£700m plans on schedule

[bigmarvloyal 0]

Ah I must have missed that other question earlier on.

A monkey - if eyes were open and mind not brainwashed - could see that the reason for Murray selling off all the assets was to tidy the debt of the club up and make it more sellable, make himself some serious coin in the process and sell up to the highest bidder.

To the detriment of Rangers is exactly the phrase I would use to describe Murray's running of the Club. In fact, I couldn't think of a better phrase myself.

Asking for evidence which is rather hard to prove means you cannot think for yourself and see the things that are staring in your face and choose to believe whatever propaganda is thrown your way.

Evidence on this subject is not something I have, not something I am ever likely to have unless I shagged Murray's accountant and is not something I think i will waste time searching for in order to show a troll like you.

A brain and the ability to see what is really going on is something I could loan you. But it seems you are as far down the line with Murray's way of thinking as Chemical Ali is with Osama Bin Laden's.

I don't wish to be rude, even if you do, but your post makes absolutely no sense.

How can you be brainwashed when you're actually asking for evidence before making up your mind.

It's precisely the opposite of brainwashed.

And it is all about getting info to think for yourself.

Why should I believe you when you admit you have no evidence?

Wasn't Chemical Ali part of Saddam Hussein's clique. I don't believe there is any link to Bin Laden. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

You are brainwashed by Murray like thousands of other people who call themselves Rangers Fans.

You are calling me brainwashed? Why? Because I have the ability to see things happening and deduct from that what is really going on?

In your quest for me to post evidence you are not trying to find out what is really happening, are you? You are trying to prove that Murray is good for Rangers Football Club, aren't you?

So you are brainwashed. In the extreme.

As for Chemical Ali and whichever clique he belongs to... I don't really pay attention to terrorist organizations too much so I must have got my comparisons wrong. Do you know as much about terrorism in this country - namely the IRA/PIRA as you do about it in foreign lands?

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

You are brainwashed by Murray like thousands of other people who call themselves Rangers Fans.

You are calling me brainwashed? Why? Because I have the ability to see things happening and deduct from that what is really going on?

In your quest for me to post evidence you are not trying to find out what is really happening, are you? You are trying to prove that Murray is good for Rangers Football Club, aren't you?

So you are brainwashed. In the extreme.

As for Chemical Ali and whichever clique he belongs to... I don't really pay attention to terrorist organizations too much so I must have got my comparisons wrong. Do you know as much about terrorism in this country - namely the IRA/PIRA as you do about it in foreign lands?

I know enough to to make such errors like the one you did.

Are you really claiming that asking for evidence is a sign of brainwashing? Quite frankly, that is both illiterate and insane.

Again you make accusations that I'm brainwashed without evidence.

Please indulge me with that evidence, since I would very much like to rectify such a state were it true.

I'm willing to be persuaded but have never been given any conclusive evidence.

[bigmarvloyal 0]

You are brainwashed by Murray like thousands of other people who call themselves Rangers Fans.

You are calling me brainwashed? Why? Because I have the ability to see things happening and deduct from that what is really going on?

In your quest for me to post evidence you are not trying to find out what is really happening, are you? You are trying to prove that Murray is good for Rangers Football Club, aren't you?

So you are brainwashed. In the extreme.

As for Chemical Ali and whichever clique he belongs to... I don't really pay attention to terrorist organizations too much so I must have got my comparisons wrong. Do you know as much about terrorism in this country - namely the IRA/PIRA as you do about it in foreign lands?

I know enough to to make such errors like the one you did.

Are you really claiming that asking for evidence is a sign of brainwashing? Quite frankly, that is both illiterate and insane.

Again you make accusations that I'm brainwashed without evidence.

Please indulge me with that evidence, since I would very much like to rectify such a state were it true.

I'm willing to be persuaded but have never been given any conclusive evidence.

LOL... you are not listening to me are you?

I'm not saying that you asking for evidence is a sign of brainwashing.

