Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-12-2015, 10:58 AM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treadstone

You really didn't need that 'apparently'.

Ken.

So many writs flying about, have to cover my erse :greengrin

Besides, how do we know that Ozy isn't Keith Jackson moonlighting, and we're being told *****?
11-12-2015, 11:02 AM
hibs0666

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

You just copied Neil Doncaster's job description didn't you?

And you can see how well he's doing.

What's your point?
11-12-2015, 11:04 AM
hibs0666

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

The current incumbent at Hampden have resisted those suggestions time and again. The only way all the above can happen is if we sweep them from power.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. The incumbent at Hampden acts upon the mandate provided by the clubs. If things are not happening then blame the clubs not their administrator.
11-12-2015, 11:10 AM
AndyM_1875

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

The current incumbent at Hampden have resisted those suggestions time and again. The only way all the above can happen is if we sweep them from power.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which won't happen because the pair of them are a heat shield for the likes of Lawell and the other Club Chairmen who can dump their various problems and incompetent handing of their own clubs at the door of the league and national association, slagging them off to the fans whilst backing them privately.
11-12-2015, 11:12 AM
Treadstone

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ken.

So many writs flying about, have to cover my erse :greengrin

Besides, how do we know that Ozy isn't Keith Jackson moonlighting, and we're being told *****?

Jackson can barely do one job!
11-12-2015, 11:16 AM
brog
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666

Where to start...

A new strategy for the Scottish game developed in conjunction with all staekholders with agreed accountabilities, responsibilities and KPIs to drive action and measure success
A new and inclusive mode of governance with clearly defined remit including finance
A re-assessment of the use of technology across every aspect of the game
Proper and transparent reporting of KPI performance
Collaborative approach to development of young professionals that benefits all concerned
Scheduling decisions taken with inputs from the fanbase
Fundamental re-assessment of the match-day experience informed by a far more robust understand of the outcomes that people are seeking to achieve through their engagement with clubs
Fundamental re-assessment of the role and responsibilities of clubs within their local communities
i don't think anyone would disagree with those laudable aims. There is however nothing to stop us moving forward with those plans while at the same time holding the club that was Rangers properly to account for their failure to comply with the rules of Scottish football. Oh, & an explanation & a sanction for the one penalty they did receive & their contempt for continuing to pay that fine.
11-12-2015, 11:20 AM
Jim44

I know some of you guys think the judge is doing a good job but, like Underscore, I think he is demonstrating inappropriate and unprofessional tendencies, and let's not forget that he has well publicised previous for his behaviour in court.
11-12-2015, 11:25 AM
Treadstone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim44

I know some of you guys think the judge is doing a good job but, like Underscore, I think he is demonstrating inappropriate and unprofessional tendencies, and let's not forget that he has well publicised previous for his behaviour in court.

I think the judge is annoyed by the flippancy of the action. Yesterday he gave SD counsel ample opportunity to explain the harm at certain points which were not answered.
I wouldn't disagree that he's boorish and egotistical.
11-12-2015, 11:28 AM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by hibs0666

Nope. The incumbent at Hampden acts upon the mandate provided by the clubs. If things are not happening then blame the clubs not their administrator.

That's the problem. The clubs are only nominally their bosses. There is a powerful cabal at Hampden that think themselves untouchable. If the clubs were their bosses, do you think they would have launched such a scathing attack on Ann Budge this week?
It's time these people were removed for the good of the game.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-12-2015, 11:29 AM
GreenPJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by brog

i don't think anyone would disagree with those laudable aims. There is however nothing to stop us moving forward with those plans while at the same time holding the club that was Rangers properly to account for their failure to comply with the rules of Scottish football. Oh, & an explanation & a sanction for the one penalty they did receive & their contempt for continuing to pay that fine.

I think you need to have the governing body purged first before you can properly deal with Rangers/the Rangers otherwise there will always be a view of bias from one side or another.

