SDM and the Presidents Role

[caseyjones 3,009]

Good God....

Some arguments just wont quit.....

David Murray came in to Rangers, continued the revolution that had been kicked off when Souness was brought in and provided the leadership that wound up with 9 in a row. He might not have personally paid for it but he took a hand in it that you, me and any other Rangers supporter would liked to have done, if we were lucky enough to have the means....

He had never been a football man and he was never a Rangers man....

He took the club on for reasons only he can communicate but probably won't because his detractors will only call him a liar anyway. As an independent, non football, non Rangers, business man he set about to tackle an element of our support that he felt needed tackled... his detractors will disagree.... he also maintained his business characteristics and made sure that a lot of the contracts being awarded by Rangers went to other group companies thus keeping the money "in-house" among his business empire... he has not asset stripped the club otherwise people wouldn't be looking to acquire it... by directing such contracts he was of course looking after his own interests, he was entitled to do so.

He was partially responsible for breaking down barriers by sanctioning the signing of Mo Johnston and he will have alienated an element of the support in so doing

He has been woeful at defending the club against character assassinations probably largely due to his belief that some of those attacks were somehow justified and partly due to him trying to observe some sort of dignified silence. He should have defended our rights to sing some songs and he should have challenged outright lies that were told.... However no-one can expect him to come out and defend "ftp's" and make any statements on terrorism in NI.

He is undoubtedly guilty of financial mis-management of the club but how any supporter can not sympathize with that is beyond me. He clearly believed that by speculating (with the clubs, money not his own) he could accumulate... the revolution he was party to along with Souness was fuelled by the English clubs being banned from European competition and being able to sign big English names.... then when the premiership was in its infancy he obviously believed he could continue to compete at that level and spent to try and keep up.... that the EPL left us in their dust was hugely unfortunate but given that we were one of the driving forces behind the Champion League format he perhaps clung to the hope that this would provide the vehicle to feed our hungry finances..... alas, it too, left us in its wake....

Rangers current plight is entirely down to Murray's reckless spending, but his reckless spending only appears reckless with hindsight.and who is not an expert with the benefit of hindsight. He took over in the "loadsamoney" years of excess in the late 80's.... his ego fuelled ambition continued it through the nineties and the last ten years have been consolidation....

My opinion, is that he has been disappointing as a chairmen on a number of levels and he has held the chair during some of our most successful years, as long people try to polarize his contribution into "he gave as 20 years of success" or "he has lead us to financial ruin" then this discussion will go round and round. It always seems to be the same on here, you are either a Murray Hater or a Murray lapdog, life is just not that black and white.

There have been many people who have contributed to our successes and to our failures.... the Managers who gratefully spent the big money, the managers who worked on a budget, the players who were paid the money and did little to justify it and the ones who shone, the country in which we are destined to compete and the man who was at the helm the whole time...

However what seems to have been overlooked, is that this Presidency talk was not started by the fans, nor by David Murray. Rather it was started by our potential new owner. Who has looked through the figures and has carried out in depth analysis of our finances and of our assets and of our commercial history. He seems to feel that Murray deserves to be honoured and surely that must say something about what he has found during the due diligence?

Murray has been an average chairman and owner, he is about to be an ex-owner and I personally see no benefit to anyone for him to be bestowed with any honorary title. Onward and Upwards

A very well-balanced piece.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

The squad was still far better than Kaunas and I would imagine they wanted guaranteed European money before spending, winning those games would have given them that. When lost we sold cuellar and spent money...I presume this was plan B

Hardly an outrageous strategy

Slur David Moonbeam is on record as saying that they (Rangers FC) budgeted for a season "without" European money/earnings being thrown into the equation......so why, after being knocked out of this tourney that he claimed not to need the funds from, did he (or Smith?) feel it necessary to flog Cuellar?

Something smells fishy in the state of Denmark.

He said a alot of things that may have been true at the time but weren't years later......so sue him.....

