Jump to content

A final farewell to David Murray


ElBufalo20

Recommended Posts

At last you're getting it. You ignore the fact that Walter quotes in the papers for the purpose of his own means. Walter's no laywer, neither am I. Nor is he a Director of RFC. So he can say what he likes in order to achieve his 'motivational' ends. You can't argue with the Legal position. Lloyds may have had a persuasive voice - but they never exerted dictatorial control over the running of the club. Everyone on the clubs board (I would wager) knew exactly what needed to be done.

Give it a rest Dart. There is a reality you are resisting for the sake of your posturing. And it makes you look a touch pathetic.

Well if my position makes me look "a touch pathertic"....heaven only knows what yours makes you look like. There is a familiar ricardoesque flavour to your posts....ie everyone is wrong bar you.

What is truly pathetic is that you are now discrediting Walter by suggesting his heartfelt concern for the club is purely for "his own means"

You can't argue with the Legal position. Lloyds may have had a persuasive voice - but they never exerted dictatorial control over the running of the club

You are right - you cant argue with the facts. And you know it. But pray tell us all....seeing as you have alluded to the fact "Walter is not a Director of RFC"...... how do you know they have never exerted dictatorial control over the running of the club ?

Or are you somehow privvy to knowledge about the running of our club...which Walter is not ??

Perhaps you have missed the content of what Smith...McCoist and even Bain have been saying in recent weeks...but it the "dictorial" buisiness plan the bank are imposing on the club which has caused the currrent furore.

In October, the club were told that they had to agree to the bank’s business plan, or administration would be an option. As The Herald revealed back then, that plan, according to those who viewed it with astonishment, would strangle the club.

It was ferociously contested, as chairman Alastair Johnston conceded at the AGM in December, as it only suited one party – the bank.

A vote was taken, with all those there mindful of the consequences. John McClelland, John Greig, Paul Murray and Dave King all voted against the bank’s plan, attempting to call the money men’s bluff. They did not think they would enforce the administration option, and hoped they would back down and agree to a more flexible plan that would allow Rangers to breathe. They wanted the club put first.

Donald Muir and Mike McGill, one of the Murray Group men who was elected to the board at the same time as Muir, voted in favour of the business plan. Martin Bain, the chief executive, and Donald McIntyre, Rangers’ financial controller, were the only two paid employees on the board and were acutely aware of the potential consequences had they not voted in favour. They had no choice. It stood at 4-4.

Johnston, only two months into his chairmanship, had to decide. He knew what the implications of administration would be – a crippling SPL points deduction and expulsion from the Champions League due to a breach of Uefa’s solvency rules. He was dead against the plan, but he could not gamble. He voted in favour and the plan was accepted by five votes to four.

Sounds pretty dictorial to me.

Okay, take a breath...

First of all - dictorial is not a word. Dictatorial however, is.

Secondly; can you remember what the original point of argument was?

I thought not.

You think Im some sort of SDM patsy and I think you're some sort of sexually frustrated hermaphrodite. So you hate SDM (while at the same time probably fantasizing about some kind of love tryst). I don't hate the guy. I don't like him either but that doesnt mean I have to agree with your distorted point of view.

Unlike you, I do have the maturity and common sense to recognise that he has presided over our best years domestically in all of our proud history.

That you can't accept this fact makes you look even smaller than you are.

If you want to keep slinging mud and making predictions about where we will end up as a result of SDM's ownership, then you go ahead buddy. It's like watching one of these fuckwit billboard holders on the street corner with their "THE END IS NIGH" messages clapped to their chest.

Most of your typing is coherent right enough, but I dread to think what you're like to listen to. I'd probably prefer to stand on Sauchiehall St listening to Daft Frankie the Shithead than your deluded pish.

All a matter of taste though.

BTW. None of your facts stack up. I know you think they do, but that's because you're a deluded, self-satisfied idiot. I don't have the time or patience to put you right. As the saying goes, "never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, take a breath...

First of all - dictorial is not a word. Dictatorial however, is.

Secondly; can you remember what the original point of argument was?

I thought not.

You think Im some sort of SDM patsy and I think you're some sort of sexually frustrated hermaphrodite. So you hate SDM (while at the same time probably fantasizing about some kind of love tryst). I don't hate the guy. I don't like him either but that doesnt mean I have to agree with your distorted point of view.

