Northampton_Loyalist

Amen

With the greatest of respect, people engaging in debate/fighting generally are in a position to look after themselves and if they are not, they shouldnt be there. The articles may have been 'torn apart' but I seriously doubt Boss recieved personal abuse over it, and if he did he could at least ban the perpetrators. That all aside, there is little more for me to say. I have asked for comments from the author and when/if they come, we will see if there needs to be a reply from me. As for the last part, if you (as in the royal 'you', not you Rabbit personally) have not contributed to the fractures and general lunacy within our support, you have nothing to be ashamed of. If you have, you do.

I strongly reject ANY suggestion that the people involved in the protests (on any level above vocal support) gave abuse (which we recieved) or bullshit (which we recieved) to ANYONE who was against them. I approached you and Boss privately and discussed publicising the protests (which despite your obvious disaproval?, and to your credit, you agreed to allow free reign to advertise) and from that moment everyone was in full on courtesy mode. We all knew that fighting would do nothing except push potential helpers away and so avoided getting drawn into anything other than the most civil chats on the subject and even they were rare. I have not asked you to explain your editorial perogative becuase I understand fully that you merely allow others a platform. As an oft published writer of very little repute I have often had work in print that Suck/MDC strongly disagree with, it is just how it works. I have not actually asked you or Boss anything. I have politely and civily asked the author for nothing more than comments on AJ's statement and with regards to his article. if you like, his personal opinion on his previous personal opinions based on a meeting with Muir and in the face of AJ's statements. We will agree to disagree on the protests, although you are clearly right in pointing out that the support being fractured is an issue. The lunacy that has overtaken the support as a whole is the single most pathetic story in the history of the club and I fervantly hope that each and every person who has had even a small part in it is thouroughly ashamed of themselves. I have played the tiniest of tiny, tiny, tiny parts and I feel ashamed, hence the retiral of this name until tonight. the club's part is pathetic too, but we cant simply hide behind it to cover our own blushes.

Fair enough, I was merely responding to Gunslinger. I have no idea of Boss's (or your) fair mindedness or otherwise.

Bring some clarity? Do AJ's comments not kind prove that the last thing the articles brought was clarity and that they infact served to provide the exact and polar opposite? whatever your opinion on protests, you must surely agree that they are, if peaceful and directed, at the very least legitimate? that those who DO see them as an option have every right to go forward? The article published here came a day before a planned protest in which Muir was to be mentioned as a secondary target. The article, by admission of the author, came directly after a meeting between him and Muir. Now, please forgive my cynicism, but I would like to hear the comments of the author. I appreciate that this will come over as arguementative but you yourself will have seen some of the absolute bullshit I had to persoanlly contend with during that bleak period. Further, you will have seen yourself some of the absolute bullshit I personally had to contend with as a direct result of the article in question. I feel my questions are valid and I hope you agree that I have asked them in a civil and respectful manner. The last paragraph of your post is something we could argue about all night (in a perfectly civil manner of course ) but I would rather do that on an appropriate thread.

Well, contacts detailed himself a meeting with Muir and he put his name on the article telling us that Muir was the best thing to happen to the club. Published a day before protests which were known to have Muir as a secondary target. If Boss uses what is certainly his perogative and simply deletes these posts, there is little that can be said. I have been polite, avoided abuse and I have refrained from making any accusations, going so far as to edit out one part that might have been mistaken for one. I would be disapointed to be denied serious and civil answers to serious and civil questions.

He is the chap I was particularly looking for comments from over AJ's statements. A man who sat with Muir and then wrote an article which happened to de-rail the protests. If I were him I would feel sick at this statement because it shows that poster to have colluded with Muir at worst, and at best to have been used by him against the best interests of the people on the board of RFC. (edited out what looked like an accusation of the article being deliberately to derail protests. I cant possibly prove or back up any such accusation)

I am a bit of a dick to be fair

You are mistaken, I didnt say they were your comments at all, I simply put them into perspective for you. To start with, him saying they are there for Murray does not in any tiny way say that are not there for the bank. MIH was at the time gubbed and doing everything it could to off-set huge losses. If Lloyds told Murray to put Muir on the board, AJ's comments provided by you would be 100% accurate, just hiding the truth a little, exactly what you would expect of a man trying to do his best for the club.

This article and quotes very clearly puts that down as the rubbish it was. There is no way on Earth that AJ would simply make up what has been said tonight; firstly the legal ramifications would be obvious and secondly, a simple denial from anyone would cast more shadow over the clusterf*ck that is RFC today. Previous comments have to be looked at in perspective, the perspective here being a man (AJ) clearly trying to do his best for the club while hamstrung. The comments you give do not in any way directly contradict tonights, they are simply a non commital way of avoiding saying Muir is at the club because the bank put him there.

After taking pelters from people on here, after seeing an article before the protests last year painting Muir as a saviour and all round good guy, I wonder if those same people would like to comment on our chairman's comments in this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8422821/Rangers-chairman-admits-the-club-could-go-bust-if-no-white-knight-is-found.html in particular this part

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks-ignore/rangers-chairman-sceptical-about-ellis-takeover-bid-1.1028614 Ellis' spokesman is not allowed to comment but if you read FF, the attention seeking fantasist NorthamptonLoyalist has been on the phone to him again Why dont you, for the good people of RM, copy the post that I put up in here. The one that was up 2 hours ago, contradicted 100% AJ and has just a few minutes ago been 100% corroborated by Ellis in the sporting life article. THAT fantasy. Great wee crystal ball I have there, dont you think? This post is EXACTLY the reason I dont put the news up here anymore.

when I wrote the first conversation up and posted it on FF i was asked to post the next one up here. I do and get comments about Torbetts dong. Nice. Gotta love the claim of a site open to all and more 'user friendly' than it's rivals. The info is there, nothing earth shattering, and if the deal goes through it will all be proven by dint of a wee interview. I will wait for the appologies should that happen with baited breath (but not held, that would be daft). In the mean time, I wont bother next time. Thanks those that dont automatically jump in with 'humourous' quips, shame not all on here are equally as sensible.

He didnt. He called me (after a text). 3rd time I have spoken to him now. well why the hell would he call somebody he doesnt know????? I have spoken to him a total of three times now. I asked him a question and he called me up to reply.

He didnt. He called me (after a text). 3rd time I have spoken to him now.