Good Read ! Daviesleftpeg

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

9 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

Sorry, but where's the claptrap and clickbait in BA's post?

Another, who cannot accept the facts.

Re our leader, I can only but speculate it's the last throw of the dice for him. He is no spring chicken, being in the last furlong of life. He needs to recover the lost fortune, by his own hand in his malfeasance via SARS, for retirement and the legacy to pass on to the children and boost that family trust and he will stop at nothing to recover at least some of it. We just happen to be the most convenient vehicle by which to try and achieve it as he is severely limited in his business movements in RSA by the authorities. If it wasn't us, it would be someone else getting the treatment. I just hope we can emerge from it relatively unscathed.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

3 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

None of it is untrue.  The extrapolation of what it means is speculation.

Nope, and neither do you.

It's pandering to an anti-board agenda using speculation based on circumstances that generally people don't know a lot about.  So people more inclined to look for instant gratification don't see what they want buy into the negative.

There is no pandering, no speculating, just stating the reality and if that's unpalitable to the king acolytes, then not my problem. People will make up their own mind, but truth is the key part to informed decision making and not the deceptions of so called Ranger's men.

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

7 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

Another, who cannot accept the facts.

Re our leader, I can only but speculate it's the last throw of the dice for him. He is no spring chicken, being in the last furlong of life. He needs to recover the lost fortune, by his own hand in his malfeasance via SARS, for retirement and the legacy to pass on to the children and boost that family trust and he will stop at nothing to recover at least some of it. We just happen to be the most convenient vehicle by which to try and achieve it as he is severely limited in his business movements in RSA by the authorities. If it wasn't us, it would be someone else getting the treatment. I just hope we can emerge from it relatively unscathed.

Well, that's my point exactly, in your own words.

Telling us its "fact" then admitting you're speculating!

Like I said, I'll make my own mind up.  You may end up being right, I hope not, but I just happen to think your view is wide of the mark.

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

5 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

There is no pandering, no speculating, just stating the reality and if that's unpalitable to the king acolytes, then not my problem. People will make up their own mind, but truth is the key part to informed decision making and not the deceptions of so called Ranger's men.

[Leeds_Bear 8,110]

Our club will never ever be able to have one sole fans group, because our fans can never agree on anything. This project was doomed from the very beginning. You're a spiv if you back Club1872 and you're not staunch if you refuse to back them - it's a nonsense. 

I wish we could all see the bigger picture and work towards something productive. Instead we seem obsessed with infighting. 

It's a shame what has happened to Club1872 because the original principle behind it was the right one, but it will never be allowed to succeed because of people on both sides of the fence. 

When we learn how to work together instead of against each other, things might start getting better. 

[Virtuoso 27,180]

1 minute ago, Leeds_Bear said:

Our club will never ever be able to have one sole fans group, because our fans can never agree on anything. This project was doomed from the very beginning. You're a spiv if you back Club1872 and you're not staunch if you refuse to back them - it's a nonsense. 

I wish we could all see the bigger picture and work towards something productive. Instead we seem obsessed with infighting. 

It's a shame what has happened to Club1872 because the original principle behind it was the right one, but it will never be allowed to succeed because of people on both sides of the fence. 

When we learn how to work together instead of against each other, things might start getting better. 

We had something productive which was working, it was called Rangers First.

The issue was, that having achieved what they did (in around 15 months or so) was more than the RST managed in 12 years. This subsequently didn't bode well with Herr Dingwall and Co who realised that their gravy train was about to come to a screeching halt...so moves were made to table a proposal to amalgamate the two (despite previous assurances that this would and could never happen).

The issue is further compounded by those who were previously associated with the RST, then becoming part of the C1872 Working Group...and that's before you factor in who is standing for a place on the new board (aided by Herr Dingwall and Co).

So yes, we did learn how to work together, but certain people sold out...

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

42 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

None of it is untrue.  The extrapolation of what it means is speculation.

Nope, and neither do you.

It's pandering to an anti-board agenda using speculation based on circumstances that generally people don't know a lot about.  So people more inclined to look for instant gratification don't see what they want buy into the negative.

So you have no idea, if things are going well or not.

But on the evidence BA put before you, which is all true you think it's all rosy. 

Aye that's some watching your doing.  

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

So you have no idea, if things are going well or not. But on the evidence BA put before you, which is all true you think it's all rosy. 

Aye that's some watching your doing.  

He's speculating on what the boardroom issues actually mean for us going forward.  He's admitted it.  

[Louden_Greg 827]

1 minute ago, Virtuoso said:

We had something productive which was working, it was called Rangers First.

The issue was, that having achieved what they did (in around 15 months or so) was more than the RST managed in 12 years. This subsequently didn't bode well with Herr Dingwall and Co who realised that their gravy train was about to come to a screeching halt...so moves were made to table a proposal to amalgamate the two (despite previous assurances that this would and could never happen).

