Jump to content

Media War Heats Up


bawsburst

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This article reminds me of the Spiers article after we won the BTC. He then tried to say that tax avoidence schemes were morally wrong - which was a completely different argument.

Now that they have failed in there attempts to kill us, they are now saying we have lost our soul. Both journos are grasping at straws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of a guy threw a bit of slab through the glass panel and it is now boarded up don't you understand !

I've been in the Record building working and i just wondered how he managed to get past the really tight security.

No agenda, just seems odd,knowing how tight security is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£300,000 for being financial director of Rangers in the 3rd division and a £300,000 bonus for winning that same league!

I say a bonus because that's what it is called, but in the real world it is a delayed payment of a £600,000 salary. This is unforgivable!

When Rangers fans are ploughing money in to the club, these greedy people are filling their pockets when they should be reinvesting in the club, not syphoning it off for their own personal gains.

Link to post
Share on other sites

£300,000 for being financial director of Rangers in the 3rd division and a £300,000 bonus for winning that same league!

I say a bonus because that's what it is called, but in the real world it is a delayed payment of a £600,000 salary. This is unforgivable!

When Rangers fans are ploughing money in to the club, these greedy people are filling their pockets when they should be reinvesting in the club, not syphoning it off for their own personal gains.

Stockbridge's salary is £200k as was his bonus. Why didn't you voice your dissatisfaction at the share issue last year because the payments were noted in the IPO document. I'm not saying he merits such a bonus but it was out in the open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Media wars. Yes, its certain they will hot up in the run up to accounts being published and even more intensively after the accounts are published and in the run up to the AGM. Journalists whose only job is to write stuff that sells newspapers suddenly become accounting experts and economics analysts and spin will be applied will stoke up the fires of support or criticism depending on which side the media people support. Seems bound to be a frustrating time to be a Bear. But that's the territory we are in so we'll deal with it as it comes.

At present it is not clear to me if there would be enough clear cut financial fact and/or evidence of Director performance failures or lack of substance in commercial plans for the next year (including steps to be taken to generate savings and to live within financial means)to make the case for P45s for Directors and to have the sort of changes sought by Murray.

I don't doubt that whatever the facts there will still be arguments for change. Because Murray seems to want power. And the means to obtain power is to create the impression of failure so catastrophic that the only remedy on the table is wholesale change delivered by Murray. The nature of the destructive Requisition and now aborted EGM was not built on published verifiable fact leading to a decisively argued case for fundamental and near-wholesale change of executives. It has, to my view, the perception of being an opportunistic play for power and has been a deliberately de-stabalising influence. It has the appearance of simply being designed to get on to the AGM agenda the concept that Director changes must be made regardless of fact or reason. It is a vehicle for change that relies on the media to add fuel to keep the 'change needed' pot stoked so that people who can vote for changes to Directors have alternative candidates in mind when the AGM arrives

Quite simply, Murray will either have lined up - or thinks he can line up - enough people who could force a change of Directors or he has not. It seems fanciful to do so ......without saying why change is needed.....and without analysis based on verifiable fact......and without credible analysis of future plans.....and without saying what their own plans are and why the replacements would produce a tangibly better result for the Club and for shareholders. It seems to me to be a long stretch to assume that enough people could be found to back a change based on emptiness of plan and simply on vote for Murray because......don't know.....presumably only because he is Murray and the name is somehow good enough. Even if he succeeded, it seems to me to be an even longer stretch of assumption to believe that the tactics to date and the absence of credible alternative plan are such that he would succeed in persuading the vast majority of Supporters that such action was justified in the circumstances. Whatever their case for change is, it has not been credible so far in my view and even less credible is their argument for change, and even more remotely credible (incredible in fact) is the means by which they have sought to gain power (and I include in this their apparent desire to keep a media war fuelled which only continues to risk harming the very Club they support).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...