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.

It is covered in the last thread (cant find it, few weeks old) I know someone who he knows from his time in a town that my username might be a clue to

Off the phone again. Again, sent a text basically asking if there was any chance of a wee update, if they were still interested and if he could put a time frame on the deal being completed if it was likely it would. I added in 'Appologies for texting rather than phoning again, I simply did not want to disturb you more than this has already nor put you in any awkward situation' because I realize that texting is a pretty shitty way to contact someone but i genuinely wanted to maximise the chance of a reply and minimize pissing him off. Last time I texted a simple question when the rumours of the deal being dead were coming out of shellick sites and he simply replied with a few words. this time I figured I had maybe pushed my luck one too often as it took a good long while to get a reply. He eventually phoned up, which ws a surprise but welcome. What he said is encouraging again, basically that everything looks good (im guessing books, DD wise) and they are working towards closing the deal. He did not want to put a time frame on it as he does not want to be held to it should things go a little more slowly. He is aware of places like these but not through coming on himself and he said 'I can understand the worry but I dont know where some of the stories are coming from. having a property developer buy your club is like inviting the undertaker round for tea, but we are NOT looking at moving the club or developing Ibrox, well, possibly outside the ground but that is what any new owner should be looking at and with the best interests of the club at heart. Rangers are one of the most famous clubs in the world and with all that herritage you cant just rip it up. We are looking to nurture the club and get things back on track. When a deal is done i will be looking to sit with people (the fans) and discuss things, there are no skeletons in the closet and we have nothing to hide. We know there is a lot we need to learn too.' Now, that is all in quotations butit is not his exact words, just as close to word perfect as i can remember and the thrust of it all is 100%. Again, i cant back up anything he says, cant really do anything more than say what i felt. He has 3 times now answered calls/texts from a guy he doesnt know. Firstly that means that he wont be giving up any secrets and as I have no relationship with him, will maybe feel able to twist or manaipulate what is said but secondly, it could be seen to show a willingness to share what he can with a fan who went to the effort of stalking him . I was struck with how he came across the first time and again today, very very down to earth and friendly. Obviously some will doubt the truth of this, and that is fine but seeing as he said he would give me an interview (i chanced my luck and he seemed happy to do it) if he buys the club i hope to be able to prove you wrong if that comes to pass. Any press looking in, get your own quotes from the man, god-damned leaches.

Can anyone point me to where anyone involved claimed McColl was involved beyond an adivsory role? For every article, comment or hint from a half credible source you give, I will reply with 5 who contradict you. A paper got half a story and ran with it, selling copy in the process. The RST and McColl both moved to distance themselves from the first report, the herald sells yet more copy. people with an axe to grind, people who would stop drinking water if the RST led a campaign to popularise it, seized it and used it as a stick to beat the RST with. It is no surprise at all to see obviously intelligent people like canadian bacon deliberatly muddy the water here, he knows as well as anybody that McColl was neither touted for the ownership model by the RST or by anyone else except a sole reporter in a paper that people claim to not even buy. Quite why that paper is suddenly viewed as the font of all honesty is beyond me. Actually it is not. The same people with the same gripes are more than happy to use any available ammunition to attack each other, even if that involves themselves basically lying about what is plain infront of them. The herald prints 'RST backed by McColl' The RST say 'we have been speaking to several people looking for help and advice' McColl says 'I have been aproached to give advice' The RST say, AGAIN, 'we have been speaking to various people........' The herald says McColl not backing move canadian bacon and friends say 'More bull from the RST' and 'Duffy all over again' and 'who next?' and 'fantasy scheme' (incidentally, not one person who said that has ANY right to be given any leeway, you have, to a man woman or child, 100% pre-judged something you know nothing about, you have not even waited to see the details before deriding it, the mark of someone who VERY clearly is acting not through intelligent reasoning but through pre-conceived notions) I dont know the details of the RST's plans, they might well be the stuff of fantasy but one thing is for sure, I wont dismiss it without first seeing what the plans actually are, exactly the same as I would treat ANY other bidder. We are talking about the future of the club and frankly, a wee fight between people who are more interested in petty point scoring and vindictive idiocy pales into insignificance in the face of that. There are people here who would look at a deal proposed by the RST and even were it 100% perfect in every way, guaranteed to drive OUR club forward, they would turn away because of the 3 letters involved. That is absolutely pathetic, there is no other way to describe it. I should add the canadian bacons name was used because i know he is more than capable of sticking up for himself, in a position to know better and frankly seems to be, on this last page particularly, saying lots of little snipy remarks with absolutely no substance. If that is a problem, so be it.