The issue is further compounded by those who were previously associated with the RST, then becoming part of the C1872 Working Group...and that's before you factor in who is standing for a place on the new board (aided by Herr Dingwall and Co).

So yes, we did learn how to work together, but certain people sold out...

Must have missed you at the RF meetings?

In all seriousness this ridiculous charicateur that is created on here is belies a lack of understanding of what RF is and how it has been the model for club 1872. 

The RF model continues and if people believe in it like I do I'm sure 1872 will be a massive success. 

Everyone that wants to make this personal is missing the point. It's about collective responsibility and us coming together to have a voice. 

This board that are elected to 1872 are accountable to its members. We have the power to decide what the org becomes. 

I hope we make sure it becomes a success

[CF2 WINNIE 1,006]

Good article,  Was delighted to be a member of Rangers first to start with looked to be going well but this merge is a joke and I'm no longer a member as has been mentioned previously in thread it's a joke that a member of the club board has been allowed to stand for an "independent" organisation. Stinks from top to bottom.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

14 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

He's speculating on what the boardroom issues actually mean for us going forward.  He's admitted it.  

So it's all true then.  

You just differ on where we will end up.  

But it's ok, I know I can sleep easy because your watching them closely.  

[Virtuoso 27,180]

Just now, Louden_Greg said:

Must have missed you at the RF meetings?

In all seriousness this ridiculous charicateur that is created on here is belies a lack of understanding of what RF is and how it has been the model for club 1872. 

The RF model continues and if people believe in it like I do I'm sure 1872 will be a massive success. 

Everyone that wants to make this personal is missing the point. It's about collective responsibility and us coming together to have a voice. 

This board that are elected to 1872 are accountable to its members. We have the power to decide what the org becomes. 

I hope we make sure it becomes a success

You've completely missed the points I made in relation to the post I quoted.

Maybe the RF 'model' maybe does continue, but you didn't need to merge with the trust to 'have a voice' - you had already achieved that. The merger brings absolutely nothing to the table and if you'd knocked them back when it was first mooted, then these conversations wouldn't be taking place and RF would have continued to grow, without the toxicity that has become attached to it.

It seems that you suffered from a selective memory when only months if not weeks before you did sit down with Chris Graham, that Dingwall had banned all mention of RF from his site...then suddenly he couldn't promote C1872 enough.

Fuck me, that in itself speaks volumes.

As an aside, had this been the other way round and we had a successful RST and an up and coming RF - do you think they would have been asking you to merge? The RST was a busted flush and they knew, hence the reasons for their subsequent actions.

[Louden_Greg 827]

4 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

You've completely missed the points I made in relation to the post I quoted.

Maybe the RF 'model' maybe does continue, but you didn't need to merge with the trust to 'have a voice' - you had already achieved that. The merger brings absolutely nothing to the table and if you'd knocked them back when it was first mooted, then these conversations wouldn't be taking place and RF would have continued to grow, without the toxicity that has become attached to it.

It seems that you suffered from a selective memory when only months if not weeks before you did sit down with Chris Graham, that Dingwall had banned all mention of RF from his site...then suddenly he couldn't promote C1872 enough.

Fuck me, that in itself speaks volumes.

As an aside, had this been the other way round and we had a successful RST and an up and coming RF - do you think they would have been asking you to merge? The RST was a busted flush and they knew, hence the reasons for their subsequent actions.

V -

This is bigger than me, you, Chris Graham, Mark Dingwall or anyone else.

Its the wider support's responsibility to make sure this works and this kind of chipping away online isn't helping Rangers. 

This tit for tat stuff is primary school stuff that just distracts - people are allowed their own opinion but frankly there should be a level of respect for one another.

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

11 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

So it's all true then.  

You just differ on where we will end up.  

But it's ok, I now I can sleep easy because your watching them closely.  

I often find it very strange that people blame this current board for issues with, for instance, unfavourable commercial "partnerships" that were put in place by others and want to hold them to account when they try to deal with them.  Sins of the father springs to mind.  Very curious, you'd almost think they never wanted certain people in there in the first place and want to smear/damage.

Because none of us really know the intimate detail and none of us are real experts, we're all speculating where we'll end up and we're all watching from different perspectives.  Some through mistrust, dislike and suspicion and others through benefit of the doubt, trust and hope and we're all using the "evidence" to form our opinion on the basis of our start-point.  

Either way, the one thing we have in common is we all want the best for Rangers.  I'll leave it at that. 

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

3 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

I often find it very strange that people blame this current board for issues with, for instance, unfavourable commercial "partnerships" that were put in place by others and want to hold them to account when they try to deal with them.  Sins of the father springs to mind.  Very curious, you'd almost think they never wanted certain people in there in the first place and want to smear/damage.

Because none of us really know the intimate detail and none of us are real experts, we're all speculating where we'll end up and we're all watching from different perspectives.  Some through mistrust, dislike and suspicion and others through benefit of the doubt, trust and hope and we're all using the "evidence" to form our opinion on the basis of our start-point.  

