Jump to content


Club Legend
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


D'Artagnan last won the day on November 22 2016

D'Artagnan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,990 RM Legend

About D'Artagnan

  • Rank
    Hall of Fame

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Level of Support
    No Information

Recent Profile Visitors

8,238 profile views
  1. Roberto Martinez

    Or the same source !!
  2. Roberto Martinez

    Heard the same thing on Saturday JS - so if true it will be after the World Cup
  3. For whom the bell tolls

    Nothing happened to me - I still place my faith in facts not unsubstantiated allegations. In talking about assumptions you seem to asume I was or am happy with King - what I find laughable is your own attempt to deflect from your own double standards of morality which have been laid bare in this thread.
  4. For whom the bell tolls

    So, let me get this right. We lost our integrity when King was appointed because he was a convicted felon - but not when Easdale was appointed because his convictions were considered spent. You have confirmed one thing - madness breeds madness.
  5. For whom the bell tolls

    None - both were ridiculous notions by inept boards
  6. For whom the bell tolls

    There is no alert required. Its quite apparent you are happy to use a stick to beat one with but not the other. The laughable thing is that in the midst of the lunancy of the proponents of "my convicted felon is better than your convicted felon" both individuals passed the SFA's Fit & Proper Person test.
  7. For whom the bell tolls

    Backup For those of us who are just concerned fans worried about our club - the notion that "my convicted felon is better than your convicted felon" was, and continues to be - preposterous.
  8. For whom the bell tolls

    In terms of convicted felons serving on the board, it seems you have forgotten that a member of the board which was replaced comprised of a "convicted felon". If we are going to throw previous convictions around as some kind of moral indicator and judgement then surely we should apply it equally. (I made the same point several years ago to one of King's supporters when they were castigating Easdale for the same) Furthermore "The day we allowed" - please tell us all how we as fans stop affluent buisnessmen imposing their will and influence on our club - after all you have regularly and consistently castigated the mechanism which would allow fans to either prevent this happening by acquiring shares or have at least some measure of influence or control.
  9. For whom the bell tolls

    The fact you are asking that question alarms me Blue Fin. Or have you forgotten when Llambias suggested Kenny McDowall could continue as coach for the forseeable future ?
  10. For whom the bell tolls

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana) Allow me to summarise briefly. The Panel of Takeovers and Mergers ruled that the current custodians of our club did not act properly in their acquisition of same, determining they had acted as a concert party and consequently, having control of 30% of the business were thus compelled to make an offer to investors for the remaining shares. This was denied by Dave King who took the decision to the Court of Session where his legal argument was rejected by Lord Bannatyne. The Advocate for the takeover Panel highlighted during the hearing an e-mail from George Letham to Dave King which cautioned King about the consequences of exceeding the 30% benchmark. These warnings clearly went unheeded. Subsequently King was ordered to make an £11 million offer to the Club’s remaining shareholders despite the fact King’s lawyer argued that his client could not afford to make such an offer. If alarm bells are not sounding amongst our support – they certainly should be. When Laura Fawkes, a Director of Club 1872, challenged Dave King at the 2017 AGM with regard to the recruitment of a replacement manager, the timescales as well as apparent failure to put in place previous assurances given with regard to succession planning, Dave King responded as follows: “As far as the manager, I don’t accept the comment you’ve made. It’s difficult to put a time limit on it. The issue with Pedro was not one of succession planning, there’s maybe a perception that Pedro was doomed to failure. It wasn’t my view, I don’t think it was the board’s view, we continued to back Pedro. Ultimately results speak for themselves and having taken action we were extremely aware that this is going to be a 3 year appointment. We have got to be a careful we don’t let adverse results distract us from the process and I’m personally happy that we have taken the correct amount of time.” After 68 days we had still failed to appoint a new manager and eventually installed the youth coach Graham Murty, as temporary manager. That remains the status quo at the time of writing. Our club is one home defeat away from our worst ever series of home performances on record. In terms of assessment of our club’s progress, rebuilding and vision to reclaim the top spot in domestic football, it serves as more of an indictment than a positive indicator of continuous and steady improvement. I would hope by now the alarm bells are loud enough to suggest a major headache is imminent. Any honeymoon period which the current board deserved is now at an end. It is fine being beholden to them for rescuing us but they need to be judged by the job they are doing now and if that is deemed unsatisfactory or below standard then criticism should be forthcoming. Not silence.
  11. Im afraid I must be drinking from a half empty cup today CB - Id say that if we were getting humped 5-1 by them the only way is up !
  12. Surpsingly, I find myself agreeing with the sentiments of backup's original post. If we are measuring progress because we didnt get humped 5-1 - then we are not setting a very high bar for ourselves. Playing at home, against a weakened celtic team who had been reduced to 10 men and still end up losing, is a huge opportunity missed rather than progress.
  13. Rangers too Loyalist/Protestant for some?

    As your opening post suggests its a bit of a contradiction - have they considered that it was perhaps our support of the PUL community which attracted their son in the 1st place ?
  14. I’m the Leader of the Gang, I Am!

    Its up to every individual or RSC BD. Since 2012 I have come to the realisation that shares = power. Now whether you buy shares as a private individual or as part of Club 1872 it matters not to me - so long as those shares are in Rangers friendly hands. Personally speaking I find it easier to accomplish this via a vehicle such as Club 1872 - though there are of course pros and cons with both options. Im not certain as to the updated membership figs
  15. I’m the Leader of the Gang, I Am!

    I think thats a spot on assessment Sweetheart - and alas truth appears to have become almost inconsequential. Just off the top of my head.. 1. James Blair is no longer a Club 1872 director, and hasnt been for some time- since September 2017 in fact, when he stood down and did not seek re-election 2. I have explained a no. of times on here the issue with membership nos. ( dual membership and inactive accounts) compounded by the fact neither the RST nor RF had a Register of Members, so to suggest it has halved is fanciful to say the least. Notwithstanding that, whether you deem it a success/failure or are indifferent, Club 1872 remains the largest fan ownership model in UK football. 3. You may recall on here me refuting an allegation club 1872 Directors enjoyed Hospitality at Ibrox (on more than occasion if memory serves me correctly) - and that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to falsehoods regarding Club 1872. The catalyst to this latest episode revolve around an allegation which was false. Club 1872 is not without its faults and problems - but we would be far better served highlighting and addressing them, rather than focussing on inacurracies.