The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 He predicted that? care to give me a link to his blog so I can read? I smelt shite too. Seems like the Ps&Ds are resurrecting the Tax Case chunt. Oh jesusmaryandjoseph how desperate are these guys? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Bit touchy don, maybe your huss gaff still affecting you? I am just trying to make sense out of it all, for months we have been getting told that we are losing £1M per month and that admin 2 was inevitable, so tell me how does anybody putting money into the club for a perceived profit fit into this? Either these guys have got it all wrong and are burning huge pots of cash because the P & B predictions of admin part 2 are inevitable or the doomsayers have got it wrong and Rangers will return to profit allowing these guys to cream off the profit. Which is it? Had to go back to search for this as hadn't a clue what you meant. I've sorted it now but you might have said it was on a different thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Bit touchy don, maybe your huss gaff still affecting you? I am just trying to make sense out of it all, for months we have been getting told that we are losing £1M per month and that admin 2 was inevitable, so tell me how does anybody putting money into the club for a perceived profit fit into this? Either these guys have got it all wrong and are burning huge pots of cash because the P & B predictions of admin part 2 are inevitable or the doomsayers have got it wrong and Rangers will return to profit allowing these guys to cream off the profit. Which is it? What these guys see is the 40,000 plus punters that step through the gates every other week, even although you are crap and playing in the nadir of Scottish Football. The fear is that they will shake up the board until they get some influence,then cut the exxes to the bone, and milk the club for all it's worth before moving on leaving an empty shell. The problem with Rangers is that the money men circling the club aren't men WITH money, they are men looking to make money. Take a closer look at this guy's record he isn't investing in the club in a long term 'we'll win the Euroepan Cup in five years' scenario. He's investing in the hope of making a packet in as quick a time as possible and walking away with a bigger bank balance. Is that really a good thing as Kincardine thinks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Thanks, I am sure the site used to have much more content, what happened to the rest of it? I'm not too sure, it's not my blog? Was just wanting to correct a wildly inaccurate statement by yourself. Good to see you being so humble when corrected. He was right about Your Hero, he was right about Insolvency, in fact it turns out he was right about quite a lot of things apart from the Biggie he got wrong (FTTT). The guy did every Football fan in Scotland a favour and does not deserve to smeared in the manner undertaken by most Bears. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Ah, come on now Kincradine. It's only been resurrected in response to Tedi's assertion that "all his predictions were found to be a crock of shite". In such circumstances, it's pretty legitimate to cite stuff he got demonstrably right. Thank f**k someone understood that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) I smelt shite too. Seems like the Ps&Ds are resurrecting the Tax Case chunt. Oh jesusmaryandjoseph how desperate are these guys? Ah, come on now Kincradine. It's only been resurrected in response to Tedi's assertion that "all his predictions were found to be a crock of shite". In such circumstances, it's pretty legitimate to cite stuff he got demonstrably right. ETA: Meant to post this in response to Kincardine, rather than to Apache Don as it first appeared. Edited June 6, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 So how do you evaluate Mr 1%? I'd say it's a good thing. What's your view? Hold the red carpet. Honestly these guys do take risks but they are chasing a profit, he is not in it for the love of a football club. However, what he will certainly not do, is sit back and watch any company he has a share in, pish away shedloads of cash. In the short term he may be a good thing. Longer term though, he's going to want to see a sizable dividend paid to shareholders -as he is now one- and this could impact on player budgets. He'd have caused one helluva stink if he were around when Murray spunked 12mill on T.A.F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Wunf, where did this "Creating a hundred companies to exert influence" come from? I am happy to continue this discussion as long as you give up this bluff that you read it in John Menzies on your way home from work. I believe that if they can spread the ownership of that 1% between a certain number of holding companies or some such financial entity, they can massively and disproportionately increase their influence, forcing votes to be taken, meetings to be called, etc.. Just one more example of how money people are different to normal humans. I think that's right it was explained earlier in this thread/another thread (?) I may well have to edit this post after reading the posts from 124925 onwards! