Brian Stockbridge

[stewart1969 16]

Mr Stockbridge said in his statement on the accounts that x amount of pounds in expenses (listed in the accounts under professional fees) had been spent fighting for things like the title stripping case as well as the threat of EGMs.

Can someone clarify if the RFFF paid for the title stripping fight and whether or not the threat of EGMs came post end date of accounts?

[gogzy 31,195]

Aye.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

Aye.

This

[bluepeter 5,627]

Seems a strange title for a thread asking about RFFF money. What do you think/hope the answer will be?

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Seems a strange title for a thread asking about RFFF money. What do you think/hope the answer will be?

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[RFC55 109,655]

Seems a strange title for a thread asking about RFFF money. What do you think/hope the answer will be?

Spent it at the hookers.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,037]

Spent it on charlie. And some on Green too.

Keep it to yourself tho....

[LarkieDeek 61]

Any chance this is the SPL's legal fees?

As we know this was a toxic brand.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Any chance this is the SPL's legal fees?

As we know this was a toxic brand.

Spls legal fees went to the OldCo I'm sure.

[stewart1969 16]

Seems a strange title for a thread asking about RFFF money. What do you think/hope the answer will be?

It seems simple enough.

Either what Mr Stockbridge said was true or it was false.

Surely establishing the facts ahead of the AGM will help shareholders decide which box they tick.

[j1mgg 3,766]

Spent it at the hookers.

Did he meet PM there?

[Gillete 1,338]

I know who I'll not be voting to keep at the AGM

[bluepeter 5,627]

It seems simple enough.

Either what Mr Stockbridge said was true or it was false.

Surely establishing the facts ahead of the AGM will help shareholders decide which box they tick.

What did he say exactly? According to your OP he claimed some money had been spent fighting title stripping, among other things. Even if the RFFF paid the full lawyers' bill, I'd imagine there are other costs associated, but I'm not sure how much they would come to. Did he specify how much was spent on fighting title stripping?

My point was that the thread might more usefully have been titled something to do with title stripping costs, or RFFF. It seems like a clumsy and unsubtle attempt to prove wrongdoing by Stockbridge, and I doubt if this particular instance is as clear cut as you would like.

[Arfuf Phuxache 190]

Got to love an Admin slapdown.

[TAFKA 545]

Any chance this is the SPL's legal fees?

As we know this was a toxic brand.

Is your username meant to be a spoonerism for an african-american doing a number one?

[stewart1969 16]

What did he say exactly? According to your OP he claimed some money had been spent fighting title stripping, among other things. Even if the RFFF paid the full lawyers' bill, I'd imagine there are other costs associated, but I'm not sure how much they would come to. Did he specify how much was spent on fighting title stripping?

My point was that the thread might more usefully have been titled something to do with title stripping costs, or RFFF. It seems like a clumsy and unsubtle attempt to prove wrongdoing by Stockbridge, and I doubt if this particular instance is as clear cut as you would like.

It's neither clumsy or unsubtle.Subject title is "Brian Stockbridge" because it is he who is the subject in question regarding my original post.

I get that you don't like Mr Stockbridge's comments being questioned as to their accuracy but it's best to leave your allegiance out as much as possible.

I agree that isn't easy and my preference would clearly be he leaves.....so that where my allegiance takes me.

We need to question things ahead of the AGM.

Many things.

What did he actually say?Here watch.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF35VvcBllY

What I am seeking a broader clarification(i.e what does everyone else think? on is what he says between approx 6.25mins and 6.57 mins.

"The other element though,we spent a lot of money,millions of pounds on,you know,defending the club.we have defended against people who want to sue the club,we have defended it against,ummm,you know,stripping of titles.we have defended it against threatened general meetings,actual general meetings,more general meetings and all of these things cost money and it increases the professional fees"

Now make your own mind up.

There are other claims in this interview which can also be questioned but as you yourself pointed out on another thread.....there are probably a lot of other threads on this already.

I don't see enough.

We should all have as many questions made public as possible so that as many of us as possible get to make our minds up.

That is surely fair enough and people are free to then back whichever individuals they trust.

Assuming we trust anyone(current board or requisitioners)...........very difficult these days.

[bluepeter 5,627]

It's neither clumsy or unsubtle.Subject title is "Brian Stockbridge" because it is he who is the subject in question regarding my original post.

It is clumsy and unsubtle. I'd suggest you might have more comments on the thread if you'd titled it as I suggested. People see this thread, titled "Brian Stockbridge" and ignore it, as he's discussed in so many threads. The fact you think the person is more important than the comments and financials involved clearly reveals what you are hoping to get out of the thread, I suspect...

I get that you don't like Mr Stockbridge's comments being questioned as to their accuracy but it's best to leave your allegiance out as much as possible.

What allegiance? What that I have posted (in this thread or anywhere else) suggests I have any allegiance to Brian Stockbridge? Please feel free to find any post of mine supporting him.

I agree that isn't easy and my preference would clearly be he leaves.....so that where my allegiance takes me.

We need to question things ahead of the AGM.

Many things.

What did he actually say?Here watch.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF35VvcBllY

What I am seeking a broader clarification(i.e what does everyone else think? on is what he says between approx 6.25mins and 6.57 mins.