Unlike you, I do have the maturity and common sense to recognise that he has presided over our best years domestically in all of our proud history.

That you can't accept this fact makes you look even smaller than you are.

If you want to keep slinging mud and making predictions about where we will end up as a result of SDM's ownership, then you go ahead buddy. It's like watching one of these fuckwit billboard holders on the street corner with their "THE END IS NIGH" messages clapped to their chest.

Most of your typing is coherent right enough, but I dread to think what you're like to listen to. I'd probably prefer to stand on Sauchiehall St listening to Daft Frankie the Shithead than your deluded pish.

All a matter of taste though.

BTW. None of your facts stack up. I know you think they do, but that's because you're a deluded, self-satisfied idiot. I don't have the time or patience to put you right. As the saying goes, "never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Oh dear dear dear.

And to think you coined the phrase earlier "Literary wit".

However whilst it was mildly amusing for all of 3 seconds it was unfortunatley lacking in substance.

Its been a wonderful journey though this thread....initially you wished to blame our financial woes on the collapse of the worlds banking system....and when that didnt wash you have suggested any negative comments are based upon a hatred or a jealousy of SDM.

Remarkably Walter's insight into the financial plight of the club is not on a par with yours apparently...but of course Walter as you have highlighted....does not have access to the boardroom decisions....and anyway he is only making these comments out of self interest. :lol:doh

I notice however you declined to comment on the boardroom vote which has intiitiated a business plan which most agree will "strangle our club".

And contrary to your assertion I can remember the original point of the arguement. I will not lavish praise on SDM due to the financial mess he has left our club in.

Neither do I think you are some kind of SDM "patsy". That would be way to kind.

Id say you were more of a lap dog. Refusing to accept any criticism of your master and growling in an aggresive way at anyone who dares to have the temerity to criticise him...even when such criticism is factually based.

Your best effort at wit and sarcasm wont provide enough deflection from the facts when every day Bears can read about the financial plight of our club and when guys like Walter and Ally are repeatedly making statements expressing their grave concerns for the club. And not may I add out of self interest.

I will leave you with one question. Who do you think is running our club...the bank or SDM ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The club is in the dire financial position it is because the whole western economy is fucked as a result of the banking mess. Not because of SDM's management (although if he had a crystal ball then yes, you could have lobbed that at him too).

To blame SDM in the manner you are doing is ignorant and you know it - but you clearly have an agenda and the current plight the man in the street, the club, the nation and the global economy faces, clearly entitles you to think that you can pin the blame on the door of David Murray.

Pathetic.

So he overspent. So he overstretched himself and he's getting shafted for it now. And you want to stick the knife in even though he's paying for it personally. And then some.

You are contradicting yourself. Your second statement is correct and your first one is not. He overspent which resulted in our current problems. Nothing to do with the banking mess.

We had our lending limits agreed with the bank before the banking crisis. Our overspending occured before the banking crisis. It was the financial management of David Murray that took us to the limit of our banking facility last season. It was the financial management of David Murray that put the club at risk.

This was the second time under his stewardship that he has done that to us, and proved to the bank that they could not trust him to run the club and as such they were forced to step in and impose restrictions on us.

It's also the second time that he has walked away from his position when times got tough.

Sorry to burst your bubble Del, but you're clearly not understanding how this all works.

My First Statement WAS correct and so was my second. Let me spell it out for you:

1st point - Had the Banks NOT created this unholy mess, then SDM's underwritten borrowing for the club (currently £30m) would not have been called in to question and for it to be drawn down. The club is being shafted bythe Bank because the Bank unwittingly created the situation where they over-lent and then had to (almost) immediately call the money back in.

You still think that sounds like SDM's fault?

If so, I suggest you point that accusatory finger at yourself and every other person you know has a credit card, overdraft or mortgage. The banks have made us all culpable and guys like you that 'dont get it' make it easy for them to escape their responsibility.

When are guys going to wise up?

It's you who doesn't understand Rangers financial position. The club had been given a borrowing facility but were in the position that they could not operate without CL football coming in. That's why the bank were in during last season. SDM had shown that he could not manage the club within the financial constraints agreed with the bank, and we were probably outside our facility during last season before this season's season ticket money came in. Having seen Murray's previous empty promises about keeping the expenditure under control before, they would have stepped in whether there were economic problems or not.