My issue is that the current incumbents are never truly going to address all of the issues (turkeys voting for Christmas). As much as I don't like to see football and politics mixed I do think someone like Kenny MacAskill raising a question in the Scottish Parliament to instigate an independent root and branch review of the governance of our game (SPFL and SFA) and then identify who is appropriate to implement that new structure is what is required.
11-12-2015, 11:29 AM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Ken.

So many writs flying about, have to cover my erse :greengrin

Besides, how do we know that Ozy isn't Keith Jackson moonlighting, and we're being told *****?

I'm more an egg 'n chips man. Succulent lamb is a bit rich for me. [emoji3]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-12-2015, 11:34 AM
NAE NOOKIE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim44

I know some of you guys think the judge is doing a good job but, like Underscore, I think he is demonstrating inappropriate and unprofessional tendencies, and let's not forget that he has well publicised previous for his behaviour in court.

Having seen judges in action in the Sheriff and High courts in my time this ones behaviour isn't all that out of the ordinary.
11-12-2015, 11:37 AM
Jim44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Treadstone

I think the judge is annoyed by the flippancy of the action. Yesterday he gave SD counsel ample opportunity to explain the harm at certain points which were not answered.
I wouldn't disagree that he's boorish and egotistical.

If he judged that the case was flippant, could he not just throw it out or rush through it routinely? Or is there a serious case to answer under the flippancy?
11-12-2015, 11:40 AM
Just Alf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim44

If he judged that the case was flippant, could he not just throw it out or rush through it routinely? Or is there a serious case to answer under the flippancy?

I thought he was being flippant at the start, then I started to think he was really pushing hard on the SD counsel to make them "really" prove their point

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
11-12-2015, 12:03 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I would agree that it isn't.

However, a lie was told in Court. Apparently.

Bottom line, though.... it ain't been paid. MA still has the ball, and RIFC's balls, in his hands.

When RIFC say they are £ 500K short to make the repayment , do we know if £ 4.5 million has been paid over and they are looking for the other half mil. to complete the repayment.

Or, they have £ 4.5 million in a bank account ready to pass to SD when the other half mil. appears. :confused:
11-12-2015, 12:06 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

When RIFC say they are £ 500K short to make the repayment , do we know if £ 4.5 million has been paid over and they are looking for the other half mil. to complete the repayment.

Or, they have £ 4.5 million in a bank account ready to pass to SD when the other half mil. appears. :confused:

No way to know unless Sports Direct tell us. We can't trust anything Sevco say with King in charge.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-12-2015, 12:08 PM
lapsedhibee

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

When RIFC say they are £ 500K short to make the repayment , do we know if £ 4.5 million has been paid over and they are looking for the other half mil. to complete the repayment.

Or, they have £ 4.5 million in a bank account ready to pass to SD when the other half mil. appears. :confused:

Fuss about nothing. His Glibship already raised the full £5m, by phoning round, in "an hour". On that basis, another 500k, to make the total up to, er, £5m, would only take another 6 minutes. He's probably already done it, and is just too modest to confirm.
11-12-2015, 12:12 PM
Treadstone

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

When RIFC say they are £ 500K short to make the repayment , do we know if £ 4.5 million has been paid over and they are looking for the other half mil. to complete the repayment.

Or, they have £ 4.5 million in a bank account ready to pass to SD when the other half mil. appears. :confused:

Doleman on Twitter "No money is with SD. Rangers have told them they are awaiting to collect another £500k before repaying loan
Sorry for confusion"
11-12-2015, 12:23 PM
blackpoolhibs

Perhaps they could approach the local council to pitch in with a handout, it will help the local govan community out and keep creating jobs in that area?
11-12-2015, 12:52 PM
Ozyhibby

https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com

JJ seems to think SD are looking for £200,000 damages. It makes sense given we are back in Jan but it is JJ so take with a pinch of salt.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-12-2015, 12:55 PM
Ozyhibby

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/12...5d50691090.jpg

Even the Record is unimpressed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-12-2015, 12:59 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim44

If he judged that the case was flippant, could he not just throw it out or rush through it routinely? Or is there a serious case to answer under the flippancy?

