damien1
-
Posts
928 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by damien1
-
-
Whether they aren't likely to do it or not is irrelevant really. Shouldn't we expect the same standards from any group?
Have you asked for trannsparency from any other groups? And if so what replies did you receive?
-
I'm being pedantic, absolutely. If someone is donating cash it's only right they know what they are donating too. Especially if people are being asked to donate towards running costs that is actually used, for example, to buy shares in the club.
As has already been said, they only have to ask.
-
I have one or two more which I'd be more than happy if you could answer.
If money donated to "running costs" isn't actually donated to running costs, should the bit above the donate button be worded better?
Do funds from any tops/flags etc go to charities before or after production costs, shipping etc are deducted?
Cheers.
You are now being childish as regards the actual wording of the Donate button even after I've given you an explanation. Running costs in terms of running VB go towards causes we actively help. Nothing difficult to understand about that.
Funds obviously goto causes after costs are met. This is of course unless a specific donater wants his donation to go toward a specific cause e.g. Erskine.
-
Fair enough. Now what was so hard about that?
Nothing hard at all. Hope that answers your questions.
-
So why does your website say donations are for "running costs"? If you're only answerable to VB members why have the donate button in a place where non-VB members can access? Not really that transparent is it?
If non-members wish to donate then they can use the Notes section to ask how their money will be used and that information will be forwarded to them.
-
Ok, Dude fyi all monies received by VB are used towards VB causes be it those mentioned above and other projects that VB members know of. At any point any VB member can ask what the monies raised were, what monies were used for and evidence of such. Transparency is available to all VB members. As also has been pointed out no member of VB is ever asked for monies. Your bicker about 'running costs' is childish at best. As has been explained VB admin cover the cost of the site, any donations under the 'running costs' tag will go towards VB projects. Is that clear?
Noone admin or otherwise profits from any donation. On the odd occassion when VB does sell flags or badges to its members these are sold at cost price, again no profit.
Once again I'll say, in the name of transparency any VB member can question anything about monies raised and will receive said information. VB is answerable to noone but it's own members.
-
I'm firmly in the McColl/Murray camp and have never referred to the club as Sevco. Where has this come from? I only use RM and haven't seen it here.
It came from The Blue Knights facebook page the other day.
“Sorry for going on and on Bears, but this McMurdo has seriously lost the Plot. What follows are extracts from his latest Propaganda Piece passed for publication by the Sevco Propaganda Ministry.The first wild claims starts off with the wildest accusation ever when speaking about a proposed Board Members, Scott Murdoch.
Here’s what he had to say about a man only just entering the Frey. Alan at the end of the day. Sevco are seeking fresh investment. So it comes down to, do you want more Investors who have ties to Easdale, Mather, Green, Ahmad and the Sevco King Whyte or do you want True Scottish rangers fans with a love for our Club and promises of Re-investment running our Club prudently, getting the best man for the job after head hunting him, or have sevco ring up 1 of their friends to plug any boardroom gaps.”
-
I never mentioned THIS,i was reflecting on events of late,tell you what,if I was head of this board I would want the disharmony they have created,sorted asap...
I would to, it's folly for the board to leave questions unanswered.
-
How many times do I have to repeat myself,a board of no wrongdoing would be onto this on a heartbeat to suppress an already agitated support.Their silence is deafening.....
Why silence someting like this? This is a non-story being spun against the current board when the loan was took out over a year ago when we had no other credit facilities.
It's easy to spin manure into silk if your buyer wants to wear a shite shirt.
-
I don't doubt this loan is real. Bear in mind though, we had very little lines of credit and this was at a time when other forums/groups were calling to starve the club of cash and refuse to buy ST books, so it's easy to see why the club would have took this loan with uncertainty in mind.
Do I agree with it, hell no, but if that money went towards keeping the club afloat at the time until ST monies came in then what else could the club possibly do?
-
Certain bloggers are renting their arses to McColl and Co to disrupt the current board.
The board is within their rights to protect their status.
Ban those bloggers who wish to do Rangers harm.
Simples?
Because lets face it, McColl and co have shown nothing to let them give us their backing other tan assumptions and rumours.
-
The time for amateur boardroom experts and accountants is now over, lets all get behind the club and the team.
Giving creedence to boardroom warfare does nothing but play into the hands of our enemies.
-
Anyways I'm away to bed, have fun
-
But that's justified because McCoist is on.....
Any rational person with the best interests in Rangers have an issue with both, the rest are pushing their agenda.
I stated that the bonuses were ridiculous. As is Ally's wage. I have issue with both.
-
nothing surer than the spending will be justified that IMO does not make it correct.
If money was spent that needed to be spent, justifiably, then how can than not be correct?
We all wanted Albion and Edmiston House back? Is that justifiable yet incorrect?
Our first year as a new company was always going to be expensive, anyone denying this is deluded. There are however many expense that can, could and should have been avoided.
-
Take away the EGM request etc for a minute and forget who is behind it.