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

I agree with that last paragraph by Bakbear - Murray merits no such honour.

Anyway, why do I have this feeling that it would be something the Taigs would do, i.e., offering a Presidency to someone.

No, No and thrice 'No' to Taigery in any shape or form.

I seriosuly doubt it will happen or that he would want it anyway.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

A very well-balanced piece.

The whitrafukk is he doing on this thread??

(Only kidding)

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

The squad was still far better than Kaunas and I would imagine they wanted guaranteed European money before spending, winning those games would have given them that. When lost we sold cuellar and spent money...I presume this was plan B

Hardly an outrageous strategy

Slur David Moonbeam is on record as saying that they (Rangers FC) budgeted for a season "without" European money/earnings being thrown into the equation......so why, after being knocked out of this tourney that he claimed not to need the funds from, did he (or Smith?) feel it necessary to flog Cuellar?

Something smells fishy in the state of Denmark.

He said a alot of things that may have been true at the time but weren't years later......so sue him.....

His legal team consists of several QC's and a room full of solicitors - I get my legal advice at the local library.

It's called "AN UNFAIR FIGHT!"

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

[Bluedell 14]

The squad was still far better than Kaunas and I would imagine they wanted guaranteed European money before spending, winning those games would have given them that. When lost we sold cuellar and spent money...I presume this was plan B

Hardly an outrageous strategy

Slur David Moonbeam is on record as saying that they (Rangers FC) budgeted for a season "without" European money/earnings being thrown into the equation......so why, after being knocked out of this tourney that he claimed not to need the funds from, did he (or Smith?) feel it necessary to flog Cuellar?

Something smells fishy in the state of Denmark.

Coz the budget that had us getting knocked out of Europe in the first round showed us selling Cuellar.

[lewisrfc93 470]

IMO he deserves it.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

No, I don't think that he should be given the title.

If the title is meaningless then what is the point? I would like to see a slimmed-down well-run club in the future with everyone involved playing a full part with no hangers-on.

He is unwilling to be a non-executive director at the moment so I fail to see what giving him the position would achieve.

It's a moot point anyway as I don't believe he would be willing to accept the position.

I suspect Dell that it is an attempt by Ellis to ingratiate himself with the fans. He obviously knows there is some suspicion as to his takeover, given his previous track record, and he thinks the retaining of both SDM and Walter will guarantee some stability and assurance for the fans.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

My opinion, is that he has been disappointing as a chairmen on a number of levels and he has held the chair during some of our most successful years, as long people try to polarize his contribution into "he gave as 20 years of success" or "he has lead us to financial ruin" then this discussion will go round and round. It always seems to be the same on here, you are either a Murray Hater or a Murray lapdog, life is just not that black and white.

One of the best paragraphs I have read on here Bak.

Far too many people polarise the debate - criticism of SDM does not make you a Murray hater - neither does praising some of the good things make you a Murray afficiando.

There is a place in the middle where guys like myself sit (not the fence !) where we can criticise his financial recklessness but recognise he genuinely felt he was doing the best for our club.

[damien1 29]

Undeserving IMO

[polar bear 0]

My opinion, is that he has been disappointing as a chairmen on a number of levels and he has held the chair during some of our most successful years, as long people try to polarize his contribution into "he gave as 20 years of success" or "he has lead us to financial ruin" then this discussion will go round and round. It always seems to be the same on here, you are either a Murray Hater or a Murray lapdog, life is just not that black and white.

One of the best paragraphs I have read on here Bak.

Far too many people polarise the debate - criticism of SDM does not make you a Murray hater - neither does praising some of the good things make you a Murray afficiando.

There is a place in the middle where guys like myself sit (not the fence !) where we can criticise his financial recklessness but recognise he genuinely felt he was doing the best for our club.

I'm with you 'D'Artagnan.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

I'd like to give him this parting message.

(Ahem) "Don't catch yer' arse on the door Dave as you leave the building."