My take on it, albeit through the sound bites conveyed by Ozzy (that'as not a dig, btw, it was great to hear), was that the attempt to jail DK was flippant. There may be, though, a more fundamental case to be heard in January. I think that judge was trying to cut through the crap to get at that case.
11-12-2015, 01:15 PM
Jim44

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

My take on it, albeit through the sound bites conveyed by Ozzy (that'as not a dig, btw, it was great to hear), was that the attempt to jail DK was flippant. There may be, though, a more fundamental case to be heard in January. I think that judge was trying to cut through the crap to get at that case.

Was 'the attempt to jail King' not just a bit of sensationalism, coined by the media, adding a sense of flippancy to the issue?
11-12-2015, 01:22 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim44

Was 'the attempt to jail King' not just a bit of sensationalism, coined by the media, adding a sense of flippancy to the issue?

Seemed like a fairly serious motion to me. That was what was dismissed yesterday, no?
11-12-2015, 01:26 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Seemed like a fairly serious motion to me. That was what was dismissed yesterday, no?

Yes. I think SD were very serious about jail. It now seems that they are also seeking damages.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
11-12-2015, 01:29 PM
Brunswickbill

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

My take on it, albeit through the sound bites conveyed by Ozzy (that'as not a dig, btw, it was great to hear), was that the attempt to jail DK was flippant. There may be, though, a more fundamental case to be heard in January. I think that judge was trying to cut through the crap to get at that case.

It looks like SD received, in return for the £5M loan, security on properties, nominations of 2 board members, IP rights and an inceased share of the retail profits from RIPFC marketing. I'm guessing that the increased share of the return on marketing was in lieu of interest. With the details of the loan agreement coming out and the subsequent boycott of SD merchandise by the RIPFC fans, I would think that SD's return on their loan has been below what they expected. I don't know what evidence they will submit re the actual leeks but they may well be able to show that the return on their loan was damaged. I wonder if the board are rushing to get the loan repaid before Christmas to cash in on a late Christmas rush for the blue shirts.
11-12-2015, 01:46 PM
gorgie greens

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

It looks like SD received, in return for the £5M loan, security on properties, nominations of 2 board members, IP rights and an inceased share of the retail profits from RIPFC marketing. I'm guessing that the increased share of the return on marketing was in lieu of interest. With the details of the loan agreement coming out and the subsequent boycott of SD merchandise by the RIPFC fans, I would think that SD's return on their loan has been below what they expected. I don't know what evidence they will submit re the actual leeks but they may well be able to show that the return on their loan was damaged. I wonder if the board are rushing to get the loan repaid before Christmas to cash in on a late Christmas rush for the blue shirts.

Agree that they money SD are getting must be a small percentage of what they thought they would be getting, noticed they now sell their own version of a kit ,unsure where exactly the funds are going but it's defo not going to SD
11-12-2015, 01:50 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

It looks like SD received, in return for the £5M loan, security on properties, nominations of 2 board members, IP rights and an inceased share of the retail profits from RIPFC marketing. I'm guessing that the increased share of the return on marketing was in lieu of interest. With the details of the loan agreement coming out and the subsequent boycott of SD merchandise by the RIPFC fans, I would think that SD's return on their loan has been below what they expected. I don't know what evidence they will submit re the actual leeks but they may well be able to show that the return on their loan was damaged. I wonder if the board are rushing to get the loan repaid before Christmas to cash in on a late Christmas rush for the blue shirts.

The £200k (that has been touted as the damages being sought) may well be the amount of that loss.

You may be right, too, about wanting the shirt sales in the coffers. They need whatever cash they can get just now.

I know we disagree on this, but I'm still not convinced SD want that loan repaid yet.
11-12-2015, 02:17 PM
Hibs Class

On a related topic, are there any photographs of King in which he doesn't look utterly gormless? I only ask as I've never seen one.
11-12-2015, 02:19 PM
jgl07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hibs Class

On a related topic, are there any photographs of King in which he doesn't look utterly gormless? I only ask as I've never seen one.

This came to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HRYKGpDHU

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page