Jump to content

The Louden Tavern

New Signing
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Louden Tavern

  1. I know you call on your experience etc but I base mine on factors such as mentioned in the previous post. Is it acceptable that we can be bought out of our deal for a years profit? It should be 10/11 times that amount if it's included at all. So unfair in my eyes. You agree or disagree? Is it acceptable that we pay one off costs from our side of the profit in a 50/50 joint venture but SD don't? Seems unfair to me. The fact that you ignore the professional opinion of those involved at Ibrox - you say you have years of professional option to draw on. Have you offered the club help with that regard? If you know better you should be in there helping them where you can. That may sound churlish but I'm not. If anyone of the Rangers support thinks that they can help the club then I hope that they offer their skills to the club. Rangers are the important thing here. We need the potential of the club maximised ASAP. GM
  2. I didn't say that it tells us nothing, it tells us how much we have received from the deal to date. Whilst looking at everything I come to the conclusion that the current deal with SD is poor on all fronts (£ to the club, financial control, risk of SD buying out our side etc). What is your conclusion? GM
  3. They can say the club has received - rather than does receive. We can't really make predictions from the data at hand. We need to factor in that the deal was 'more normalised' under Wallace but Llambias and Leach were in place since then so who knows. I do know that the club think the deal is unfair - I trust them with that judgement. GM
  4. We have the largest average attendances, ST sales and TV audiences in the country. We are the big story. We are the big team. GM
  5. To be fair both will have been in the accounts and both members mentioned you would assume can read accounts. One of them is in fact an accountant GM
  6. 1. I haven't been involved in the discussions about the fans groups - I don't know what's happening there tbh. 2. I'm a member of the RST and been to their last two AGMs. I've never had an issue with them as an organisation. I preferred RF to BR as a vehicle for the collective buying of shares but that isn't a slight on the RST. 3. We got the pub a life membership in the RST when they where looking to get as many Rangers fans business' involved prior to the EGM to help get as many shares in Rangers fans hands as possible. - as shown through votes with RF and RST, generally Rangers fans will vote the same way imo and in the best interests of the club (as they see it) 4. Not everything is a conspiracy Corky - as someone who is always against FO I'm not surprised - it was ironic to see you call for unity in the support whilst having a go at thousands of fans. imo the support is pretty happy overall. Anything else? GM
  7. Regarding the RST I think much of the issue with them is based around individuals. Overall in my experience the vast majority involved are good Rangers fans just looking to help the club. I disagree with a few things they've done but that's the same with all aspects of the club - if we all agreed on everything then it would be a strange place. To me they have every right to raise funds to further their goals and are up front about what you are spending your money on. I do wish the RR deal was sorted though. GM
  8. That's because the board have committed to cover the costs. Without that we'd struggle imo Look at the judge's position on SD today - they are out to disrupt the club. We need this sorted one way or the other. GM
  9. We will compete in the first season back up. The tims are a poor team. Unless they go above and beyond with the investment (which there are no signs of) I think we can take them GM
  10. I generally refuse to click on one of their sites as that's all they are after - that and to wind-up our support. It's funny though all their lies have done is set up their own fans into thinking they are in a better position than they are. Next season will be a big shock to them GM
  11. Not by me - but it appeared that Mike's tanks had a bit of a following for a bit. Plus some of the anti-King stuff they have purported matches what a small subset of our support believed for a time though I agree that number is now almost negligible. GM
  12. Didn't realise you were such a pedant So you agree with my point - people like JJ, 3 names, the hearts fan and other haters aren't taken seriously anymore. We've moved past that thankfully. I think the removal of McMurdo from supplying similar info has helped with that regard. GM
  13. No Rangers fan reads JJ to get information - it gets RT'd on to timelines to be laughed at, which is quite a different thing Since you asked a question and locked the thread before I could answer :thumbs:
  14. You are sticking up for him - you claimed he spoke "the truth" implying that his version of events is the correct way to look at things. I disagree. I didn't speak about it at the time - couldn't be bothered as it was just spin from both sides to highlight different things and where correct within their own assumptions. Are you claiming HR's assumptions were fair? My reference to accounts and dividend payments will show closer to the truth as Rangers fans think of it - hopefully SD start releasing closer to the profit we are earning for RR but I can see it benign £500k - which takes us to still under £1m from RR. GM
  15. Did HR not do it as a response to the UoF claim? So of course it's in question - he set the scope of the discussion and framed it in a way to maximise the appeal of the RR deal. You can argue he was playing devils advocate if you like but to me it's obvious he wasn't trying to provide the true reflection of the the value of the deal to RFC - which surely should be the discussion from a Rangers fans perspective trying to educate fellow supporters rather than to support one side or the other. Let's see what the dividend payment is this year and see how accurate he was. GM
  16. To be fair HR changed the question. The post was about how much the club get out the deal. It wasn't £2.60. Both sides focused on different aspects to suit their narrative. But don't pretend that HR's was 'the truth' it was a version based on assumptions (such as the SD loan being repaid and securities returned before the club announced we were repaying it). Dividend payments are important for the club more than book profit from RR also GM
  17. I think he's one of the most talented players we've had at the club in years. Cracking worker as well. Really pleased we have him! GM
  18. HR's 2.60 wasn't the true picture. It was obvious spin as at the time we weren't receiving 51% of the retail deal. It was also based on pure profit which ignores the one off costs that seem to only be attributed to our side. He was correct within his set parameter of assumptions but in the end you can't make that out to be true when the assumptions weren't correct. GM
  19. I'd take the 4/1 and have a good night with the proceeds. The bookies always win GM
  20. Solid technique - though the right hand side of the bar is a good spot for getting served too coming in from the beer garden and we have enough staff that they are good at serving from a couple of people deep so just get the head up and ask GM
  21. We have 25 bar staff - we get people served pretty quickly... GM
  • Create New...