Guest TOPFITTER Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Chris Mitchell has signed, had the info an hour ago now backed up by Andrew Burns from the Standard. Saw this post and thought I would have to wait 6 days for official confirmation, given your back-it-up source, then the next post put me out of my misery,,,,, LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeredbook Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 FFS.... it gets worse. Who's advising the BoD on PR right now - Robert Mugabe? For the love of God please stop digging a deeper and deeper hole here. Mugabe is quoted as saying " I wouldn't stoop that low " . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Who's advising the BoD on PR right now - Robert Mugabe? For the love of God please stop digging a deeper and deeper hole here. Well if SD's involved in the saga, he should really come on here and let us know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The thing is I really want to move on from the vote fiasco, but how can I after the two most recent statements? It saddens me that those men represent my club. They have no idea what damage they are wreaking on the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There are a series of new podcasts on the OS. Warning: do not listen to Sandra Brown's interview with Billy Hewitson if you value your health! Link to Podcasts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There are a series of new podcasts on the OS. Warning: do not listen to Sandra Brown's interview with Billy Hewitson if you value your health! Link to Podcasts So we have a situation where our Chairman is stating on a podcast that the vote was not about Rangers but about QOS and Scottish Football while in the press on the same day the club are saying the issue was nothing to do with QOS. Dear God. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 So we have a situation where our Chairman is stating on a podcast that the vote was not about Rangers but about QOS and Scottish Football while in the press on the same day the club are saying the issue was nothing to do with QOS. Dear God. Indeed. I did try to warn you not to listen to it. It only encourages 'seethe'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Yes, I've not seen the Standard myself, but according to QosMad, this gem appears: ''The directors would like to thank Ross for all his dedicated work with the trust in recent years. He has worked very hard to assist and support the club during his time as chairman and we wish him all the best in the future. It is unfortunate that he has based his decision on this on something that has nothing to do with Queen of the South''. From Board of Directors on QOS OS 13 July 2012 "This was not a decision taken lightly by the board and one which they felt best protected their shareholders and the club......we voted with the clubs interests at heart." Even ignoring the above and assuming that they meant the subject matter was another club, implying that the way the club voted was nothing to do with the club is astounding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 HELLO HELLO is there anybody there ? . You couldn't make it up. Ah, finally the reasons for the vote become clear... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Ah, finally the reasons for the vote become clear... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 There are a series of new podcasts on the OS. Warning: do not listen to Sandra Brown's interview with Billy Hewitson if you value your health! Link to Podcasts Good God. When asked how the vote might affect club finances, he says: "We have no news as yet. Until the television deals are concluded with the SFL/SFA, whatever's in charge at the time, we won't know the implications." A very kind interpretation of this is that Hewitson does in fact have a firm grasp of the issues, but is somehow ill-equipped to articulate it at all. A less charitable one might see him as an utterly clueless dolt who truly doesn't understand the matters on which he voted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truthhurts Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Well if SD's involved in the saga, he should really come on here and let us know. And how would he ken that? He wuz auditing the books an didnae see the black hole. Even dumb business people need guiding. Blind leading the blind if ye ask me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) From frascoigne on Footymad re the Board's vote "Letter to me told me that there were only 25 to 30 actual fans expressing their opinions, mainly online and that they had canvassed the silent majority and the feed back was that they did not care about Rangers Newco." So, how did they canvass the "silent majority"? And if the silent majority could not care less why did the Board say "The opinions of fans were considered, and debated, long and hard before the Board took the difficult decision to vote contrary to most of them."? Why would it be a difficult decision to vote contrary to the views of 25 to 30 unrepresentative opinions? I can't believe this mob. However, they have installed a new sprinkler system, which more than makes up for everything else. Edited July 27, 2012 by Flash 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) From frascoigne on Footymad re the Board's vote "Letter to me told me that there were only 25 to 30 actual fans expressing their opinions, mainly online and that they had canvassed the silent majority and the feed back was that they did not care about Rangers Newco." So, how did they canvass the "silent majority"? And if the silent majority could not care less why did the Board say "The opinions of fans were considered, and debated, long and hard before the Board took the difficult decision to vote contrary to most of them."? Why would it be a difficult decision to vote contrary to the views of 25 to 30 unrepresentative opinions? I can't believe this mob. However, they have installed a new sprinkler system, which more than makes up for everything else. The 25 or 30 that they mention are probably the real diehards of the club who have worked away tirelessly foryears ensuring the travel club, supporters, trusts etc are the well organisedgroups that they are. What a bunch of EMU's we have at our helm!!! Edited July 27, 2012 by Hawk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGeeOneHamer Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The 25 or 30 that they mention are probably the real diehards of the club who have worked away tirelessly foryears ensuring the travel club, supporters, trusts etc are the well organisedgroups that they are. What a bunch of EMU's we have at our helm!!! If they only had 20 or 30 against then it shouldn't have taken too long to acknowledge their correspondence. I still await my reply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 From frascoigne on Footymad re the Board's vote "Letter to me told me that there were only 25 to 30 actual fans expressing their opinions, mainly online and that they had canvassed the silent majority and the feed back was that they did not care about Rangers Newco." So, how did they canvass the "silent majority"? And if the silent majority could not care less why did the Board say "The opinions of fans were considered, and debated, long and hard before the Board took the difficult decision to vote contrary to most of them."