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Good God....

Some arguments just wont quit.....

David Murray came in to Rangers, continued the revolution that had been kicked off when Souness was brought in and provided the leadership that wound up with 9 in a row. He might not have personally paid for it but he took a hand in it that you, me and any other Rangers supporter would liked to have done, if we were lucky enough to have the means....

He had never been a football man and he was never a Rangers man....

He took the club on for reasons only he can communicate but probably won't because his detractors will only call him a liar anyway. As an independent, non football, non Rangers, business man he set about to tackle an element of our support that he felt needed tackled... his detractors will disagree.... he also maintained his business characteristics and made sure that a lot of the contracts being awarded by Rangers went to other group companies thus keeping the money "in-house" among his business empire... he has not asset stripped the club otherwise people wouldn't be looking to acquire it... by directing such contracts he was of course looking after his own interests, he was entitled to do so.

He was partially responsible for breaking down barriers by sanctioning the signing of Mo Johnston and he will have alienated an element of the support in so doing

He has been woeful at defending the club against character assassinations probably largely due to his belief that some of those attacks were somehow justified and partly due to him trying to observe some sort of dignified silence. He should have defended our rights to sing some songs and he should have challenged outright lies that were told.... However no-one can expect him to come out and defend "ftp's" and make any statements on terrorism in NI.

He is undoubtedly guilty of financial mis-management of the club but how any supporter can not sympathize with that is beyond me. He clearly believed that by speculating (with the clubs, money not his own) he could accumulate... the revolution he was party to along with Souness was fuelled by the English clubs being banned from European competition and being able to sign big English names.... then when the premiership was in its infancy he obviously believed he could continue to compete at that level and spent to try and keep up.... that the EPL left us in their dust was hugely unfortunate but given that we were one of the driving forces behind the Champion League format he perhaps clung to the hope that this would provide the vehicle to feed our hungry finances..... alas, it too, left us in its wake....

Rangers current plight is entirely down to Murray's reckless spending, but his reckless spending only appears reckless with hindsight.and who is not an expert with the benefit of hindsight. He took over in the "loadsamoney" years of excess in the late 80's.... his ego fuelled ambition continued it through the nineties and the last ten years have been consolidation....

My opinion, is that he has been disappointing as a chairmen on a number of levels and he has held the chair during some of our most successful years, as long people try to polarize his contribution into "he gave as 20 years of success" or "he has lead us to financial ruin" then this discussion will go round and round. It always seems to be the same on here, you are either a Murray Hater or a Murray lapdog, life is just not that black and white.

There have been many people who have contributed to our successes and to our failures.... the Managers who gratefully spent the big money, the managers who worked on a budget, the players who were paid the money and did little to justify it and the ones who shone, the country in which we are destined to compete and the man who was at the helm the whole time...

However what seems to have been overlooked, is that this Presidency talk was not started by the fans, nor by David Murray. Rather it was started by our potential new owner. Who has looked through the figures and has carried out in depth analysis of our finances and of our assets and of our commercial history. He seems to feel that Murray deserves to be honoured and surely that must say something about what he has found during the due diligence?

Murray has been an average chairman and owner, he is about to be an ex-owner and I personally see no benefit to anyone for him to be bestowed with any honorary title. Onward and Upwards

A very well-balanced piece.

... apart from the fact that it was missed out the amount of Money that was put in to clear the initial rounds of debt (£50M) from him and his groups of companies.

Also 20 years is a long time never to have made mistakes and also given our sucess, never to have got some things right.

I dont rember much critisism of his spending tillafter football changed and the anticipated TV money did NOT come our way.

20 years is a long time, and while I am an SDM 'suppporter' I am far from thinking everything he done was perfect, but on balance (for me) he has done enough to warrant this proposed honour. (One thing always made me nervous about any one man propping up losses in the club was what would happen in a downturn! - we survived! Portsmouth are barely alive, West Ham were 'lucky' their new owners took over, Leeds crashed SDM brought us 6 trophies and looked for new owners)

[outlaw69uk 123]

Good God....

