Drew Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I don't see a point scoring debate going on anywhere. I didn't explicitly state that there has been. If the forum is true to form, however, we might anticipate that elements of this thread and related discussion elsewhere will be characterised by these types of exchanges. My point was that I intend (best laid plans, etc.) to steer clear on this occasion. Simple, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Face tae Face demands on the way .................. You'll know when that is about to happen when people start posting stuff like "Mon then…." and the time honoured "f**king square go….." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 The information supplied in the boardroom that day was tailored in my opinion to suit the agenda of Douglas St. You would like to think that there would be transparency with a FO model on major issues like reconstruction, etc or else we might as well all FO now. I'd cut the Board a wee bit of slack here I am quite regularly in contact with a guy who , from a legal perspective, was quite involved in all the drama surrounding Rangers liquidation and all the shenanigans regarding which league they should play in (if at all) etc.... His take on things was that Doncaster and Co were absolutely playing the "doomsday" card with regards to cancellation of commercial contracts and sponsorships etc if one of the "Marquee" clubs was no longer involved. Of course none of it came to fruition and incredibly Doncaster and cronies kept their positions despite the keech they were peddling but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I agree, obviously but if someone raises a concern it should be worth considering. Mr Optimistic raised a point yesterday about fickle people withdrawing their memberships and he was told that the point was to respect the majority decision but is it? I know its going back over old ground but if we rewind the clock back to the Rangers liquidation a few years back would I have been prepared to continue to pay funds to an organisation if its leadership had behaved in the same way that Gilmour, Campbell, and McAusland did? Or in an organisation whose membership voted in the same way others in that boardroom did that day (even if it was to save the ticket lady's job? Would I hell! So perhaps there does need to be some contingency outlined for what would happen in the event that a decision is taken that proves so unpopular it damages membership numbers. Did you vote to hammer the bun in the boardroom that night? Tell me more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) The information supplied in the boardroom that day was tailored in my opinion to suit the agenda of Douglas St. You would like to think that there would be transparency with a FO model on major issues like reconstruction, etc or else we might as well all FO now. I don't think it was about Douglas Street, Slash. If you think about it if it was all about getting a good price for the club then the most obvious solution would have been to boot Rangers out of the leagues and to then vote to exclude them from getting back in. That would have forced the likes of Charles Green to have gone for a more "Airdrie United" type solution of buying over another senior club. That said - yeah I would hope that fan ownership would have made things different, but then that might depend on who is elected as fan representative and what powers the fans retain to call that person to task quickly if things start to go wrong. Edited April 1, 2016 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I heard a rumour today that you are going to prepare a special HoF board of the current BoD to hang in Stu Dickson's lounge...... Quite happy to cut a deal. I'll shut the fcuk up about the HoF panel if he shuts the fcuk up about his voting pattern that night. A win-win deal I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I'd cut the Board a wee bit of slack here I am quite regularly in contact with a guy who , from a legal perspective, was quite involved in all the drama surrounding Rangers liquidation and all the shenanigans regarding which league they should play in (if at all) etc.... His take on things was that Doncaster and Co were absolutely playing the "doomsday" card with regards to cancellation of commercial contracts and sponsorships etc if one of the "Marquee" clubs was no longer involved. Of course none of it came to fruition and incredibly Doncaster and cronies kept their positions despite the keech they were peddling but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Yeah, I keep in touch with some people who were quite close to some of the goings on too both at the SPL and SFL meetings. Doncaster was certainly playing up the Doomsday scenario as was Regan, but there were plenty of other things going on behind the scenes too. I know for example that a number of people involved at clubs at the time were getting extremely frustrated about club Chairmen who were giving personal assurances to the likes of Ally McCoist and Sandy Jardine that Rangers would be absolutely fine and that they had their back. Remember the almost bizarre cock like assurance Jardine would come away with in interviews on the BBC? Well it stemmed from somewhere - didn't it? Some of the names I've heard too didn't always fit with the positions they appeared to be taking when put in front of a camera. It's not a glorious part of Scottish Football history but fortunately the fans kept the moral compass of those in charge in check. But there are lessons that should be learned here too and perhaps protections put in place at SMiSA. The last thing anyone would want is for someone with perhaps a conflicting interest of some kind being allowed autonomy to vote to suit those interests and not follow the will of the membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 I heard a rumour today that you are going to prepare a special HoF board of the current BoD to hang in Stu Dickson's lounge...... No thank you. I'd prefer to hang them in the boardroom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Yeah, I keep in touch with some people who were quite close to some of the goings on too both at the SPL and SFL meetings. Doncaster was certainly playing up the Doomsday scenario as was Regan, but there were plenty of other things going on behind the scenes too. I know for example that a number of people involved at clubs at the time were getting extremely frustrated about club Chairmen who were giving personal assurances to the likes of Ally McCoist and Sandy Jardine that Rangers would be absolutely fine and that they had their back. Remember the almost bizarre cock like assurance Jardine would come away with in interviews on the BBC? Well it stemmed from somewhere - didn't it? Some of the names I've heard too didn't always fit with the positions they appeared to be taking when put in front of a camera. It's not a glorious part of Scottish Football history but fortunately the fans kept the moral compass of those in charge in check. But there are lessons that should be learned here too and perhaps protections put in place at SMiSA. The last thing anyone would want is for someone with perhaps a conflicting interest of some kind being allowed autonomy to vote to suit those interests and not follow the will of the membership. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but...... could this be the reason Celtic and the SPFL are against fan ownership, because they don't want the fans to know exactly what went on at these meetings over oldco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) When I get self emplyed I'm in. £3.00 a week is not too much to give out for a great cause. Edited April 1, 2016 by Isle Of Bute Saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 No thank you. I'd prefer to hang them in the boardroom Usual method..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well st bud Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Id like to contribute .are there any plans for us faraway fudds to be able to sign up,dont think DD would work over here(usa) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Id like to contribute .are there any plans for us faraway fudds to be able to sign up,dont think DD would work over here(usa) A cheque or Western Union for £1440 will do fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
well st bud Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Haud me back for that one,whsts that in dollars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Aye, I would also like to sign up from overseas, paying a flat annual membership fee would be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Urquhart Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Chick Young just on Radio Scotland trashing fan ownership model and saying it wont happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Chick Young just on Radio Scotland trashing fan ownership model and saying it wont happen. Not listening, what's his source and reasoning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Chick Young just on Radio Scotland trashing fan ownership model and saying it wont happen. I suppose he has been wrong once or twice in the past... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Urquhart Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Said there was another individual on the scene and that all clubs have a wealthy benefactor involved. Was very dismissive in truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyg Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Have to say , it was mentioned at the SMISA meeting on Wednesday by the chair that there are definitely other people in for the club , this was the main reason that they were looking for the nod from the members, to go ahead with the 100k up front payment to get them exclusivity, therefore preventing anyone else from dealing with the club ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Would a fair summary of Chick's view be 'fan ownership simply isn't happening because a wealthy individual is going to buy St Mirren'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Urquhart Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Hopefully not mis interpereted, I'm sure will be on iplayer for those interested Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Chick was Yul Brynner all along..... Same hairstyle at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Have to say , it was mentioned at the SMISA meeting on Wednesday by the chair that there are definitely other people in for the club , this was the main reason that they were looking for the nod from the members, to go ahead with the 100k up front payment to get them exclusivity, therefore preventing anyone else from dealing with the club ! There are but Chick was, back in the day a Club 1877 prospective member at £3000 so should certainly be open to pursuasion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 1, 2016 Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 Chick is a cock. If he is saying it ain't happening, I have more confidence than ever that it can't fail. Woohoo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.