Murray has not underwritten the borrowing and the bank have not reduced out lending limits. They are still the same terms as they were before the banking crisis. All they have done is ensure that we stick to within the limits previously agreed.

If people don't operate within their credit card limits or don't pay their mortgages than the banks take action in the same way as they have with Rangers. Are you trying to say that these people's problems are the bank's fault and they are blameless for not meeting their obbligations?

When are guys like you going to wise up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add that picking up people for their style of writing and their grammar and the need to start insulting them shows someone who feels they are losing an argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

im not getting involved in this argument

what i will say is that smith has contradicted himself in regards to our financial problems this season

back in october, the banks were running the club

then recently he has stated that the debt situation has been exaggerated

imo, the only person who has spoke the same line all season is AJ,

we know absolutely nothing of whats going on behind the scenes, but surely we should remain positive that we wont get ripped apart in the summer

as for murrays tenure, he has given us

13 titles at least, including 9iar (early morning, my mind isnt with it altogether)

numerous amounts of domestic trophies

that euro run in 93

gazza, laudrup, amongst others

manchester

last 16 of the champions league

Ibrox

murray park

the club is still here, murray HASNT ran us into the ground, we still have our stadium, our players (for which murray sanctioned the current debt levels to get), our training ground

would we have had 2 decades like that if murray hadnt taken over?, who knows

but the fact is murray DID give us the last 2 decades

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add that picking up people for their style of writing and their grammar and the need to start insulting them shows someone who feels they are losing an argument.

How many 'ands' do you need in a sentence ? :):sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt at all that David Murray has had a significant effect on Rangers, at one time, pre-EPL we were the biggest club in Britain, highest turnover, profit making and highest wage bill. He did not foresee the EPL explosion with which he tried (wrongly) to complete. I will never criticise him for showing ambiton, he gave us the magnificent club deck and for a long time with Campbell Ogilvie and Donald Findlay stood toe to toe with anyone that gave us shit. I applaud his attempt with PLG to do something different similar to when he brought Dick Advocaat.

Unfortunately I believe SDM has never forgiven the fans for not buying into his rights issue back when he took back over from John McLelland, having to take £50M onto his other companies pissed him off, he failed, imo, to understand the fans did not want to buy into something that gave them no control, SDM would still be the ONLY decision maker. For that he has tarnished his legacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add that picking up people for their style of writing and their grammar and the need to start insulting them shows someone who feels they are losing an argument.

How many 'ands' do you need in a sentence ? smile.gif10310.gif

And another thing, has Bluedell ever heard of a comma? boogie.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add that picking up people for their style of writing and their grammar and the need to start insulting them shows someone who feels they are losing an argument.

How many 'ands' do you need in a sentence ? smile.gif10310.gif

And another thing, has Bluedell ever heard of a comma? boogie.png

(tu) He obviously never used his Bradbury at school ! ;):sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also add that picking up people for their style of writing and their grammar and the need to start insulting them shows someone who feels they are losing an argument.

How many 'ands' do you need in a sentence ? smile.gif10310.gif

And another thing, has Bluedell ever heard of a comma? boogie.png

(tu) He obviously never used his Bradbury at school ! ;):sherlock:

:D

Just as well it wasnae me that wus critising spelling and grammar. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They must trust Sir David enough to heavily invest in his other businesses. We did overspend but if we didn't we wouldn't be having two in a row and sellck would have been at five by now.

I also don't think you can say with 100% certainty that the recent banking problems had nothing to do with the bank wanting to reduce our lending. Did we miss payments or actually go over our agreed borrowing limits ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt at all that David Murray has had a significant effect on Rangers, at one time, pre-EPL we were the biggest club in Britain, highest turnover, profit making and highest wage bill. He did not foresee the EPL explosion with which he tried (wrongly) to complete. I will never criticise him for showing ambiton, he gave us the magnificent club deck and for a long time with Campbell Ogilvie and Donald Findlay stood toe to toe with anyone that gave us shit. I applaud his attempt with PLG to do something different similar to when he brought Dick Advocaat.

Unfortunately I believe SDM has never forgiven the fans for not buying into his rights issue back when he took back over from John McLelland, having to take £50M onto his other companies pissed him off, he failed, imo, to understand the fans did not want to buy into something that gave them no control, SDM would still be the ONLY decision maker. For that he has tarnished his legacy.

