Jump to content

The Murray Debate.


Creampuff
 Share

  

316 members have voted

  1. 1. Was SDM a Good Chairman of Rangers?

    • Yes
      282
    • No
      34


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are very few if any Rangers fans that will argue that Murray's first decade was nothing but a success.

However, the financial mistakes and mismanagement made during the Advocaat era, and the subsequent running of the club in the period since, has been nothing short of a disaster.

So from me he gets a massive thumbs up until the summer of 2000, and a massive thumbs down for the period since.

Dont get me wrong, he made mistakes during the first period, and he got some things right in the second period, but generally, you have to split his chairmanship into two to get a proper perspective on it.

If he had left after Advocaat's second season in the summer of 2000, he would probably have a shout at being our greatest ever chairman. Unfortunately, in the 9 seasons since he is probably our worst ever chairman. Financial meltdown twice in 9 years is mismanagement of a scale never before seen in our history, and we have been through World Wars, recessions, depressions, complete stadium rebuildings, and moving our home, but never have we been so badly run financially than we have this last nine years.

So thank you for your first decade, Mr Former Chairman, and I hope for your sake in many decades to come it is that time that is more prominent in fans memory than the last decade of your ownership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

who's the 4 that voted no?

stand up and state your reasons you treasonous traitors lol

murray gave us 9iar, for that alone i thank you Sir david murray

I am one who voted "no", and happy to stand up and declare it as so.

My post above points out some of the reasons for this.

And I am probably just biting a huge fish-hook but, can I just remind to you that we were already on our way to "9" before he took over, and that the scum were 30 minutes from closure during that period, so were hardly a threat to us for some of those seasons, our nearest challengers were Motherwell. And forgive me, but I cannot remember Murray ever kicking a ball or sourcing a player during that period, albeit he did spend our money wisely during that period, on Souness's or Smith's say so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

who's the 4 that voted no?

stand up and state your reasons you treasonous traitors lol

murray gave us 9iar, for that alone i thank you Sir david murray

I am one who voted "no", and happy to stand up and declare it as so.

My post above points out some of the reasons for this.

And I am probably just biting a huge fish-hook but, can I just remind to you that we were already on our way to "9" before he took over, and that the scum were 30 minutes from closure during that period, so were hardly a threat to us for some of those seasons, our nearest challengers were Motherwell. And forgive me, but I cannot remember Murray ever kicking a ball or sourcing a player during that period, albeit he did spend our money wisely during that period, on Souness's or Smith's say so.

Easy now ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are very few if any Rangers fans that will argue that Murray's first decade was nothing but a success.

However, the financial mistakes and mismanagement made during the Advocaat era, and the subsequent running of the club in the period since, has been nothing short of a disaster.

So from me he gets a massive thumbs up until the summer of 2000, and a massive thumbs down for the period since.

Dont get me wrong, he made mistakes during the first period, and he got some things right in the second period, but generally, you have to split his chairmanship into two to get a proper perspective on it.

If he had left after Advocaat's second season in the summer of 2000, he would probably have a shout at being our greatest ever chairman. Unfortunately, in the 9 seasons since he is probably our worst ever chairman. Financial meltdown twice in 9 years is mismanagement of a scale never before seen in our history, and we have been through World Wars, recessions, depressions, complete stadium rebuildings, and moving our home, but never have we been so badly run financially than we have this last nine years.

So thank you for your first decade, Mr Former Chairman, and I hope for your sake in many decades to come it is that time that is more prominent in fans memory than the last decade of your ownership.

:clap: hard to disagree with that. Should be another option in the poll perhaps.

Voting no, probably shows that, while he was good, and did a good job in the beginning, if you look where we are as a club now, that has to be deemed a failure

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, obviously 9iar has a big part to play.

But even in the lat 10 years there has been some good times league and cup wins and the European nights. Also some of the players that have been at the club during the last 10 yrs, Prso De Boer, Van Bronkhorst, Arteta, Boumsong, Cuellar etc etc.

BUt it's a new regime now and one i'm looking forward to seeing how it all unfurls :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it fair to look at where the club was when Murray took over and where it is now as a fair reflection of his tenure?

1988: Very little debt, club had a team with a lot of international class players, we were well clear in the race for our second title in 3 years, our stadium was recognised as one of the most modern and beautiful in Europe, we had see-outs every week.

2009: Fill it in yourself, we all know where we are financially, in squad terms, in stadia, and the only constant is we, the fans, are still selling the place out week in week out.

It is probably a little unfair to just skip the 20 years in between, both to his supporters and detractors, but at the end of any era, the starting and end points are taken as factors in determining if the club has moved on, and I would suggest they are probably more critical than kind to the now "Former Chairman"

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am probably just biting a huge fish-hook but, can I just remind to you that we were already on our way to "9" before he took over, and that the scum were 30 minutes from closure during that period, so were hardly a threat to us for some of those seasons, our nearest challengers were Motherwell. And forgive me, but I cannot remember Murray ever kicking a ball or sourcing a player during that period, albeit he did spend our money wisely during that period, on Souness's or Smith's say so.

we werent really on the way to 9 if you think about it, murray just didnt appear during 5 or 6 in a row

and as for having no competition, i would argue that its because murray financed a far better team than anywhere else in scotland

fair play to him for doing that

he could have said after 3iar or 4iar "right lads, we humped the rest, no cash as its fucking too easy"

and its not just the on field success we should applaud, look at the magnificaent stadium that we have, training ground etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am probably just biting a huge fish-hook but, can I just remind to you that we were already on our way to "9" before he took over, and that the scum were 30 minutes from closure during that period, so were hardly a threat to us for some of those seasons, our nearest challengers were Motherwell. And forgive me, but I cannot remember Murray ever kicking a ball or sourcing a player during that period, albeit he did spend our money wisely during that period, on Souness's or Smith's say so.

we werent really on the way to 9 if you think about it, murray just didnt appear during 5 or 6 in a row

and as for having no competition, i would argue that its because murray financed a far better team than anywhere else in scotland

fair play to him for doing that

he could have said after 3iar or 4iar "right lads, we humped the rest, no cash as its fucking too easy"

and its not just the on field success we should applaud, look at the magnificaent stadium that we have, training ground etc

I am well aware that it was early days in the 9IAR story, but the way it is put about sometimes suggests we had no chance of any title until he came to the club, never mind 9!

Murray did not finance the team during that era, you and I did. There was no major investment of capital, outwith the club deck which cost so much more than any similar projects elsewhere in sporting stadia, in the team other than the year to year income from ST sales, commercial deals etc, and Murray getting some pals to put in some cash, for which he gets credit. The training ground was forced on him by Advocaat, who would not come to Rangers without that promise.

Anyway, all the things you mention come from the period up to the summer of 2000, for which I have given Murray continued praise.

Can you list a similar roll of honour for the last 9 years? That is where the criticism of Murray comes from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...