? Why would it be a difficult decision to vote contrary to the views of 25 to 30 unrepresentative opinions? I can't believe this mob. However, they have installed a new sprinkler system, which more than makes up for everything else. My rage has now been officially cranked up to spluttering. Canvassing a silent majority? As noted above, they actually conceded that they'd voted contrary to the opinions of most fans. In that letter to Frascoigne, they're quite simply telling lies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeredbook Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The chairman will now be known as Billy Bungle . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 My rage has now been officially cranked up to spluttering. Canvassing a silent majority? As noted above, they actually conceded that they'd voted contrary to the opinions of most fans. In that letter to Frascoigne, they're quite simply telling lies. I see over on the mad board there are signs of divisions amongst the fans. I am now deeply suspicious of the BOD, but probably giving them too much credit. However, let's say they are quite shrewd. And let's look at what they have done. They buy up all the shares to ensure no more available to the fans. Could increase the authorised share capital easily, but don't. Accept tens of thousands of donations from fans and fans groups, but resist all calls for fan representation on the Board. Cast a ridiculous vote in favour of something that was never going to happen, full in the knowledge that it was contrary to the views of the majority of fans. One of the main consequences of this was the resignation of the Trust chairman which could be followed by the total abandonment of the Trust. Instead of apologising for the vote and trying to build bridges, they go the opposite way and infer that the Trust chairman got it wrong, thereby continuing to alienate fans who were possibly on the point of getting over the vote fiasco. This has led to a fan v fan situation, instead of fans uniting against the Board. So, we are left with a disbanded, or ineffectual Trust and a disunited set of fans, leaving the Board to carry on, totally unopposed. As I say, I'm probably giving them too much credit. However, if they viewed fans and fans groups ( including the Trust) as their opponents, they could not have done a better job of eliminating them. I appreciate that most fans just want to concentrate on the football. However, those that do should not have a go at fans who are deeply concerned by recent events. I have no wish to stop supporting the team, but I don't know what to do about getting shot of the shower who are in charge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QOS1919 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 from Marks latest board blog today “Yes” vote I could not write this latest Blog without reference to the unfortunate situation we and all other SFL clubs found themselves in. The club has made its official response on the matter and I am not going to go over it all again other than to reiterate we did it with the club`s best interests at heart. Only time will tell if we made the right decision or not but for fans to say we did not listen to them is totally untrue. We agonised for a long time over the situation and listened to all sides of the debate. The information we were receiving changed by the day, even by the hour. Although we were aware it was likely the “No” vote would win the day, as many as 12 club representatives suggested immediately before the vote that they may vote “Yes”. We believed the changes on offer were the right thing for the SFL and therefore supported the “Yes” vote. To be absolutely clear, despite my own well publicised background, this was NOT a vote for Rangers, who by all indications at that stage were perfectly happy to go to Division Three; it was a vote for change in the Scottish Football structure. That change may well come about anyway eventually, we very much hope so, but it will now be a much longer process undoubtedly. We, as a Board, read every one of the Blog replies that were posted which were very much in the “No” camp but we must also note that we did receive a number of other communications urging us to go the other way. It was not quite the unanimous landslide some claim. One thing is for sure there are no winners in this type of situation. I would ask the fans that are clearly enraged by the Board decision to at least try to understand we were in a no win situation, put this behind us and get behind the team. They more than anyone need your support. We as a Board have no intention of resigning, we have a job of work to do to get this great club back on a more financial footing and it is our intention to complete that objective. Our soon to be published accounts will show the outstanding work carried out by everyone at the club last year to put us back in profit, small profit but a fantastic turn around. Hard decisions are having to be made but we cannot duck away from them if we are to have a sustainable financial model going forward. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) I see over on the mad board there are signs of divisions amongst the fans. I am now deeply suspicious of the BOD, but probably giving them too much credit. However, let's say they are quite shrewd. And let's look at what they have done. They buy up all the shares to ensure no more available to the fans. Could increase the authorised share capital easily, but don't. Accept tens of thousands of donations from fans and fans groups, but resist all calls for fan representation on the Board. Cast a ridiculous vote in favour of something that was never going to happen, full in the knowledge that it was contrary to the views of the majority of fans. One of the main consequences of this was the resignation of the Trust chairman which could be followed by the total abandonment of the Trust. Instead of apologising for the vote and trying to build bridges, they go the opposite way and infer that the Trust chairman got it wrong, thereby continuing to alienate fans who were possibly on the point of getting over the vote fiasco. This has led to a fan v fan situation, instead of fans uniting against the Board. So, we are left with a disbanded, or ineffectual Trust and a disunited set of fans, leaving the Board to carry on, totally unopposed. As I say, I'm probably giving them too much credit. However, if they viewed fans and fans groups ( including the Trust) as their opponents, they could not have done a better job of eliminating them. I appreciate that most fans just want to concentrate on the football. However, those that do should not have a go at fans who are deeply concerned by recent events. I have no wish to stop supporting the team, but I don't know what to do about getting shot of the shower who are in charge. Good post, but I think you probably are giving them too much credit. Personally, going by the rationale offered and the noises since, I think they're stupid - I really do. I'm pretty certain it wasn't their intention, but you're right about the support now being fragmented. In my view the Trust should disband and re-form as a body pressing for greater fan representation. Sad to say, but if fans are to organise, it should now be to a more antagonistic model than has thus far been the case. I'm in no mood to put this behind me and concentrate on the football and I'm sick of people suggesting I should. Edited July 28, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 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.