Do you think the current lot are doing a good job?
Where you happy with Stockbridge's performance the other week where he suffered amnesia, yet he then remembered 2 days later and done an interview with the sun only to tell them "off record"?
Do you agree there bonuses are astronomical and should be taken from them, after all they awarded themselves these bonuses?
Do you think those demanding answers about where money has ended up are doing this to hurt the club?
The job of running Rangers seems to be doing ok. Top of the league, £10m in bank, income streams on top of that, matchdays run as per usual.
Nope, I wasn't happy with Stockbridge, doesn't mean he isn't doing what he's paid for, Personally I think he shouldn't be speaking to the press about club finances. As far as I know he was a late addition to the fans meeting and came ill-prepared. It happens, but it shouldn't have.
The bonuses are ridiculous, if they could be taken back then they should. As should Ally and the management teams wages be renegotiated.
I think those demanding answers should wait for the accounts to be released before they do damage the club yes. Speculation isn't doing the club any good whatsoever.
-
nothing in life is a sure bet.
however a number of investors are not working on assumptions
some will take solace in that and combined with disapointment in the spending of the IPO make a judgement call.
others will see nothing wrong with the current board.
I think we are all disappointed with the IPO spending figures, but until we have a factual breakdown that is legitimately confirmed by auditors then again we are dealing with assumptions.
What if the IPO spending was justified? Where does that leave those calling for the current board to be culled? Where does it leave McColl/Murray?
-
Again, I agree. Your question was how did he know there was a plan. I answered why I thought there was a plan.
If they need the fans vote they will make it public.
Guys like that don't do their business via the tabloids.
Again, I agree. Your question was how did he know there was a plan. I answered why I thought there was a plan.
If they need the fans vote they will make it public.
Guys like that don't do their business via the tabloids.
But they have been doing their business via the tabloids. They've tried to belittle the current board.
-
I totally agree, but that wasnt your question was it?
It wasn't. The real question is do we trust someone based on assumptions of things. It appears that some sections of the fan-base are quite happy to do this. On what basis are they willing to do this?
-
I think the assumption is that a businessman presenting to institutional investors in London would be pitching a "plan". I don't think you need to be "in the know" to deduce that much.
You need to be in the know if he's wanting fans on board. McColl has no real vote on the board, he needs to find votes no matter who he finds to invest. He needs the fans vote and other investors votes. If he gets other investors votes to bring in other investors then surely their shares are going to be diluted. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Unless these investors are willing to sell to McColl's investors then the only ally he really has is the fans, to which he isn't doing a good job so far to curry favour with them.
-
You could say uniting the support would be alot easier if they knew what they were buying into. Which on the face of it just now is basically, trust us we're Rangers men so we'll be true to our word. And as a poster above pointed out Craig Whyte said he was a Rangers man.
Agree but the first task is the investors Im afraid
Investors? FFS McColl is one of the richest men in the country. He doesn't want to shell out, wants to get Rangers on the sly, wants to use investors money and we are being asked to trust this guy? FFS on the face of it sounds like he's no better than Whyte or Green.
-
You definitively said plans are in place.
How can you make a statement like than then say firstly you aren't privvy to the plans, then secondly that you couldn't possibly say who told you.
I would have thought that pretty obvious mate.
So you are privvy to the plans then?
-
couldnt possibly say
they are trying but how do you unite this support with breaking confidentiality
I know what you are saying but their task is to get enough support and Im affraid my 714 shares like many others doesnt count for much.
You definitively said plans are in place.
How can you make a statement like than then say firstly you aren't privvy to the plans, then secondly that you couldn't possibly say who told you.
This is the type of cloak and dagger nonsense which is making the support not trust McColl.
You could say uniting the support would be alot easier if they knew what they were buying into. Which on the face of it just now is basically, trust us we're Rangers men so we'll be true to our word. And as a poster above pointed out Craig Whyte said he was a Rangers man.
On the face of it all I think Rangers fans should be forgetting all about the boardroom malarky and start getting behind the team with as much energy as they spend on the boardroom. Too many amateur accountants and boardroom directors talking nonsense and spreading falsehoods if you ask me.
-
No I am not
The majority dont need to know nor do the press and you couldnt do one without the other however its still confidential. No one has said a select few are involved
everything Rangers at the moment would cause division if the Queen bought us some would complain.
some have concluded the select few attitude but could they simply not have a differing opinion formed like those who want the status quo?
How do you know plans 'are' in place then? Who told you?
Why not get the majority involved when you know you could possibly get their backing and make the job easier?
Personally I'm quite happy with the status quo, biggest failing I see however is our wage structure which needs addressed. But, if a better alternative comes along I am willing to listen to what they have to say. The unwillingness of putting out what they have to say concerns me.
Would you vote for a political party without knowing its policies? Of course you wouldn't.
Rst Selling Non-Official Merchandise Tomorrow
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
Dude will be along shortly asking for transparency.