Jump to content

Board Statement re. Malcolm Murray


Laudrup1984

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, was nice of Stockbridge to leak that. 'Rangers' class!

We had a drunk mouthpiece as chairman, who wouldn't go when he was asked.

Difficult times call for difficult measures.

And can you prove it was Stockbridge who released the video since he has stated he only passed it to other members of the board?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a drunk mouthpiece as chairman, who wouldn't go when he was asked.

Difficult times call for difficult measures.

And can you prove it was Stockbridge who released the video since he has stated he only passed it to other members of the board?

I have no come back at all to your first point. Your morality is your business.

On the second point, you just sound stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a few posters on here good at name calling. Maybe they feel it makes up for their lack of debating skills?

I do hope you read through the posts in this thread before you start mouthing off.

Wouldn.t want you bringing up all the same points that the previous shift had their arses handed to them over. (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a drunk mouthpiece as chairman, who wouldn't go when he was asked.

Difficult times call for difficult measures.

And can you prove it was Stockbridge who released the video since he has stated he only passed it to other members of the board?

I have no come back at all to your first point. Your morality is your business.

On the second point, you just sound stupid.

You didnt answer the question.

Given that he has denied releasing the video to the public, can you prove that it was BS?

There are plenty of others who would have given the chance

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didnt answer the question.

Given that he has denied releasing the video to the public, can you prove that it was BS?

There are plenty of others who would have given the chance

You answered your own question in your original reply to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the clubs website..

These are the facts:

  • Mr Murray was appointed by Charles Green on June 14 2012 to Sevco Scotland (now Rangers Football Club Ltd). There were no institutions in the Club then. The Club
  • Mr Murray proposed Craig Mather to the board.
  • Mr Murray agreed Brian Stockbridge’s salary and bonus.
  • Mr Murray agreed Mr Green’s salary and bonus.
  • Mr Murray negotiated Mr Green’s compromise agreement and signed it off.
  • Mr Murray was removed from the Pinsent Masons investigation by the board after leaking information to a third party.
  • from the leaked e-mails by CF
  • http://t.co/2x5gWCEWiS
  • Looks like the board have been caught being economical with the truth re Mathers proposer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

From the clubs website..

These are the facts:

  • Mr Murray was appointed by Charles Green on June 14 2012 to Sevco Scotland (now Rangers Football Club Ltd). There were no institutions in the Club then. The Club

  • Mr Murray proposed Craig Mather to the board.

  • Mr Murray agreed Brian Stockbridge’s salary and bonus.

  • Mr Murray agreed Mr Green’s salary and bonus.

  • Mr Murray negotiated Mr Green’s compromise agreement and signed it off.

  • Mr Murray was removed from the Pinsent Masons investigation by the board after leaking information to a third party.

  • from the leaked e-mails by CF

  • http://t.co/2x5gWCEWiS

  • Looks like the board have been caught being economical with the truth re Mathers proposer.

As many people will be familiar, one e-mail doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. We have no way of knowing what happened before the e-mail was sent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the board's latest statement it said:

A leaked email tonight would suggest that it was actually Ian Hart who negotiated the settlement agreements for both Green & Ahmad.

http://t.co/M5OX3PzF5w

We have no way of knowing what was discussed with whom prior to this e-mail. As I said with the previous post, one e-mail doesn't always tell the whole story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have no way of knowing what was discussed with whom prior to this e-mail. As I said with the previous post, one e-mail doesn't always tell the whole story.

Absolutely, but if it's genuine then the email from Ian Hart certainly casts 'reasonable doubt' on that particular claim in the statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, was nice of Stockbridge to leak that. 'Rangers' class!

Stockbridge said that he took the video to show the directors and Murray how bad he was with excess alcohol. He also said that Murray had been in similar state on 4 or 5 occasions. Stockbridge assured us that he did not leak the footage. My bet would be Ahmad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stockbridge said that he took the video to show the directors and Murray how bad he was with excess alcohol. He also said that Murray had been in similar state on 4 or 5 occasions. Stockbridge assured us that he did not leak the footage. My bet would be Ahmad.

If Murray in a drunken stupor had been filmed by the DR or the Sun people would be screaming about why fellow members of the board took no action.

Not especially happy at how he was outed but better for the club that it happened. An obvious drunk in a position of power at Ibrox was a potential train wreck.

My current concern is the Mini Murray - Drunk Murray possible connections to CF and other leaks coming out of Ibrox. Both Murrays appear extremely vindictive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If these leaked e-mails are true, looks like once again the board has been caught misleading supporters.

It also mentioned they had offered Imran at 500k pay-off. Do you think he has a strong case (with Charles Greens support) in his claim against us?

Just because people keep saying it doesn't stop it being a lie. CG has given his word to tell the truth if called to testify. Somehow you, and many others, have taken this to suggest CG is 'supporting' the claim. Even Ahmads statement didn't actually say that but, yet again, the truth is twisted to suit an agenda.

'Charles Green has agreed to tell the truth if it goes to court,'

Thats what Ahmad is quoted as saying, whether the truth supports his claim (whatever IA believes) or not is for the court to decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, I don't know how anyone can pick sides in all this. They are becoming as bad as eachother.

One side is telling huge fibs about the IPO money gone, admin by xmas, financial mismanagement, assets sold for leaseback.

The other side is the board.

It's a no brainer really, tho the no brainers are still pushing minico's busted mob. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...