Some arguments just wont quit.....

David Murray came in to Rangers, continued the revolution that had been kicked off when Souness was brought in and provided the leadership that wound up with 9 in a row. He might not have personally paid for it but he took a hand in it that you, me and any other Rangers supporter would liked to have done, if we were lucky enough to have the means....

He had never been a football man and he was never a Rangers man....

He took the club on for reasons only he can communicate but probably won't because his detractors will only call him a liar anyway. As an independent, non football, non Rangers, business man he set about to tackle an element of our support that he felt needed tackled... his detractors will disagree.... he also maintained his business characteristics and made sure that a lot of the contracts being awarded by Rangers went to other group companies thus keeping the money "in-house" among his business empire... he has not asset stripped the club otherwise people wouldn't be looking to acquire it... by directing such contracts he was of course looking after his own interests, he was entitled to do so.

He was partially responsible for breaking down barriers by sanctioning the signing of Mo Johnston and he will have alienated an element of the support in so doing

He has been woeful at defending the club against character assassinations probably largely due to his belief that some of those attacks were somehow justified and partly due to him trying to observe some sort of dignified silence. He should have defended our rights to sing some songs and he should have challenged outright lies that were told.... However no-one can expect him to come out and defend "ftp's" and make any statements on terrorism in NI.

He is undoubtedly guilty of financial mis-management of the club but how any supporter can not sympathize with that is beyond me. He clearly believed that by speculating (with the clubs, money not his own) he could accumulate... the revolution he was party to along with Souness was fuelled by the English clubs being banned from European competition and being able to sign big English names.... then when the premiership was in its infancy he obviously believed he could continue to compete at that level and spent to try and keep up.... that the EPL left us in their dust was hugely unfortunate but given that we were one of the driving forces behind the Champion League format he perhaps clung to the hope that this would provide the vehicle to feed our hungry finances..... alas, it too, left us in its wake....

Rangers current plight is entirely down to Murray's reckless spending, but his reckless spending only appears reckless with hindsight.and who is not an expert with the benefit of hindsight. He took over in the "loadsamoney" years of excess in the late 80's.... his ego fuelled ambition continued it through the nineties and the last ten years have been consolidation....

My opinion, is that he has been disappointing as a chairmen on a number of levels and he has held the chair during some of our most successful years, as long people try to polarize his contribution into "he gave as 20 years of success" or "he has lead us to financial ruin" then this discussion will go round and round. It always seems to be the same on here, you are either a Murray Hater or a Murray lapdog, life is just not that black and white.

There have been many people who have contributed to our successes and to our failures.... the Managers who gratefully spent the big money, the managers who worked on a budget, the players who were paid the money and did little to justify it and the ones who shone, the country in which we are destined to compete and the man who was at the helm the whole time...

However what seems to have been overlooked, is that this Presidency talk was not started by the fans, nor by David Murray. Rather it was started by our potential new owner. Who has looked through the figures and has carried out in depth analysis of our finances and of our assets and of our commercial history. He seems to feel that Murray deserves to be honoured and surely that must say something about what he has found during the due diligence?

Murray has been an average chairman and owner, he is about to be an ex-owner and I personally see no benefit to anyone for him to be bestowed with any honorary title. Onward and Upwards

A very well-balanced piece.

... apart from the fact that it was missed out the amount of Money that was put in to clear the initial rounds of debt (£50M) from him and his groups of companies.

His companies, not him And, that was due to the fine mess that his recklessness had got us into in the first place

Also 20 years is a long time never to have made mistakes and also given our sucess, never to have got some things right.

I dont rember much critisism of his spending tillafter football changed and the anticipated TV money did NOT come our way.