Either way, the one thing we have in common is we all want the best for Rangers.  I'll leave it at that. 

 

 aye let's leave it my sides are hurting too much. 

[coopsleftboot 5,512]

1 minute ago, Courtyard Bear said:

 aye let's leave it my sides are hurting too much. 

Aye fair enough.  If you want to be a dick about it wire in.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

21 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

Aye fair enough.  If you want to be a dick about it wire in.

Aaww wee petal don't get your knickers in a twist.  

[plumbGER 24,518]

Chased Ashley away?

Hasn't he still got us by the balls with the retail deal?

He has got out of us exactly what he wanted, any fantasy he was going to pump his billions into us is exactly that, fantasy.

Some good points all the same but that shite just ruined it.

[K.A.I 36,183]

I'm not proud of it but in the pub at the Aberdeen game my opinions on this club1872 managed to get 2 members to stop their direct debits to it (or they said they would) the thought of decent guys giving up their hard earned to this blind and with good intentions doesn't sit right with me 

[Pure_Quality 3,295]

3 hours ago, Blue Avenger said:

It is also bizarre to have someone with multiple convictions in business malfeasance to be the head of a major institution, who has single handedly taken us away from any listing that affords at least some transparency. Can't for the life of me think why!

I also do not see the unshackling of any chains. We are now in hock to those who are in control. The securing of the last loan from HK was embarassing and nothing less than begging. Our brand remains toxic. We are now levelling threats to Puma. We remain with no credit line at any bank, who wouldn't touch us with a shitty stick. If it wasn't for the benevolence of fans in record ST sales, we would be facing ruin and if the on the park performances don't improve, that won't last long.

A chancer, ducking and diving his way to recover his lost wealth.

Leopards don't change their spots right enough.

Speaks for itself.. .

https://twitter.com/search?q=no credit line from a bank&s=09

 

[Louden_Greg 827]

5 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I'm not proud of it but in the pub at the Aberdeen game my opinions on this club1872 managed to get 2 members to stop their direct debits to it (or they said they would) the thought of decent guys giving up their hard earned to this blind and with good intentions doesn't sit right with me 

To this thing that legally has to benefit the Rangers community? 

can I ask what you said?

[Louden_Greg 827]

1 minute ago, Pure_Quality said:

Speaks for itself.. .

https://twitter.com/search?q=no credit line from a bank&s=09

 

You saying BA is ninja man?  

[K.A.I 36,183]

9 minutes ago, Louden_Greg said:

To this thing that legally has to benefit the Rangers community? 

can I ask what you said?

Legally benefit the Rangers community sounds subjective and sounds like that's down to a few people who can't be trusted deciding what benefits the "Rangers community" as I can tell you right now they won't do anything that will benefit me 

they had their chance with the cup final letters and the original Rangers statement to get me clarity and they didn't - in fact I'm still waiting on a personal reply to the detailed and personal email I sent them 

that,  coupled with the merger, the fact it's not independent of the club in any way and the characters involved was enough for these 2 guys.

im not proud and I'm not bragging it's actually a shame these 2 decent guys handed over so much hard earned for so long 

[Pure_Quality 3,295]

17 minutes ago, Louden_Greg said:

You saying BA is ninja man?  

Log out and see the others (most of whom you've probably blocked) that regularly use that terminology. It's quite revealing....

[Louden_Greg 827]

17 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

1.Legally benefit the Rangers community sounds subjective and sounds like that's down to a few people who can't be trusted deciding what benefits the "Rangers community" as I can tell you right now they won't do anything that will benefit me 

2.they had their chance with the cup final letters and the original Rangers statement to get me clarity and they didn't - in fact I'm still waiting on a personal reply to the detailed and personal email I sent them 

3.that,  coupled with the merger, the fact it's not independent of the club in any way and the characters involved was enough for these 2 guys.

4. im not proud and I'm not bragging it's actually a shame these 2 decent guys handed over so much hard earned for so long 

1. It is subjective regarding what's most beneficial but the fans having a shareholding (which is the ringfenced aim for around £1m of funds) is a legitimate benefit that few can deny imo (cue corky).  I know you have a personal trust issue with the likes of Dingwall but no one in charge of money in 1872 has any dubiety or question marks around them. 

2. I don't know the details of this but how can an org that hasn't even got its board in place have already had its chance? Surely you need to let the new board in before you judge? though given the personal nature I can understand your anger at a lack of reply and that is something that clearly isn't good enough 

3. This "not independent" thing is a bit of a broad accusation imo. The decision making process is independent and the members are the ones who ratify key decisions. Was that discussed?

4. If someone has all the facts and decides to cancel then fair enough. I fear that people's preconceptions that I don't believe are correct will hinder something that I truly believe can benefit the club. It won't be smooth sailing but the goal is worth the effort. 

Thanks for taking the time to respond