Muir

[Northampton_Loyalist 2]

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

“Let’s be very clear on the situation with Donald Muir – it’s a condition of our credit facility agreement that Donald Muir is the representative of the bank on the board.

"It’s very tough to engage in conversations at board level about strategies with the bank when we know that the bank guy is sitting there,” said Johnston who, when asked why it had been denied previously that Muir was Lloyd’s man, had a sharp retort.

“I think it was Donald that denied that. It’s been denied by a lot of people, but I’m telling you what the issue is right now. I decided that I might as well,” said Johnston.

“What happened when I got here was that the banker that was involved with us refused to talk to our chief executive or to our chief financial officer. It was one of the most stupid aberrations that I’ve ever come across and I said that to the bank.

"He had never met our chief financial officer. He had never met Martin Bain [Rangers’ chief executive], so all the communications had to go through Donald Muir and Mike McGill, the other director, although essentially it was more through Donald than it was Mike.

“So a lot of stuff got lost in translation.”

Would it be better for Rangers, therefore, if Muir – who is understood to have left the Murray Group on Thursday – also departed the club? “No question that his presence compromises things,” said Johnston, although he added: “I’ve always got on well with Donald Muir but I deal within the context of who he is.”

[Guest]

Fs AJ is hitting out with it all yesterday and today isnt he. Good to hear him telling it like it is though. Refreshing honesty

[spangles 7]

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

Johnston said that Muir and McGill, by definition, could not participate in the process. “The roles of Donald Muir and Mike McGill are different from the other Rangers directors. They [Muir and McGill] are there for their employer, which is the seller [Murray]. So they cannot be a part of a group examining any deal, because there is an obvious conflict of interest there.

People are looking for scapegoats. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7063246.ece

[Northampton_Loyalist 2]

Johnston said that Muir and McGill, by definition, could not participate in the process. “The roles of Donald Muir and Mike McGill are different from the other Rangers directors. They [Muir and McGill] are there for their employer, which is the seller [Murray]. So they cannot be a part of a group examining any deal, because there is an obvious conflict of interest there.

People are looking for scapegoats. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article7063246.ece

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.

[spangles 7]

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.

You are mistaken they are AJ's comments, not mine, and very clearly state that both Muir and McGill are employees of SDM.

[gunslinger 270]

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

while its good to see it in black and white. only one or two retards never knew that already.

i never understood the animosity to you on here mate.

[gunslinger 270]

gunslinger <3 aj by the way.

[Northampton_Loyalist 2]

You are mistaken they are AJ's comments, not mine, and very clearly state that both Muir and McGill are employees of SDM.

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.

[Northampton_Loyalist 2]

while its good to see it in black and white. only one or two retards never knew that already.

i never understood the animosity to you on here mate.

I am a bit of a dick to be fair

[Plamf 39]

I'm not actually sure what AJ does if he does anything.

He's never even in the country for a start..

[JM1872 3,714]

This is why we need AJ here all the time.

Someone who isn't afraid to speak out and give the supporters an idea of what the fuck is going on!

[gunslinger 270]

I am a bit of a dick to be fair

yeah but so is everyone on here.

here is the articles btw

http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php/home/41/263.html?sectionid=5

http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php/home/41/264.html?sectionid=5

[Guest therabbitt]

Stunned by Johnston's candid honesty in this interview. The truth and some clarity is all that the support want, if this is it, then we have to embrace it.

Muir was brought in to steady the ship at the bequest of Murray to make the club more saleable and turn around the ongoing financial irresponsibility that has taken over the way that the club was ran - it needed to happen. Having Muir, with such apparent conflicts of interest on the board would always be difficult, however the provision of him being excluded from the takeover committee that was set up meant that Johnston could presumably still influence some discussions without him present, albeit that the committee would have limited influence in anything that would happen in reality because Murray is such a massive majority shareholder.

It'll be interesting to see if there is a rebuttal now from Muir or Lloyds or even Murray? Could this be the catalyst that spurs him to comment on all that is ongoing or is he bound by non-disclosure regulations since his shares are potentially going to be sold?