20 years is a long time, and while I am an SDM 'suppporter' I am far from thinking everything he done was perfect, but on balance (for me) he has done enough to warrant this proposed honour. (One thing always made me nervous about any one man propping up losses in the club was what would happen in a downturn! - we survived! Portsmouth are barely alive, West Ham were 'lucky' their new owners took over, Leeds crashed SDM brought us 6 trophies and looked for new owners)

Just to anotate

[Bakbear 3,586]

... apart from the fact that it was missed out the amount of Money that was put in to clear the initial rounds of debt (£50M) from him and his groups of companies.

Also 20 years is a long time never to have made mistakes and also given our sucess, never to have got some things right.

I dont rember much critisism of his spending tillafter football changed and the anticipated TV money did NOT come our way.

20 years is a long time, and while I am an SDM 'suppporter' I am far from thinking everything he done was perfect, but on balance (for me) he has done enough to warrant this proposed honour. (One thing always made me nervous about any one man propping up losses in the club was what would happen in a downturn! - we survived! Portsmouth are barely alive, West Ham were 'lucky' their new owners took over, Leeds crashed SDM brought us 6 trophies and looked for new owners)

As Outlaw says, I am not sure that is a fact that he put any of his own personal money in to clear debt? If he did then I stand corrected, if he has put in cash from his personal wealth that he subsequently is not ever going to see again then fair play to him... he is not the only one to have done this is he? Dave King invest some money, as have others in the last 20 years... however none of Murrays successes nor his failures should be looked at in isolation.

I have mentioned that he has made mistakes and that some of them are perfectly understandable, he has also made some rather contentious mistakes that some may not be willing to forgive. That is their right as well. My view remains that on balance he has been a pretty average chairman, he has not been the villain and he has not been the hero that many try to portray him as.

You are absolutely bang on, 20 years is a long time and a hell of a lot goes on in that time.... the situation cannot be boiled down to good guy and wank....

Everyone has an opinion and mine is that there is no need for an honorary position of President.... doesn't matter who the candidate is... I am a huge fan of Walter Smith but if Ellis proposed to make Smith the Honorary president I would still be against it

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

I'd have Murray aboard in that position any day before Greig.

[*Manticore* 1,893]

For his contribution to Rangers FC Sir David Murray should get the full Presidential treatment.

Like Lincoln and Kennedy.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

For his contribution to Rangers FC Sir David Murray should get the full Presidential treatment.

Like Lincoln and Kennedy.

Cue Lee Harvey Cotswold defenders attacking Manticore.

[jimgers 565]

For his contribution to Rangers FC Sir David Murray should get the full Presidential treatment.

Like Lincoln and Kennedy.

Cue Lee Harvey Cotswold defenders attacking Manticore.

Sad to say this, but that is a accurate analogy Canadian, unfortunately this time the Gunman on the grassy knoll has a Rangers top on with champions 53 on the back.

[minstral 5,375]

Was just thinking to myself about all the Murray Babies going on about all the money he has invested. But i notice that they dont mention all the other investors that put millions into our club, Joe Lewis for a start.

[caseyjones 3,009]

Good God....

Some arguments just wont quit.....

David Murray came in to Rangers, continued the revolution that had been kicked off when Souness was brought in and provided the leadership that wound up with 9 in a row. He might not have personally paid for it but he took a hand in it that you, me and any other Rangers supporter would liked to have done, if we were lucky enough to have the means....

He had never been a football man and he was never a Rangers man....

He took the club on for reasons only he can communicate but probably won't because his detractors will only call him a liar anyway. As an independent, non football, non Rangers, business man he set about to tackle an element of our support that he felt needed tackled... his detractors will disagree.... he also maintained his business characteristics and made sure that a lot of the contracts being awarded by Rangers went to other group companies thus keeping the money "in-house" among his business empire... he has not asset stripped the club otherwise people wouldn't be looking to acquire it... by directing such contracts he was of course looking after his own interests, he was entitled to do so.

