape it all, if only for avoidance of doubt.

 

.

 

You say the use of the word "Disingenuous" will not make future dealings with the board any easier and then suggest taping the meeting would have been a good idea

 

.............or were you only casting doubt on the veracity of this statement ?

Edited May 19, 2014 by buster.

[Bluedell 5,356]

On the issue about Easdale not being on the PLC board, the stadium and Auchenhowie aren't owned by the PLC. they are owned by the club and as such it would be the club's directors that make any decision on it, so it is actually correct that Sandy Easdale is involved.

[der Berliner 3,287]

OK.

 

No, it is not, as again people (or in this case you) like to imply things not there.

 

So if someone said to you that they would get back to you in a couple of days with an answer to some business dealing, then ignored you, what would you think of them?

 

Maybe they need longer than a couple of days? Maybe they are not in unison about this? ... Did the UoF called them and asked for the answer to feel "ignored"? Just asking.

 

'They're being flexible'?

 

Pragmatically speaking, it is the UoF looking for answers and if the board can't give them any earlier, so be it. If they have indeed decided to take longer and did not contact the UoF directly, their "fan contact" attempts are at best poor. By default assuming that the board ignores the fans or meets them with contempt is stretching it - again. One - at times - gets the impression that each and everyone is personally insulted if they don't get word from Wallace et al on each question and topic requested and pronto.

 

'They're making sense'?

 

When it comes to MP, yes. For them, not you and me.

 

'They are (at the very best) treating me with a bit of contempt here?'

 

See above. We've come to a state where people are very liberal with certain terminology.

 

And would you accept any more work from them? Or put them on a list of 'people I'd rather not do business with?'

 

If I was with the UoF / anti-board faction I would most likely not. Yet, quite a few of them are beyond debate anyway - and no problem here.

 

The point is that even this board starts to ooze a certain anti-board stance and if one tries to look at each one's perspective, you start ending up being attacked, provoked and ridiculed. Or being - wrongly - put in the pro-board faction. I'm not here to defend what the board does, I just offer my view on why they might do certain things. Same with the UoF, King et al. I'm far from saying the board is the ne plus ultra, and the same goes for King or the UoF. Either side has to convince me that they are the way ahead for Rangers ... and matter of fact, I doubt that either actually are.

[buster. 4,808]

On the issue about Easdale not being on the PLC board, the stadium and Auchenhowie aren't owned by the PLC. they are owned by the club and as such it would be the club's directors that make any decision on it, so it is actually correct that Sandy Easdale is involved.

 

I would agree with that.

 

However there are occasions when he seems to overstep the mark.

eg. Not a member of the PLC board but giving a media interview in which he clearly alludes to the contents of a regulatory and commercially confidential report not yet published (business review)

 

The crux of the matter here is that he is the front for a large block of proxy votes who seem to have been at the heart of the soap opera from the summer of 2012.

[Stimpy 0]

I would agree with that.

 

However there are occasions when he seems to overstep the mark.

eg. Not a member of the PLC board but giving a media interview in which he clearly alludes to the contents of a regulatory and commercially confidential report not yet published (business review)

 

The crux of the matter here is that he is the front for a large block of proxy votes who seem to have been at the heart of the soap opera from the summer of 2012.

 

It's obvious Sandy Easdale is the main player at Ibrox who follows his masters bidding regardless of what board he does or doesn't sit on. Wallace is there for credibility reasons, and that is failing.

[buster. 4,808]

It's obvious Sandy Easdale is the main player at Ibrox who follows his masters bidding regardless of what board he does or doesn't sit on. Wallace is there for credibility reasons, and that is failing.

 

Yes,............SE basically tookover the role from Green.

[andy steel 0]

No, it is not, as again people (or in this case you) like to imply things not there.

 

'OK' does not here mean 'You think this is OK'. It is a conversation opening discourse marker like, 'look', or 'so', or 'well' and represents an attempt to get a handle on why anyone could think saying 'we'll get back to you in a couple of days' and then not only NOT getting back in a couple of days but issuing a faffy statement which succeeds in only muddying the waters could be acceptable.

 

Maybe they need longer than a couple of days? Maybe they are not in unison about this? ... Did the UoF called them and asked for the answer to feel "ignored"? Just asking.

 

I'd guess, unlikely, since they felt united enough to issue the statement which hasn't been contradicted.

 

Pragmatically speaking, it is the UoF looking for answers and if the board can't give them any earlier, so be it. If they have indeed decided to take longer and did not contact the UoF directly, their "fan contact" attempts are at best poor. By default assuming that the board ignores the fans or meets them with contempt is stretching it - again. One - at times - gets the impression that each and everyone is personally insulted if they don't get word from Wallace et al on each question and topic requested and pronto.

 

I get disappointed certainly when things which are suggested are going to happen, which raise my spirits a little, are then consigned to the infantile playground of what who said and what they meant and what they really meant and why they would never have said that if he had said this and so on.

 

When it comes to MP, yes. For them, not you and me.

 

Accepting that selling off Rangers assets to a third party in order that said third party may enjoy profits from it which simultaneously reduce Rangers ability to spend money in the future 'makes sense' is a level of tolerance which is way beyond me.

 

See above. We've come to a state where people are very liberal with certain terminology.

 

I'll disagree with you strongly here, I'm very careful with my terminology and you are plain wrong to think that I bandy words around without being precisely aware of what I'm saying.

[der Berliner 3,287]

Andy, I was replying in general, not solely to you. Will mark that out in the future.