I'm actually saying that you are not looking for evidence at all. You are trying to ask me for evidence that is nigh on impossible to get a hold of as a way to cover up your love of all things Murray Minty.

If you were really looking for evidence you would have at the very least opened up your mind to the possibility of the things I've highlighted being true. Instead, you are on the defensive and have been since your first post in this thread.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

LOL... you are not listening to me are you?

No. Strictly speaking, I'm reading your words.

I'm not saying that you asking for evidence is a sign of brainwashing.

The you clearly don't understand the concept of brainwashing. It's exactly the opposite of brainwashing. It's thinking for yourself.

I'm actually saying that you are not looking for evidence at all. You are trying to ask me for evidence that is nigh on impossible to get a hold of as a way to cover up your love of all things Murray Minty.

Did you get a hold of this "nigh on impossible to get a hold of evidence? Did it shape your opinions.

Or are you drawing conclusions based upon the lack of that evidence?

How should I go about getting this evidence? Please help me. I only want to know the truth.

If you were really looking for evidence you would have at the very least opened up your mind to the possibility of the things I've highlighted being true. Instead, you are on the defensive and have been since your first post in this thread.

Aha!

You're the one not reading my words. I previously stated that I am open to the possibility.

I'm merely asking for the evidence.

Please give me it!!!

[bigmarvloyal 0]

LOL... you are not listening to me are you?

No. Strictly speaking, I'm reading your words.

I'm not saying that you asking for evidence is a sign of brainwashing.

The you clearly don't understand the concept of brainwashing. It's exactly the opposite of brainwashing. It's thinking for yourself.

I'm actually saying that you are not looking for evidence at all. You are trying to ask me for evidence that is nigh on impossible to get a hold of as a way to cover up your love of all things Murray Minty.

Did you get a hold of this "nigh on impossible to get a hold of evidence? Did it shape your opinions.

Or are you drawing conclusions based upon the lack of that evidence?

How should I go about getting this evidence? Please help me. I only want to know the truth.

If you were really looking for evidence you would have at the very least opened up your mind to the possibility of the things I've highlighted being true. Instead, you are on the defensive and have been since your first post in this thread.

Aha!

You're the one not reading my words. I previously stated that I am open to the possibility.

I'm merely asking for the evidence.

Please give me it!!!

Haha... you are about as cute as Liewell with your words son. A job at Celtic Park is on the agenda for you I think.

Im not wasting any more time on ya' champ... people like you are not very high on my agenda.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Haha... you are about as cute as Liewell with your words son. A job at Celtic Park is on the agenda for you I think.

That's more than a bit out of order.

Im not wasting any more time on ya' champ... people like you are not very high on my agenda.

No need to be nasty simply because you can't back up your argument.

That's not my fault. It's your's.

[Steely 58]

I wonder which company will be selling the steel to Rangers for this project if it goes ahead?

Who would you suggest?

Judging on the Club Deck, I'll guess it will be another abomination from Murray International Metals.

Just a wee hunch I've got.

Are you suggesting that Murray will give it to MIM and make money for his other company?

Finally, you are catching on to the way Murray operates.

Rangers = Money Feed for his other companies.

So if you were a brickie and ran your own company from this you would go to another brickie and use his bricks and his employers if you wanted to build a wall in your own home??

Of course not because that is just so Diabolically stupid it would defy belief.

But of course you would expect SDM to do just this, costing Rangers more money, just to satisfy your own bug that he is doing something cheaper by using his own materials.

Get real

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

Haha... you are about as cute as Liewell with your words son. A job at Celtic Park is on the agenda for you I think.

That's more than a bit out of order.

Im not wasting any more time on ya' champ... people like you are not very high on my agenda.

No need to be nasty simply because you can't back up your argument.

That's not my fault. It's your's.

And we'll chase you everywhere we are Rangers super Rangers !

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

So if you were a brickie and ran your own company from this you would go to another brickie and use his bricks and his employers if you wanted to build a wall in your own home??

Of course not because that is just so Diabolically stupid it would defy belief.

