forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Bit in bold = I think that was an internet started rumour, though, and it was based on nothing more than wishful thinking, I fear. I'm sure we'll find out if that is indeed the case or if there is some substance to it, fwiw I think it has as we've reached the stage where is an absolute necessity and contrary to popular believe the Board are far from stupid, there is no way on earth we can go forward without additional capital. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,420 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Nottingham must have asked Rangers for permission to speak to Warburton so the board must have known he was in talks with them. Yes, but did they speak to Warburton, or merely drift a juicy financial arrangement past his man? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,420 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I'm sure we'll find out if that is indeed the case or if there is some substance to it, fwiw I think it has as we've reached the stage where is an absolute necessity and contrary to popular believe the Board are far from stupid, there is no way on earth we can go forward without additional capital. Agreed. But to go forward, the far from stupid Board members have to stop the apparent, ridiculous infighting, off the record briefings, and careless talk, or take a walk off Govan dock. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Precisely what was "shambolic" about Warburton's resignation? It was unexpected, for sure; unusually, perhaps, it was conditional on a compensation waiver, which, I imagine, meant that it required the imprimatur of the Board, which was given, as I understand it, reasonably timeously; Warburton, or his man, tried to withdraw it; this was declined, again in a reasonable timescale. Warburton pitching up at Murray Park was outwith the control of the Board, and was, clearly, a tactic on his part, probably under advisement, designed to provide some kind of "evidence" of good faith, etc., for any future claim against the Club. Shambles? At best, arguable, and not of the Club's making. I need hardly say that after tendering a resignation, esp. in the particular circumstances, Warburton could not have been welcomed back into the fold without let or hindrance. I tend to agree in the most, it's clear the Board were dealing with the decision but there was little they could do when the management team decided to indulge in their own version of the Hokey Cokey and left the Board as hostages to fortune. Where the shambles part comes in imo is in the delivery of the message i.e the PR or rather what masquerades as PR at Rangers. That is a long term problem but one that has been stressed to the Board ad infinitum from virtually every possible angle .You pay peanuts you get monkeys but I'm all for phoning PG Tips to see if they've any of the chimps left as I doubt they could be any worse than the current set up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Agreed. But to go forward, the far from stupid Board members have to stop the apparent, ridiculous infighting, off the record briefings, and careless talk, or take a walk off Govan dock. Indeed that would be the preference but as much as I'd like to see that happen I don't see it arriving till there are changes to the current set up within the Boardroom and real independent non-executives are introduced. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I'm sure we'll find out if that is indeed the case or if there is some substance to it, fwiw I think it has as we've reached the stage where is an absolute necessity and contrary to popular believe the Board are far from stupid, there is no way on earth we can go forward without additional capital. I hope that you are right, pal. Was this the "good news" to which you once alluded, perchance? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Are King and Park not supposed to be the big hitters? I assume they are big hitters or were when you were on the RST Board because if they weren't it would have been rather pointless trying to get them to invest financially in backing the RST's attempt to gain control of the Club wouldn't it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,420 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 I tend to agree in the most, it's clear the Board were dealing with the decision but there was little they could do when the management team decided to indulge in their own version of the Hokey Cokey and left the Board as hostages to fortune. Where the shambles part comes in imo is in the delivery of the message i.e the PR or rather what masquerades as PR at Rangers. That is a long term problem but one that has been stressed to the Board ad infinitum from virtually every possible angle .You pay peanuts you get monkeys but I'm all for phoning PG Tips to see if they've any of the chimps left as I doubt they could be any worse than the current set up. There's no "manager", the team is keech, the Board members, it seems, are united only in their disunity, there's nae money, and we are talking about PR? It sounds ridiculous, but you are spot on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) I assume they are big hitters or were when you were on the RST Board because if they weren't it would have been rather pointless trying to get them to invest financially in backing the RST's attempt to gain control of the Club wouldn't it? I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your ill-informed sarcasm. I certainly didn't attempt to get Messrs King or Park to invest in anything. IIRC one member of the RST Board or an Intermediary may have spoken to Mr King on one occasion and I was excluded from two meetings with Mr Park; but my recollection of the report was that the RST representatives gained little encouragement from the meetings. Again my recollection is that these initiatives were aimed more at assessing their own intentions than supporting any bid by the RST. I was directly involved in approaches to other parties and I was approached by the lawyers acting for Jim McColl who agreed to underwrite our £30 million offer to buy the Club from SDM subject to a satisfactory plan. I made a substantial contribution to developing that plan with colleagues and it was approved by McColl's lawyers but somewhere in transmission between him and his bankers it was leaked to the press and he pulled out. I trust this historical information assists your understanding but as with your earlier comments I fail to see the relevance to our current travails. Edited February 26, 2017 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your ill-informed sarcasm. I certainly didn't attempt to get Messrs King or Park to invest in anything. IIRC one member of the RST Board or an Intermediary may have spoken to Mr King on one occasion and I was excluded from two meetings with Mr Park; but my recollection of the report was that the RST representatives gained little encouragement from the meetings. Again my recollection is that these initiatives were aimed more at assessing their own intentions than supporting any bid by the RST. I was directly involved in approaches to other parties and I was approached by the lawyers acting for Jim McColl who agreed to underwrite our £30 million offer to buy the Club from SDM subject to a satisfactory plan. I made a substantial contribution to developing that plan with colleagues and it was approved by McColl's lawyers but somewhere in transmission between him and his bankers it was leaked to the press and he pulled out. I trust this historical information assists your understanding but as with your earlier comments I fail to see the relevance to our current travails. Collective responsibility eh? Obviously only when it suits. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.