He was partially responsible for breaking down barriers by sanctioning the signing of Mo Johnston and he will have alienated an element of the support in so doing

He has been woeful at defending the club against character assassinations probably largely due to his belief that some of those attacks were somehow justified and partly due to him trying to observe some sort of dignified silence. He should have defended our rights to sing some songs and he should have challenged outright lies that were told.... However no-one can expect him to come out and defend "ftp's" and make any statements on terrorism in NI.

He is undoubtedly guilty of financial mis-management of the club but how any supporter can not sympathize with that is beyond me. He clearly believed that by speculating (with the clubs, money not his own) he could accumulate... the revolution he was party to along with Souness was fuelled by the English clubs being banned from European competition and being able to sign big English names.... then when the premiership was in its infancy he obviously believed he could continue to compete at that level and spent to try and keep up.... that the EPL left us in their dust was hugely unfortunate but given that we were one of the driving forces behind the Champion League format he perhaps clung to the hope that this would provide the vehicle to feed our hungry finances..... alas, it too, left us in its wake....

Rangers current plight is entirely down to Murray's reckless spending, but his reckless spending only appears reckless with hindsight.and who is not an expert with the benefit of hindsight. He took over in the "loadsamoney" years of excess in the late 80's.... his ego fuelled ambition continued it through the nineties and the last ten years have been consolidation....

My opinion, is that he has been disappointing as a chairmen on a number of levels and he has held the chair during some of our most successful years, as long people try to polarize his contribution into "he gave as 20 years of success" or "he has lead us to financial ruin" then this discussion will go round and round. It always seems to be the same on here, you are either a Murray Hater or a Murray lapdog, life is just not that black and white.

There have been many people who have contributed to our successes and to our failures.... the Managers who gratefully spent the big money, the managers who worked on a budget, the players who were paid the money and did little to justify it and the ones who shone, the country in which we are destined to compete and the man who was at the helm the whole time...

However what seems to have been overlooked, is that this Presidency talk was not started by the fans, nor by David Murray. Rather it was started by our potential new owner. Who has looked through the figures and has carried out in depth analysis of our finances and of our assets and of our commercial history. He seems to feel that Murray deserves to be honoured and surely that must say something about what he has found during the due diligence?

Murray has been an average chairman and owner, he is about to be an ex-owner and I personally see no benefit to anyone for him to be bestowed with any honorary title. Onward and Upwards

A very well-balanced piece.

... apart from the fact that it was missed out the amount of Money that was put in to clear the initial rounds of debt (£50M) from him and his groups of companies.

Also 20 years is a long time never to have made mistakes and also given our sucess, never to have got some things right.

I dont rember much critisism of his spending tillafter football changed and the anticipated TV money did NOT come our way.

20 years is a long time, and while I am an SDM 'suppporter' I am far from thinking everything he done was perfect, but on balance (for me) he has done enough to warrant this proposed honour. (One thing always made me nervous about any one man propping up losses in the club was what would happen in a downturn! - we survived! Portsmouth are barely alive, West Ham were 'lucky' their new owners took over, Leeds crashed SDM brought us 6 trophies and looked for new owners)

It also failed to mention the money that he got, and promptly lost, from Joe Lewis and Dave King which made it imperitive that he shuffled money around his companies to cover the share issue. Nobody else in the business world was prepared to invest anything in us while Murray was holding the purse strings.

It was still well balanced.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

He didn’t lose it, he spent it on players etc…..What do you think paid for the squad of internationalists we had at the time?

Over the years Sir David certainly can’t be criticised for attracting a lack of investment.

[Stu1993 101]

He didn’t lose it, he spent it on players etc…..What do you think paid for the squad of internationalists we had at the time?

Over the years Sir David certainly can’t be criticised for attracting a lack of investment.

Agree Mate

[minstral 5,375]

He didn’t lose it, he spent it on players etc…..What do you think paid for the squad of internationalists we had at the time?

Over the years Sir David certainly can’t be criticised for attracting a lack of investment.

Have our investors put more money into the club than Murray.