UoF call Rangers to account

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I'm not doubting or debating that.....it is more the "I'm not giving you my cash", followed by "Why don't you have the cash to pay xxxxxxx" stance of the the original article/statement.

 

I personally don't agree with the withholding of funds, but if folk think that is the best way to help the club move forward, that is entirely their decision.

 

It's more why won't you take my cash when you don't have the cash to pay.......

[the gunslinger 3,366]

From the (I assume binding) regulatory statement:

 

 

...

 

 

 

Nope, you apparently like to drum up the "70m lost" tune again, but that is of no relevance for the current board looking to keep the club afloat right now. The CB has to work with what money is available to them, full stop. They rely - like any other club working such a system - to a large extend on ST money and if this is being cut short by whatever means, they will have to look for alternatives. Be that loans, sponsorship deals or whatnot. If supporters groups actively call for boycots or people not buying STs, they actively work against the club's sustainability right now, no matter what sort of cost cuttings or plans the CB has in mind.

 

You'd obviously hope that the CB has the means and powers to tell us where all the money went in detail, but that will not help them doing their daily job in any way - though I can already hear the derisive remarks about them being poor sods et al.

 

Hibs' relegation has probably made the Championship an even "better" prospect for next season ... and investors.

 

BTW, have the drummers down on RSA land lost their sticks or have the lines been cut? Not a whisper for weeks from our saviour ... again.

 

Yes a variety of sources of cash.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I haven't mentioned the 70 million that's disappeared.

[compo 6,139]

maye mister letham could have shares to the full value of his loan

[the gunslinger 3,366]

maye mister letham could have shares to the full value of his loan

 

Purely a guess but I suspect that may suit him assuming the price is right. But he would most certainly deserve a place on the board with such a shareholding.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Really only the club to blame for them not having the cash.

 

The above implies this ...

 

I haven't mentioned the 70 million that's disappeared.

 

... though. Of course, it might not. But blaming the club / board for being a big club in a small country's third tier and having to keep working at a reasonable level of football standard for a club of our stature is a touch strange. No matter whether it had 70m or not. Of course, we could have won the fourth and third tier with our youngsters and all that - IMHO - ludicrous rubbish, and we sure would have seen emphatic didsplays and wins and all, 24/7. And had saved hundreds of k in wages all along.

 

That makes the boycot attempts right now no less significant to the cash flow, if it is.

 

Yes a variety of sources of cash.

 

... by September 2014.

[buster. 4,808]

Nope, you apparently like to drum up the "70m lost" tune again, but that is of no relevance for the current board looking to keep the club afloat right now. The CB has to work with what money is available to them, full stop. They rely - like any other club working such a system - to a large extend on ST money and if this is being cut short by whatever means, they will have to look for alternatives. Be that loans, sponsorship deals or whatnot. If supporters groups actively call for boycots or people not buying STs, they actively work against the club's sustainability right now, no matter what sort of cost cuttings or plans the CB has in mind.

 

.

 

You seem to be confused or perhaps it's me.

 

You said you don't trust the board but yet seem to sarcastically deride the "lost 70M tune" and advocate giving them more money to control.

 

To help clarify, on what grounds do you not trust the board ?

 

 

Perhaps you are to vote "yes" and campaign for 'Better Together"

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The above implies this ...

 

 

 

... though. Of course, it might not. But blaming the club / board for being a big club in a small country's third tier and having to keep working at a reasonable level of football standard for a club of our stature is a touch strange. No matter whether it had 70m or not. Of course, we could have won the fourth and third tier with our youngsters and all that - IMHO - ludicrous rubbish, and we sure would have seen emphatic didsplays and wins and all, 24/7. And had saved hundreds of k in wages all along.

 

That makes the boycot attempts right now no less significant to the cash flow, if it is.

 

 

 

... by September 2014.

 

It wasn't at all what I meant.

 

Yes by sept at the latest. But as soon as the cash is in the bank. As such we know that at no point has out bank account hit 1.5 million cash (from a variety of sources).

 

I'm not sure why your arguing against an entirely accurate article.

[Rangersitis 0]

I'm not sure why your arguing against an entirely accurate article.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[SteveC 150]

I haven't mentioned the 70 million that's disappeared.

 

But if you had it would have been relevant, crucially relevant in fact. The people who were in charge - you know those ones who are never to be known - appoint boards to do their bidding. So far those boards have pilfered the coffers . The current board have given every sign that they are either similarly pilfering on orders of their pilfering masters = surely fundamentally relevant in the debate over whether they are to be trusted with cash without any guarantee of it not being pilfered and the club left penniless despite yet more tens of millions poured in by fans?