Jump to content

A civil war with no end in sight


Jimbeamjunior
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not wanting to take sides, but isn't (allegedly) the reason for now buying shares etc that the money would not go to Rangers but into peoples pocket? I don't know who to believe, coz you can't trust the facts you read or hear on the radio.

Rangers supporters are taking sides for the right reasons i.e. they think the side they are backing is for the good of Rangers. So the infighting between the support is the annoying thing for me.

quite true, but before these people had the shares to sell, PM and co had two chances to buy the club outright, he didnt yet now wants the club without offering up a curdy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Can you imagine trying to buy a house by asking the current owners to leave and promising that you will invest in the conservatory after they have gone? If people want a bigger say then buying shares is one way to do it, that means buying them from the current shareholders.

Not having a go at you, but the 'I'm not lining their pockets' argument irritates me.

Poor analogy. If I owned a house which I was renting to a tenant and I thought the letting agents were providing me with a poor service, I would be looking for new letting agents. Similarly, at least 28% of the investors thought that Mather and Stockbridge were managing their investment poorly and wanted somebody else to do the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Murray having our interests at heart seems to be one of those things we're to accept as fact with not much to back it up

No argument from me on Paul and his crew but what I cant understand is the support for the current board one things for sure they definitely dont have our best interest at heart

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who is sitting on the fence coz I don't really know who to believe, I am getting a bit pissed off at all the abuse aimed by one side at the other. I think it strange to complain about civil wars and at the same time lob abuse perpetuating the war.

Great point.

There was a time when I would have given Paul Murray all the time of the day. Then there was a time when I wanted him to go away. Given the the way the board have handled numerous matters along with anonymity over certain backers behind certain institutional shareholders and the frittering of money, I have now become grateful for his and his fellow requisitioners bringing the board under scrutiny.

The way the board handled matters did appear devious and self-serving, looking only to defend their own interests. Whilst I'm not one for the dignified silence, the deplorable Jack Irving statements were well below the appropriate levels of conduct. With all matters over boardroom appointments now looking to be decided at the AGM vote, I think we are actually now in a better position, with a clear chance for a fresh start with a new democratically supported board given a mandate by the shareholders who will be looking to protect their investment under very public scrutiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

who are the 28% that keeps getting banded about ? and can someone give me a breakdown of the so called 28% that are backing murray.

If he did have legal proxy of 28% he could have used this in court. He doesn't and will be getting a serious sore one! I do know the Easdales are not happy, so watch this space!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor analogy. If I owned a house which I was renting to a tenant and I thought the letting agents were providing me with a poor service, I would be looking for new letting agents. Similarly, at least 28% of the investors thought that Mather and Stockbridge were managing their investment poorly and wanted somebody else to do the job.

Yup, and if that was what I was talking about you would have a point, but it wasn't, so you don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no. The mythical 28% again. DAVIE8CH, I have repeatedly asked Carson's cat's bumboy dreadful denise for this information. Still waiting. They can't have had they "information" from Liewell yet.

so if i say that 60% of the remaining 40% dont want murray near ibrox. that it would be gospel then as nobody could prove me wrong if i keep saying it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mini is toxic. As long as he is around there will be no peace.

Doubtless as soon as he gets in we'll all be told to get in line behind him and move on. No point greeting over whats done etc etc for the good of the club.

Well I'm not buying any of that shite.

The fans don't want Mini and he is gravely underestimating them (a repeated failing of his). If he gets in he will come under the same scrutiny and attack as he fired at the board.

Things have changed since his last disastrous term on the board and if he thinks it will quieten down after he gets in, he is in for a helluva shock. He will be the next Charlie Green.

It will be Minis name on the banners :lol:

I sincerely hope this bumbling incompetent twat gets nowhere near Ibrox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe what is going on at my club these days. Too much infighting, name calling, threats, we are ALL Bears ffs. I liked C Green, but agreed that he had to leave as he was a very divisive figure at the time. Paul Murray is the most divisive figure at this moment in time, & I just wish that he would go away. His time has gone, he was a director when this whole thing went pear-shaped for Rangers & he did & said NOTHING. His Blue Knights lost out to CG & IA, & he couldn't accept it. He has been acting like one of our enemies the past 18 months & I firmly believe that he should NOT be voted onto the board at the agm. I will not be voting for any Murray ( apart from Andy, should he wish to join us) at the agm. Thank you for reading this, if you disagree with me, that is your prerogative, but let's keep it civil, after all WE ARE ALL BEARS!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no way that I would support Paul Murray or any of his nominees if they are offered for election as Directors of Rangers. I regard their behaviour as having caused intended havoc and financial loss to the Club fuelled by a desire to achieve the power they failed to get in bidding for the Club because they were not commercially comptent enough, nor astute enough to assemble enough money, to have won. Having watched those who won do the janitorial job of cleaning up debts and defending titles and generating commercial revenue and so on, their sniping put paid to the initial successes of The Rising. The fundamentally dishonourable tactic of a no-notice Requisition attempt in early August, the essence of which, was solely destructive in nature. And with no hint of any positive plan or evidence of credentials as to why they would be better placed to lead the Club. Rather than bringing money in, they caused the Club to lose money (cliff edge fall of of ST sales, legal costs of aborted EGM, costs in dealing with Requisiton stuff and in dealing with media assaults). All - as I see it - simply designed to wreck havoc, to get people talking about their names and to force attention on themselves. Credibilty to be Directors of our Club? Not in my assessment. They will not get my support as a fan or vote as a shareholder in any attempt be voted on as Directors. If that behaviour is to be the standard of behaviour to be held up as evidence of being fit to be a Director of Rangers then that, for me, is far from acceptable.

I suspect the divisions will continue. Whenever the AGM is held it will be very interesting to see how the voting goes but it seems to me that if any of the Murray havoc-makers are voted on then I suspect the turmoil will continue. That would not be in the interests of the Club but Murray havoc-makers should have thought that through before they embarked on their wrecking campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was thinking that. Surely one side has somewhat surrendered, thus meaning that an end to this "civil war" is now within sight.

Yes, without a doubt. BS needs to stay pending new board members and then he will also be gone. DK will come in and the Easedales will stay. PM will probably get a place also.

When CM stepped down this was the signal to me that the end was in sight. The gun is now getting remounted on this town we call the Rangers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, without a doubt. BS needs to stay pending new board members and then he will also be gone. DK will come in and the Easedales will stay. PM will probably get a place also.

When CM stepped down this was the signal to me that the end was in sight. The gun is now getting remounted on this town we call the Rangers.

until Rangers don`t make a profit in the next set of accounts then it will start again.

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.

 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    • 09 December 2021 17:45 Until 19:45
      0  
      Lyon v Rangers
      Stade des Lumieres
      UEFA Europa League

×
×
  • Create New...