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Ah, come on now Kincradine. It's only been resurrected in response to Tedi's assertion that "all his predictions were found to be a crock of shite". In such circumstances, it's pretty legitimate to cite stuff he got demonstrably right. ETA: Meant to post this in response to Kincardine, rather than to Apache Don as it first appeared. Monk, don't you think that some Dim has recreated TRC Blog as a pseudonym as being sinister? The original guy said his piece then took his posts down. Pair play to him. Now a new wave of Plastics wont let him rest. This is wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Monk, don't you think that some Dim has recreated TRC Blog as a pseudonym as being sinister? The original guy said his piece then took his posts down. Pair play to him. Now a new wave of Plastics wont let him rest. This is wrong. Maybe so, I've honestly no idea. I'm not sure I even understand what you're saying. The idea of reviving something posted last year however was to illustrate that these bloggers were often (though not always) right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Hold the red carpet. Honestly these guys do take risks but they are chasing a profit, he is not in it for the love of a football club. However, what he will certainly not do, is sit back and watch any company he has a share in, pish away shedloads of cash. In the short term he may be a good thing. Longer term though, he's going to want to see a sizable dividend paid to shareholders -as he is now one- and this could impact on player budgets. He'd have caused one helluva stink if he were around when Murray spunked 12mill on T.A.F aye and if my aunt had baws.....etc. I have no problem with Mr 1%. If he sets up what used to be called "A Ginger Group" then more power to him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Maybe so, I've honestly no idea. I'm not sure I even understand what you're saying. The idea of reviving something posted last year however was to illustrate that these bloggers were often (though not always) right. Depends who is doing the reviving. Were it the blogger then fine. Clearly it isn't, though. I'd say they are, thus, a bunch of sad. obsessive fuckers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Yet over a years worth of daily blogs are missing, does this mean that I was partially correct and that he posted a crock of shite for over a year? Otherwise know as wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 aye and if my aunt had baws.....etc. I have no problem with Mr 1%. If he sets up what used to be called "A Ginger Group" then more power to him. Fair play. Where is Brian Kennedy anyway? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I think that's right it was explained earlier in this thread/another thread (?) I may well have to edit this post after reading the posts from 124925 onwards! Jack, you're confusing apples and pears. My issue wasn't about how he 'knew' about it but how he 'heard' about it. the two are different. Just look at the past dozen posts. How come The Ps&Ds know so much about Rangers? How come they know much more than the average Bear? Above all, why do they care? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I think the Jury of the Orwell Prize sum it up best ; "Rangers Tax-Case takes what might be a dry topic - the tax affairs of a sports team - and shows how a striving for transitory success has severely distorted sporting, legal and ethical boundaries. "Displaying focused contempt for those who evade difficult truths, and beating almost every Scottish football journalist to the real story, Rangers Tax-Case shows how expertise and incisive writing can expose the hypocrisies the powerful use to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions."It is a worthy winner which not only proves that independent blogging is as healthy as it ever was, but also offers a mirror in which our times are reflected." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Can someone explain in laymans terms how a share holding of 1% could give someone that much influence?i think it's the "shoe in " factor. Once this individual gets a shoe in the door, he wreaks havoc to his advantage.Just my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Asking about 'The Company' would get you a reasoned reply. Asking about "The Cuntpany" marks you as a wee fanny. agreed, oh Great One. What about my wordsmith - copyrighted of course - " clumpany"? Does that pass the acid test? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 agreed, oh Great One. What about my wordsmith - copyrighted of course - " clumpany"? Does that pass the acid test? How can I comment? wordsmith? clumpany? What? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Jim Spunce, the man in the know. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22795531 followed by http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4105-no-interest-in-midfield-pair Poor wee Jum, has he ever done an article without a Dundee connection? 0 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.