I have always thought it was the price of the shares that put people off, i don't think he expected that large a take up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt at all that David Murray has had a significant effect on Rangers, at one time, pre-EPL we were the biggest club in Britain, highest turnover, profit making and highest wage bill. He did not foresee the EPL explosion with which he tried (wrongly) to complete. I will never criticise him for showing ambiton, he gave us the magnificent club deck and for a long time with Campbell Ogilvie and Donald Findlay stood toe to toe with anyone that gave us shit. I applaud his attempt with PLG to do something different similar to when he brought Dick Advocaat.

Unfortunately I believe SDM has never forgiven the fans for not buying into his rights issue back when he took back over from John McLelland, having to take £50M onto his other companies pissed him off, he failed, imo, to understand the fans did not want to buy into something that gave them no control, SDM would still be the ONLY decision maker. For that he has tarnished his legacy.

I have always thought it was the price of the shares that put people off, i don't think he expected that large a take up.

GCL, I knew guys willing to put in thousands but felt we were bailing SDM out rather than for the good of the club, they wanted SDM to have less autonomy, but he was not giving that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They must trust Sir David enough to heavily invest in his other businesses. We did overspend but if we didn't we wouldn't be having two in a row and sellck would have been at five by now.

I also don't think you can say with 100% certainty that the recent banking problems had nothing to do with the bank wanting to reduce our lending. Did we miss payments or actually go over our agreed borrowing limits ?

im sure someone said somewhere on here that we have a 25million long term loan, plus a slight overdraft which we had to pay back for a certain time (hence the no purchase of players for 18months etc)

murray speculated to accumulate after the kaunas disaster (smiths fault imo), without that we'd never have won the league last year and fuck knows what position we'd be in now

everyone claims we've had no new players in 18months, considering we had a first team squad of almost 30 players when edu signed, its no fucking wonder,

A scottish club cannot afford a first team squad of that many highly paid players, hence why we cut it down

apart from our wee injury crisis this season (for 3-4 weeks really), our matchday squad was miles better than everything else in the SPL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the good times!!! Who else could have brought the likes of gazza and laudrup and to our club. overseen 9 in a row with continuing investment, the return of Walter Smith,

SDM we can only be grateful for all the good that was brought to the club, and praise has to be given to the man. I doubt many other people or chairmen or owners of rangers fc could have done what i have mentioned above.

For all the SDM haters, what makes you think it will be better under any a new owner.... The finiancial situation is not gonna improve just because we get a new owner. What new owner is going to spend his own cash on a club that struggles to support itself. Yes there will be intial investment, but in 5 or 6 years what will we all be saying... lets just say i dont think it will be all rosy under new ownership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems that more people agree with me than the likes of the dark tanned yin.

some people are just never happy with their lot, we may have to say goodbye to SDM to realise just what we had.

I am also willing to bet that the likes of the dark tanned yin and his ilk would be on here digging up stories and making complaints REGARDLESS of who owns the club.

anyway, watp! giutrot!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if he leaves us in good hands then on balance he will have been good for the club.

To be fair PLG could easily have been a new beginning and it wasn't really Murray's fault it didn't work out

thats too fucking sensible in this arguement

you either need to hate the "bastard" for ruining this once proud club, leaving us on our knees, generally making us SOOOO fucked that we can only win the league by 11 points (currently) :rolleyes:

or

you need to defend the "hero" of the club to the hilt, deflect any blame he may be due onto ANYTHING else, fuck we'd be takenover by now but the multi-billionaire arab consortium led by ellis was due to fly in recently, only for the ash cloud to scupper that and they got bored waiting and decided to instead gamble all their money on the dubai races :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

They must trust Sir David enough to heavily invest in his other businesses. We did overspend but if we didn't we wouldn't be having two in a row and sellck would have been at five by now.

I also don't think you can say with 100% certainty that the recent banking problems had nothing to do with the bank wanting to reduce our lending. Did we miss payments or actually go over our agreed borrowing limits ?

Invest heavily? They have been forced to swap debt for equity and how much would you trust someone if they force you into that position?

If we hadn't won the league last season, which was thanks as much to Celtic underspending as it was to us overspending, then what state would we have been in this season?

Nobody can say for sure whether we went over our borrowing limits but I did an article on here 16 months ago which suggested that we possibly would have, and given the bank's approach, it also suggests that we did. Oh, and do the bank want to reduce our lending?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They must trust Sir David enough to heavily invest in his other businesses. We did overspend but if we didn't we wouldn't be having two in a row and sellck would have been at five by now.