"The other element though,we spent a lot of money,millions of pounds on,you know,defending the club.we have defended against people who want to sue the club,we have defended it against,ummm,you know,stripping of titles.we have defended it against threatened general meetings,actual general meetings,more general meetings and all of these things cost money and it increases the professional fees"

Now make your own mind up.

There are other claims in this interview which can also be questioned but as you yourself pointed out on another thread.....there are probably a lot of other threads on this already.

I don't see enough.

We should all have as many questions made public as possible so that as many of us as possible get to make our minds up.

That is surely fair enough and people are free to then back whichever individuals they trust.

Assuming we trust anyone(current board or requisitioners)...........very difficult these days.

I've watched that bit of the interview, don't have time to watch it all. Seems to be in response to a question about whether the club is now "on track," rather than specifically about the accounts, but I skipped a fair bit so could be mistaken.

Regardless, he says the club spent money on fighting things, and included title stripping in that. I didn't hear any specifics mentioned regarding amounts, or a claim that all money spent fighting title-stripping came from Rangers. Did you? To make the claim that he is lying about that, you'd have to believe that Rangers spent no money (or time, time is money) on fighting title stripping. Do you believe that?

The sins of Brian Stockbridge have been well documented, you're grasping at straws and aiming for defensiveness regarding RFFF by claiming BS is trying to take the credit for the RFFF's work, imo.

[stewart1969 16]

It is clumsy and unsubtle. I'd suggest you might have more comments on the thread if you'd titled it as I suggested. People see this thread, titled "Brian Stockbridge" and ignore it, as he's discussed in so many threads. The fact you think the person is more important than the comments and financials involved clearly reveals what you are hoping to get out of the thread, I suspect...

What allegiance? What that I have posted (in this thread or anywhere else) suggests I have any allegiance to Brian Stockbridge? Please feel free to find any post of mine supporting him.

I've watched that bit of the interview, don't have time to watch it all. Seems to be in response to a question about whether the club is now "on track," rather than specifically about the accounts, but I skipped a fair bit so could be mistaken.

Regardless, he says the club spent money on fighting things, and included title stripping in that. I didn't hear any specifics mentioned regarding amounts, or a claim that all money spent fighting title-stripping came from Rangers. Did you? To make the claim that he is lying about that, you'd have to believe that Rangers spent no money (or time, time is money) on fighting title stripping. Do you believe that?

The sins of Brian Stockbridge have been well documented, you're grasping at straws and aiming for defensiveness regarding RFFF by claiming BS is trying to take the credit for the RFFF's work, imo.

Your point about people ignoring it because it is titled "Brian Stockbridge" might be valid so fair enough.I say might because I don't agree people will but point taken.

I believe he is deliberately being misleading 100%.I was careful not to say he was lying.Implying it is safer for all sorts of reasons.

I am not grasping at straws.

I just think people should read threads like this and make their own minds up.

I took the tone of your response to mean your allegiance lay with Mr Stockbridge.

Apologies if I called that wrong.

We should all be reading and listening to every piece of written and audio press we can get our hands on.

The more knowledge we have the better placed we will be to decide.

Hopefully people will keep reading and commenting on this thread and others so as to help them make their minds up.

[Dutchy 1,200]

I'd like Brian Stockbridge and any other director to be like a good referee. INVISIBLE!

[bluepeter 5,627]

I took the tone of your response to mean your allegiance lay with Mr Stockbridge.

Apologies if I called that wrong.

Accepted.

Not having a go at you specifically, but this is a problem with a lot of the debate/discussion going on around the boardroom stuff at the moment. "If you question something I post it means you support the other mob."

This happens on both sides, when in reality we should all apply the same levels of scrutiny to everyone involved, and make our minds up based on all the information (or lack of it where appropriate). It's all too easy to dismiss the flaws in the side we support, or to explain them away, while applying microscopic scrutiny to every word spoken by the other side.

[stewart1969 16]

Accepted.

Not having a go at you specifically, but this is a problem with a lot of the debate/discussion going on around the boardroom stuff at the moment. "If you question something I post it means you support the other mob."

This happens on both sides, when in reality we should all apply the same levels of scrutiny to everyone involved, and make our minds up based on all the information (or lack of it where appropriate). It's all too easy to dismiss the flaws in the side we support, or to explain them away, while applying microscopic scrutiny to every word spoken by the other side.

I agree with that which is why everyone taking the time to view this thread should focus on what Mr Stockbridge says(By watching the link..again if need be) and then discerning whether or not it contributes to whether he should, or should not , retain his position.

Far to easy to get sidetracked by focusing on our wee chat on the the subject matter.

Watch,listen,scrutinise.......then vote(If you can)

[bluechip 359]

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Yup, shining.

[stewaj3 1,446]

Posts like the ops mislead our fans into believing things which aren't actually true.

If your really want to make an argument against Stockbridge find something he has quoted, write the full quote here, and all of it don't leave any part out. Then find some proof that he has misled us somehow and make sure it's deliberate before accusing him.

Otherwise just don't bother. Too many opinions on these people that invested in us for me. Have they been perfect no, but they are human, they are allowed mistakes. Do I know they are right for this club? No, however until I see something that properly shows that they are not right, they will get my full backing for keeping my club alive and investing their money in us.

[gogzy 31,195]

Got to love an Admin slapdown.