Jump to content

backofthenet

New Signing
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About backofthenet

  • Rank
    New Signing

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Glasgow

Recent Profile Visitors

1,582 profile views
  1. Backing the manager is admirable and stability is key at football clubs. However the real test will be in a few seasons when we are trying to compete at the top. Will we be there through not spending a small fortune, having a young successful team on the park and having been profitable in the transfer market? I'm not sure. I'm worried that our club is heading completely in the wrong direction and ally is part of that. I would be delighted if I'm proved wrong but there's a lot of work to do.
  2. BP9 - From watching these forums for many years your blind backing of the manager / the board's signing policy & footballing strategy is getting beyond tiresome. We will never (hopefully) be faced with the unique set of circumstances we found ourselves in the last two years. The demotion down the leagues should have been used as a once in a lifetime opportunity to completely overhaul the club from top to bottom safe in the knowledge that we would not be operating under the same pressures of having to win the top division / finish above celtic and compete in europe. The journey back to the
  3. I agree, clarity is what the fans need as this thread shows.
  4. Maybe, although mccock as you call him seems to think there is enough against Green's camp to force through boardroom change. In any case no investor is backing Green they are backing Rangers and backing Rangers to make them money. At the moment that is not happening.
  5. The people who are asking for change have. Maybe not individually as much as CG but as shareholders by their very nature they have put money in. McColl / PM are not the only people demanding change, they are acting on behalf of several of the investors (enough to legally force this change) so to say these people have not put any money in is wide of the mark. As shareholders they are entitled to voice their opinion and effect change.
  6. Read the article. McColl isn't asking for his shares for free. He's asking that his people are removed from the board because it is his belief (and that all several of the original investors) are not running the club properly and if there isn't change we face serious problems. Removal from the board and removal of shares are two entirely different things.
  7. It is unbelievable that so many people cannot see the point here, have we learnt nothing from the White era? This isn't about putting money in, the money is there (at the moment) this is about getting people on the board that will have the clubs best interests at heart and not for personal gain. When so many of the original investors, the manager, the chairman etc all voice their concerns over how the club is being run you have to listen. Why pay off CG a ridiculous sum of money to walk away when a) there is no need and b) once the right people are on the board that money can be used to take t
  8. Because the it is not in the SPL's interest to implement these changes without the promise of safeguarding TV money and creating a closed shop top division so that no one is relegated from it. In any other country, if change was so desperately need as it is here, you would expect the country's FA to step and make sure it happened. Unfortunately the SFA dose not have the leadership, courage and integrity to do so.
  9. The reason I believe it had to be 12-12-18 or nothing is that this set up potentially creates a closed shop at the top league. 9 times out of ten when the bottom 4 of the premier go into the middle 8 they will finish in the top placings and will not get relegated. This is the holy grail for SPL chairmen as they can relax in the fact that the chance of being relegated is greatly reduced. The other measures are simply a smokescreen to get SFL clubs on side and peddle the myth that what they are doing is for the benefit of the entire game. In reality they couldn't care less about fairer distribu
  10. I know but stadium size within some groups would limit their potential income from the tournament based purely on their geographical location. This is something we have been complaining about for years in a European sense. Unfortunately, as has been said, proposals like this will never even be considered until self interest is removed from the top of our game.
  11. People would complain that the likes of Partick and QP would get a guaranteed extra four old firm games and nobody else would. Perhaps the gate receipts could be collected as a whole across the entire league cup (after covering stadium expenses etc to the the hosts) then distributed to the individual teams based on the number of victories / draws said teams achieved during the group stage. This would ensure the much coveted financial distribution and would encourage more attacking football as teams would be going for victories.
×
×
  • Create New...