I also don't think you can say with 100% certainty that the recent banking problems had nothing to do with the bank wanting to reduce our lending. Did we miss payments or actually go over our agreed borrowing limits ?

Invest heavily? They have been forced to swap debt for equity and how much would you trust someone if they force you into that position?

If we hadn't won the league last season, which was thanks as much to Celtic underspending as it was to us overspending, then what state would we have been in this season?

Nobody can say for sure whether we went over our borrowing limits but I did an article on here 16 months ago which suggested that we possibly would have, and given the bank's approach, it also suggests that we did. Oh, and do the bank want to reduce our lending?

theres the focal point of the argument

e were up aainst a celtic squad that had just, for all intents purposes, won 3iar

and while we took it too the last day and had manchester in their 3iar year, everyone knew the suad wasnt that good, and then kaunas happened

imagine we had beaten kaunas and then aalborg, we peobably wouldnt even be sitting here talking about how fucked the finances are apparently

so even though the club had just lost that CL windfall, murray decided to sanction the going of further into debt, so we could improve the squad as smith seen fit

thanks to that we have 2iar, and 2 consecutive champions league windfalls,

Link to post
Share on other sites

They must trust Sir David enough to heavily invest in his other businesses. We did overspend but if we didn't we wouldn't be having two in a row and sellck would have been at five by now.

I also don't think you can say with 100% certainty that the recent banking problems had nothing to do with the bank wanting to reduce our lending. Did we miss payments or actually go over our agreed borrowing limits ?

Invest heavily? They have been forced to swap debt for equity and how much would you trust someone if they force you into that position?

If we hadn't won the league last season, which was thanks as much to Celtic underspending as it was to us overspending, then what state would we have been in this season?

Nobody can say for sure whether we went over our borrowing limits but I did an article on here 16 months ago which suggested that we possibly would have, and given the bank's approach, it also suggests that we did. Oh, and do the bank want to reduce our lending?

theres the focal point of the argument

e were up aainst a celtic squad that had just, for all intents purposes, won 3iar

and while we took it too the last day and had manchester in their 3iar year, everyone knew the suad wasnt that good, and then kaunas happened

imagine we had beaten kaunas and then aalborg, we peobably wouldnt even be sitting here talking about how fucked the finances are apparently

so even though the club had just lost that CL windfall, murray decided to sanction the going of further into debt, so we could improve the squad as smith seen fit

thanks to that we have 2iar, and 2 consecutive champions league windfalls,

I think we need to look further back than the Manchester UEFA run year when we discuss Murray's legacy - we've been up to our armpits in huge amounts of debt since the start of the new millennium - amounts that were and still are unsustainable within Scottish football.

That's just Murray's financial legacy - I could run another thread on his PR legacy and how he's let us become the Scottish media's plaything.

We've been bitch-slapped in the Press, Radio and TV for much of Murray's tenure thanks to his turn-the-other-cheek attitude.

It can only be hoped that the new kid on the Custodial block will fight our corner and take none of the shit Murray allowed during his time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to look further back than the Manchester UEFA run year when we discuss Murray's legacy - we've been up to our armpits in huge amounts of debt since the start of the new millennium - amounts that were and still are unsustainable within Scottish football.

That's just Murray's financial legacy - I could run another thread on his PR legacy and how he's let us become the Scottish media's plaything.

We've been bitch-slapped in the Press, Radio and TV for much of Murray's tenure thanks to his turn-the-other-cheek attitude.

It can only be hoped that the new kid on the Custodial block will fight our corner and take none of the shit Murray allowed during his time.

fair enough CB, but even murrays second decade hasnt been a total disaster

havent we won 4 titles out of 6

euro final

last 16 of champions league

numerous euro after xmas campaigns

numerous domestic honours

being as financially stricken as we have been, thats still a good achievement

as for the PR part, as long as were winning trophies and sticking 2 fingers up at every person against us in the media etc, then surely thats good enough

reid, lawwell, media, other fans, other clubs, UEFA, etc

they have all had their shots at our club

yet were sitting here as 2iar champions, guaranteed entry into the group stages of the champions league, and hopefully about to witness the dawn of a new era of rangers dominance of scottish football

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...