[gunslinger 270]

if only we could have had some honesty and information a bit sooner alot of pain could have been avoided.

i suspect aj's candor spells the end for muir regardless of a takeover or not. with his job for the bank being finished at mih one suspects the sames true at rangers.

[Northampton_Loyalist 2]

yeah but so is everyone on here.

http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php/home/41/263.html?sectionid=5

http://home.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php/home/41/264.html?sectionid=5

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)

[gunslinger 270]

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)

good luck getting anything out of boss.

last time i challenged him on these articles he just deleted my posts.

[Northampton_Loyalist 2]

good luck getting anything out of boss.

last time i challenged him on these articles he just deleted my posts.

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.

[WWTC 2,247]

Going by this interview, and by the way aj is talking, the waynhe's saying certain things, this deals done

[Guest therabbitt]

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'm not going to fight anyone's battles for them, but as far as I am aware, there was not intent to de-rail protests, only to bring some clarity to a situation that was muddied and had led to supporters considering pounding the pavement which I at least, personally don't think should ever really be an option for supporters of Rangers.

Personally, I'm still a little befuddled as to why Muir is the target here. Johnston has said as much that he was placed into the board at the bequest of the bank. He worked to turn the finances around and if anything, probably took the streamlining too far, yet no one could really argue that the impact he has made in conjunction with the considerable success of the management and team on the park have not put Rangers in a much better situation for being sold. Was that not the ultimate goal for so many anyway? To move away from an owner who had no desire for the club left and who had in many peoples eyes ran the club into irreversible debt to someone new who could bring some new life into our veteran football club?

[Guest therabbitt]

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.

I didn't know Boss to have deleted anything? He is actually one of the most fair-minded and biggest champions of open discussion there is on the site, other than myself of course...

[gunslinger 270]

I'm not going to fight anyone's battles for them, but as far as I am aware, there was not intent to de-rail protests, only to bring some clarity to a situation that was muddied and had led to supporters considering pounding the pavement which I personally don't think should ever really be an option.

Personally, I'm still a little befuddled as to why Muir is the target here. Johnston has said as much that he was placed into the board at the bequest of the bank. He worked to turn the finances around and if anything, probably took the streamlining too far, yet no one could really argue that the impact he has made in conjunction with the considerable success of the management and team on the park have not put Rangers in a much better situation for being sold. Was that not the ultimate goal for so many anyway? To move away from an owner who had no desire for the club left and who had in many peoples eyes ran the club into irreversible debt to someone new who could bring some new life into our veteran football club?

there are outright untruths in those articles though.

as i have said to boss many times the only different between him and darrall king is the director who was lying to them.

[gunslinger 270]

I didn't know Boss to have deleted anything? He is actually one of the most fair-minded and biggest champions of open discussion there is on the site, other than myself of course...

i suspect it was as much a joke as anything and i have no proof in fairness it was boss who did it. but he was the one i was questioning at the time.

[spangles 7]

So is Muir by allegedly misrepresenting his position on a board very publicly, guilty of a criminal offence, or rather alleged offence by someone who said, "I think it was Donald that denied that" According to company and civil/criminal law, with regard to conduct of a director.

It is getting harder by the minute to give credence to anything that is coming out through the media, a simple statement issued through the official site by the club, bypassing the rags, would maybe clear things up a lot, but as NL says it is one serious clusterfuck, one after another.

[Northampton_Loyalist 2]

I'm not going to fight anyone's battles for them, but as far as I am aware, there was not intent to de-rail protests, only to bring some clarity to a situation that was muddied and had led to supporters considering pounding the pavement which I personally don't think should ever really be an option.

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.

[Guest therabbitt]

So is Muir by allegedly misrepresenting his position on a board very publicly, guilty of a criminal offence, or rather alleged offence by someone who said, "I think it was Donald that denied that" According to company and civil/criminal law, with regard to conduct of a director.

It is getting harder by the minute to give credence to anything that is coming out through the media, a simple statement issued through the official site by the club, bypassing the rags, would maybe clear things up a lot, but as NL says it is one serious clusterfuck, one after another.

When it is our Chairman being directly quoted, is that not as good as a statement on the official site? Unless of course he challenges on misrepresentation of what he said...