Ties in with what I posted on FF 2 days ago after hearing the deal was still on from the horses mouth. Out of you myself and the herald, I know who i believe

cheers for that. If you know, who scored the second please?

I don't think it was Rangers board members organising said campaign but the anti-Muir sentiment has had different stages to it - the most recent one being the protest led by Iniesta/N_L which I believe was free from inter-site/personality conflict for the most part. Now, it may well be N_L's information is the next stage in the spin being employed by the different sides in the battle to buy Rangers but, personally, I think that is over-analysing the situation. It's not as if anything overly important has arisen out of the conversation as anyone with a modicum of intelligence would take Mr Ellis' comments with a pinch of salt irrespective of the intentions of N_L. NL will correct me if i am wrong on this, but was NL/Iniesta's "truth and clarity" only their part of the said protest, and the " Muir enemy within" was another component part added and orginised by FF or others? Just thinking out loud why NL chose FF for the exclusive and not jointly over the Gersnet,FF AND RM forums? Nothing to correct you on mate. I posted it on FF as I am an FF poster primarily, I didnt see it as some massive scoop, just a guy who picked up a phone and found out nothing in particular, not in any way an exclusive. If that was the case I would have written a nice article to go with it and got it published. I also know that people use all the sites and things migrate, so it would be picked up elsewhere if people saw merit in it. On top of that, people would not see it as any less of an FF thing if it had gone up simultaniously, I tried that before and it didnt work

Apologies NL it was not a dig more an observation, as long as all are treated with the same suspicion as that afforded to Mr Muir, a level playing field so to speak, we may fair better than going for the only show in town, there are said to be others. I have no doubts or cause to doubt the honesty of your posts or contacts and apologise if it appeared I inferred that. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I am as guilty as any at times of exercising it, I never thought I would ever say this in relation to Murray, but sometimes the old adage about the devil you know proves to be the best route at times, again apologies no offence meant, I think IMHO that Muir is doing his best for the club and Murray in what order I could not say. I would just like to point out that I stressed I didnt neccessarily 'believe' everything said and that people had to take what was said and apply their own thinking to it. His words let a little more confidence creep in, but no more than that, I will be sceptical until not only concrete plans are layed out for all to see but concrete actions are underway. Talk can be cheap, what he said could be no more than platitudes, but for me, the fact he took a little time and specifically looked to address some individual concerns can only be seen as a good thing. Of course, he could have been spinning for all he was worth and I have not and would not try to convince people of the strength of his word, that is his job for the coming weeks. No offence taken anyway, its a messageboard and I've been on them long enough not to expect a free ride

sorry baldeagle, im not only on here. Im not quite sure what you want me to say anyway, i didnt pass on any opinion here, simply stated what was said. how any percieved 'judgement' is involved im not quite sure. I didnt like the way our club was heading and got off my arse to try and change it. If that represents an arror of judgement, I can live with it. But, and as I said, I'm not quite sure how any 'judgement' was involved in this thread. If you dont want to believe the conversation happened then that is entirely up to yourself, I hope to be proven right in the future but cant say for sure whether that will happen or not. I got some info and shared it, what others do is entirely up to them.

When he answered the phone I had a list of things I wanted to say to him and questions I wanted to ask. Within seconds my head was empty After describing who I was and how I had come to talk to him, he made it VERY clear that he did not want to talk about Rangers and he from there volunteered all the information about QPR and Northampton town. after he had said his piece on that, i mentioned that fans were wary of his motives because of his history and he then went on to make his comments about flats etc. Should I have asked more? maybe, maybe not, he probably treated the conversation exactly as if i had been a journalist and would have been less 'friendly' if I had pushed him on things. I dont think he would have answered questions about others being involved, but he might have and perhaps i should have asked. To be honest, though, I was nervous and frankly happy with what he had said. I must stress that what is written is what he said, it is not neccessarily what I think, I have taken reasons to be optimistic from my chat with him but that does not dictate others should. The nature of the internet dictates that any person can post any thing they like. I have been in and around Rangers forums for a decade now and seen people shot down only to be vindicated later. I asked specifically if he minded me quoting him and he gave a green light, he also said that at a later date, perhaps when he is ABLE to, there might be further information given, not in any official fans rep type way, just a businessman talking to a pseudo-journalist type way. Put it this way, I expect in the future that the Scottish media will be speaking direct to the man, I expect that the answers he gives to questions will be identical.

very very well written piece by English. Saw through the excuses and bullshit. All they have to do is be quiet for a minute and Rangers' big bad plans to make them look bad are thwarted. But they wont, they will shame themselves again and try to blame everyone else bar the troglodydes who are at fault