D'Artagnan

Club Legend
  • Content count

    12,505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    115

D'Artagnan last won the day on November 22 2016

D'Artagnan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,374 RM Legend

About D'Artagnan

  • Rank
    Hall of Fame

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Scotland

Previous Fields

  • Level of Support
    No Information

Recent Profile Visitors

7,444 profile views
  1. "Did you and yours ?" Bob I spent part of my military career fighting the IRA - do you think Im going to purchase a newspaper which has pro IRA editorials ? In terms of overall effectiveness I would agree with you - the most effective way of stopping this is to ensure their sales slump. However I dont think naming and shaming the main protaganists, and highlighting their unedifying conduct does any harm either. We need to get the message out there to fellow bears - buying or subscribing to the organisations who employ these people is basically funding a hate fest against our club.
  2. No bud I wont take a directorship - but happy to help the organisation in any way I can.
  3. I disagree. In a members led organisation the member's should always have the power to effect necessary change.
  4. I said just over a week or so ago it had been an unmitigated shambles. Its now up to 3 Directors with the re-engagement with Laura and Joanne. So do you disagree with the statement they have issued - ie you dont feel there is a particularly toxic agenda led campaign against our manager, by certain sections of the media ?
  5. Jumped ship ? Do you mean when I resigned over a matter of principe and values & which I felt compromised the organisation ?
  6. If you ever wonder why our club is in such a mess this thread provides ample evidence. We seem to have greater enthusiasm for attacking our own rather than the biased, hate filled and agenda led media which gave rise to this statement from Club 1872, supporting our manager.
  7. Agreed deco. Robert Prosinecki could, control the midfield area despite not being blessed with a turn of pace.
  8. Nope its not that at all CSB - if I honestly thought the Dude or any other Rangers blogger writing for the DR would be afforded a platform to do as you describe then they would have my full support. But if any bear thinks the Dude or any other Rangers blogger for that matter is going to affect change at what appears to be a particularly rancid publication from the humble position of a club blogger, then I think they are being delusional at worst, over optimistic at best. The acid test of course will be if a club blogger was to have published in the Record, an article which refutes and usurps some of the lies and rubbish the Record themselves have published.
  9. I understand where you are coming from James - my own feeling is that at times we are even oversensitive to some press articles. But this newspaper now has a catalogue of unedifying conduct against all things Rangers - perhaps no co-incidence that they have a business agreement with our greatest domestic rivals. From falsely vilifying our fans, the nature of some of their journalist's tweets, promoting a malevolent agenda of "conspiracy to pressurise referees, I dont think this newspaper's conduct could be filed under my previous assertion of "oversensitive". Only you can tell us how influential that "foot in the door" will be to affecting the necessary change required, personally I would not be very optimistic. Id be more confident of such a change occurring when falling sales force a strategic re-think.
  10. Thought it was a decent article Dude - though I feel by writing for them, even in the capacity of a "Rangers Blogger", I do feel its acquiescing to their unacceptabe behaviour. Be honest was there not a touch of "30 pieces of silver" when you received your payment from them ?
  11. Here's the Sun version... MURRAY MINTED Former Rangers owner David Murray back on Scotland’s rich list with £150million fortune The tycoon's profits have rocketed since he flogged the Ibrox club for just £1 back in 2011. SIR David Murray’s fortune has rocketed to £150million since he flogged Rangers. The tycoon, who sold the Ibrox club for £1, is ranked 53rd wealthiest in Scotland, according to the Sunday Times Rich List. His Murray Capital Group saw profits soar to £17.7million in 2015 and boasts £51million in assets, including two French vineyards. The company is said to be worth £130million, with Sir David, 65, having £20million in other interests — making him 748th among the UK’s most affluent families. It marks the businessman’s first appearance in the list since 2010, when his estimated fortune fell from £500million to £110million. That plunge came as both Gers and his Murray International Holdings empire ran into money troubles. Sir David handed over ownership of the Light Blues to Craig Whyte in 2011. A year later the club went bust and were thrown out of the Premier League. Meanwhile Sir David set up Murray Capital Group, which bought property and metals assets from MIH before it was liquidated last year with bank debts of £200million.
  12. Has someone received a little "whisper" on the latest EBT ruling ? Or have the lessons of the past taught Sir Bombastic nothing ? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/david-murray-shoots-back-into-rich-list-hpjs6lm2n
  13. Best individual performance I have ever seen from a Rangers player.
  14. Why would they extradite him to South Africa for an alleged offence which has UK jurisdiction ?
  15. It is disappointing that an indivdual's character, personality or previous service have become the subject of discussions on both forums, either positively or negatively - as personalising any debate or discussion makes us lose sight of the real issues - something which RBR correctly points out on Gersnet. I dont indulge in mud slinging & I have no intention of starting - I deal in facts and I have no intention of changing that. Good corporate governance is fair, balanced and consistent and is appllied without exception. Furthermore whilst operating within a board, as an individual, you have to take collective responsibility for the actions of that board. In terms of the word "governance" it is how you police, function and govern within that corporate identity. If your attempts to "police" fellow directors with regard to protecting that corporate governance is unsuccessful then it leaves a person in an invidious position with regard to that aforementioned collective responsibiity. As I said to Craig at the members meeting, other than the fact he has got slightly mixed up with the timeline of the phone calls he refers to - there is no dispute over the circumstances, only the interpretation of them. I, along with 2 other directors felt we were faced with a situational conflict of interest in that an advantage could be gained by his attendance at the meeting. It is my opinion that those concerns have been validated in view of the fact that questions and hypothetical situations discussed as the security briefing were the subject of questions asked of the potential candidates at the recruitment and interview process. Others may feel differently or hold a different opinion - but in the period which has elapsed I have neither seen, read nor heard anything which would alter my viewpoint on the matter.