A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

By

Have you noticed that King has called a “General Meeting”, …

Comment on A Sanity Clause for Xmas? by mcfc.

Have you noticed that King has called a “General Meeting”, not an Extraordinary General Meeting – which is indeed extraordinary because he aims to fire the entire board and place his fit and proper self in charge – with only 34% of the votes secured so far – according to the MSM.

Am I being too pedantic to wonder why the “Extraordinary” has gone missing from the PR output? Or does this not register as extraordinary on the The Govan Extraordinariness Scale.

mcfc Also Commented

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
Paul Murray “We have seen what happens when directors with no feel, no understanding and no real concern for Rangers are in control.”

Yes Paul, and we’ve seen what happens when directors WITH feel, WITH understanding and WITH real concern for Rangers are in control.

And your point is ? ? ? ?


A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
While we’re waiting for the next “announcement”

A few news stories have converged recently. Firstly there’s the 1% owning more than the 99%, then there’s handbags between Chris Bryant and James Blunt about posh boys in the media, then there’s the ongoing The Rangers saga.

The common feature is “privilege” and the most notable feature of privilege is that we are blind to our own and hawk-eyed about those we perceive to have more. As a species we are also highly attuned to the injustice of lost privilege, often without understanding that it was privilege in the first place rather than a basic human right bestowed by our preferred deity. So loss of privilege is indistinguishable from intolerable injustice in the mind of the “victim”.

James Blunt seems ignorant that privilege is not about having a mediocre musical talent but having the contacts, free time and money that privilege brings to exploit that mediocre talent to the detriment of those with much greater talents, fewer contacts and less time / money. Meanwhile many, mainly in politics and the media, condemn the richest 1% without thinking to calculate their own position on the inequality ladder. Having won all the gods’ lottery by living in a rich, stable, liberal, democratic country, they are most certainly nearer the top 10% than the middle. Remember that democracy, free-speech, free education, free health care, the benefits safety net, freedom of religion (or none), freedom of sexuality and freedom from endemic corruption are considered unthinkable luxuries by so many in the world.

So when you hear someone raging about the injustice of a ban on fox hunting or HMRC persecuting their club or prejudice against those who speak RP (yes, BBC R4 earlier this week), don’t get infuriated and shout at the telly (as I often do) just understand that it is in our genes, it is a fundamental blind spot of our species – and check your own privilege and check your own position on the inequality ladder.

Btw, to be on the median global income in the UK you’d need a post tax income of £55 per week (£2,860 pa) for a family of two adults and two under 16s. Likewise, £660 per week post tax (£34,320 pa) with the same family would put you in the top 10%. An MP with no other earnings is close to the top 8% (£67,060 gross). A media type on £100k pa gross is around 4%. Our top rate of income (50%) tax kicks in around the 1.8% mark i.e. £150k pa gross.

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i


A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
Just a thought. Why are Easdale(s) and Ashley detested yet King is lauded. It makes no sense at all when King was part of the first death and there’d have been a second death if it wasn’t for the Es and MA.

Initially you might say Rangersness, but my theory is – well – really too simple to be called a theory. The first two are involved day-to-day and are not doing what the bears want and they don’t like it – instead the Es and MA are dealing with the realities of a club/company so deep in the shit they need a periscope. Meanwhile, King can still deal in dreams and promises without getting specific, without getting practical, without getting dirty. My prediction is that if he ever gets to the blue room and doesn’t bring a billion or two with him to fulfil his saviour role, the bears will soon be bating him and calling for a new RRM to take them back to where they belong.

Life is all about choices, but if you choose to choose a choice that is not available to choose, well that’s as bad as not choosing at all, because someone else will choose for you.


Recent Comments by mcfc

Comment Moderation Thread
Mods – you’ve been very busy pruning comments over the past day or so. How would you describe the reason for that.

erm, moderation?

y4rmy – totally agree with your recently deleted comment – fancy a quick pint – and maybe a few slow ones ?


Comment Moderation Thread
Mods – you’ve been very busy pruning comments over the past day or so. How would you describe the reason for that.

erm, moderation?

y4rmy – totally agree with your recently deleted comment – fancy a quick pint – and maybe a few slow ones ?


Why We Need to Change
Football Fan says:
Member: (75 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 12:24 pm

There is also no evidence of Rangers not having a plan,we just don’t know what it is,again we just cannot presume there is no plan.

===========================

I can !!!


Why We Need to Change
Ironically FFs attempt to create FUD around PMG’s output and rebuild King’s reputation as Messiah and doer of financial miracles has solicited a number of well reasoned responses on several topics from several contributors. Collectively they lay out the many mine fields between here and fully funded bear nirvana.

So FFs achievement is to clarify for any undecided ST buyer that it’s a choice between a blind faith gamble of £411 on the word of a tardy, absentee, convicted criminal or paying at the gate. As FF has advised several times “we need to wait and see”. I suggest potential ST buyers take his advice and keep their options open. There could be an Xmas treat in it for the kids.


Why We Need to Change
Football Fan says:
Member: (66 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 11:13 am

So you are retracting “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK.” and acknowledging it is an extraordinaty claim or day dream
=======================================================================

No sir,all unsold shares can be bought by DK,it is a fact not an extraordinary claim.

=========================================================

So you know King’s resources are adequate to do so and/or he is minded to do so. Or are you saying “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK or any other current shareholder with the resources and will – because that’s how a rights issue works but no one has yet stated any intention to do so.”. In which case you are saying nothing of interest.


About the author