glasgowrangersno1

Just listened to the podcast. Spoke very well in my opinion on a number of issues. The glaring issue for me though, is this: The Board deliberately tried to prevent the petitioners from gaining a fair vote at the AGM. The question is: Why would they want to stop a fair vote? What are they worried about?

Which is exactly why it we would be better that guys who are Rangers fans run the club. Why would Dave King or Jim McColl need to take money from Rangers? They are worth hundreds of millions.

King's not going to say 'I'm backing Paul Murray' when he's making a statement via the official site is he? Have a think about it. I said the other day(and was shot down in flames) I have a strong feeling that King saying 'I have my own private thoughts on it' means he would prefer Murray etc on the board.

Wasn't he one of the people saying Whyte was no good and none of us listened? Try not to make your argument totally one sided. Agree with the last line.

You are correct. People lose sight of the fact that it's Rangers who need to 'win' here. Let's see what happens at the AGM, the end of this is nigh.

Whatever you think of the guy, he's not going to be that brazen, I'm 99% sure it will be true.

A lot of people don't seem to be worried that the current board were so desparate to avoid this.

Not at all, if u have a valid reason I can live with that but to me a lot of people just jump on the bandwagon, similar to what FF is critized for.

Should be interesting to hear. Maybe some of the 'haters' should listen to what he actually says rather than just hating him for no real reason.

No one should be angry with the petitioners about this in my opinion. Whether you like or dislike any one of them they have shown the board up here. We must now get the AGM rescheduled and vote on who we think is best for the club.

If you've got broadband aye, but that's about a tenner a month.

I never said it did. I asked a question about it being more than 5% and you dived in with your predictable 'you've got agenda' bollocks. You are clearly incapable of having a discussion without resorting to childish nonsense.

And that's all that matters?

By that logic we should have kept Malcolm Murray, Charles Green and Imran Ahmad aswell because they were part of that too? I can't answer the Paul Murray because I'm not particularly fussed on him specifically.

Rap the pish, it's boring. Knew I hadn't made it up: In a statement, a spokesman for the requisitioners said: "We embarked on this exercise seven weeks ago at the request of shareholders speaking for 28% of the club's shares. http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/rangers-shareholders-claim-clubs-broker-blocked-compromise-agreement-with-current-dir.1379068511?_=aced6dedd8203df3cb3d81f46c263fd71b7b3e48

I thought the petitioners/requesitioners represented some of the large institutional investors?

You could well be right, I don't really take too much from what these guys say because they can't speak for all Gers fans.

Lies mate, he said Man Utd wanted us there, Man Utd denied it. He said he had an email and never showed it. Anyway it's not my intention to bash Charles Green, he's gone but you asked why it was a negative.

Not a fan of his either. He showed he was weak and allowed himself to be bullied by Green and co.

Carried away and lying as a clubs CEO are 2 different things. I liked Charles Green for a while but too many tall tales caught up with him so, for me, the trust is gone for him and his cronies.

Minor issues but he made outlandish statements about both and was contradicted, was he not?

Not really! I couldn't believe the hatred! :o

Racist comments Boardroom leaks Lies about link ups(Dallas cowboys) Lies about EPL(that Man Utd wanted us there) Ridiculous bonuses I cannot trust them, unless we have guys(more than just King) on board to watch their every move.

It's always been the case on forums that if you're not slating someone then you must like him. Couldn't give a fuck either way on Dingwall but some off the stuff people post is worse then I've seen said about Lennon.

Of course it does, his position isn't really up for debate though and he's taken a wage cut also.