But of course you would expect SDM to do just this, costing Rangers more money, just to satisfy your own bug that he is doing something cheaper by using his own materials.

Get real

Well said.

He's provided no evidence for his claims.

This nonsense usually comes from the likes of Spiers and his timmy fans.

So much of this criticism is irrational as bigmarv has just proven.

[Steely 58]

So if you were a brickie and ran your own company from this you would go to another brickie and use his bricks and his employers if you wanted to build a wall in your own home??

Of course not because that is just so Diabolically stupid it would defy belief.

But of course you would expect SDM to do just this, costing Rangers more money, just to satisfy your own bug that he is doing something cheaper by using his own materials.

Get real

Well said.

He's provided no evidence for his claims.

This nonsense usually comes from the likes of Spiers and his timmy fans.

So much of this criticism is irrational as bigmarv has just proven.

I would switch off to it mate. He is a lot like horse with no name. I wouldn't be surprised if they were the same person

No matter what SDM does it wont ever be enough. He is building the biggest and best stadium in Britain, but people are geting upset because he is using his own metla company. They are a joke and only deserve contempt.

[bluepeter 5,627]

Assets are something that make you money on an ongoing basis or things that are worth something to a business.

At the end of the day every club has a stadium and most have a training ground. Hence they are not really considered assets as they don't make us any money.

As it stands, we have no viable assets and the reason being is Murray has sold them all off to fix our finances in the short term so he can sell up and leave the naive clown who buys from him with the headache of fixing it.

So, what you are saying is that an asset is something that either makes you money on an ongoing basis OR something that is worth something to a business.

Oh no, what you are saying is that something which is worth something to a business is not an asset as it's not making money on an ongoing basis

Bottom line, you don't have the first idea about finance, and are sounding increasingly desperate in your attempts to have a go at Murray.

[BCLoyal9 53]

In the midst of debate with likeminded people (Rangers Supporters) then , having started from a common identity , you would think that some things would be implicit.

Bigmarvloyal is quite right when he highlights the futility of "evidence" supposedly required to prove that SDM has used the Club as a vehicle for gain to augment other business ventures. Often through exploiting assets and mismananging funds within the Club. Transport yourself back to 2004 and assess the financial conditon of RFC then.

That was not the fault of anyone but the Rangers board and most of all , Murray.

To me it should be quite implicit what has happened with Rangers and SDM - to ask for "evidence" to back this up is much like asking a Class of children who daubed 'The Headmaster Is a Dobber' on the front entrance when the Class delinquent is sat in the corner shuffling their feet. Please use a bit of intuition.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

In the midst of debate with likeminded people (Rangers Supporters) then , having started from a common identity , you would think that some things would be implicit.

Bigmarvloyal is quite right when he highlights the futility of "evidence" supposedly required to prove that SDM has used the Club as a vehicle for gain to augment other business ventures. Often through exploiting assets and mismananging funds within the Club. Transport yourself back to 2004 and assess the financial conditon of RFC then.

That was not the fault of anyone but the Rangers board and most of all , Murray.

To me it should be quite implicit what has happened with Rangers and SDM - to ask for "evidence" to back this up is much like asking a Class of children who daubed 'The Headmaster Is a Dobber' on the front entrance when the Class delinquent is sat in the corner shuffling their feet. Please use a bit of intuition.

Without evidence, how do you prove that he's exploited us to our detriment?

Is it impossible that both Rangers and his companies got mutually favourable deals?

It sounds like you guys are saying "Believe me! I may have no evidence but believe me. Even without evidence, it's obvious."

Also, do we not have healthy finances now?

[BCLoyal9 53]

In the midst of debate with likeminded people (Rangers Supporters) then , having started from a common identity , you would think that some things would be implicit.

Bigmarvloyal is quite right when he highlights the futility of "evidence" supposedly required to prove that SDM has used the Club as a vehicle for gain to augment other business ventures. Often through exploiting assets and mismananging funds within the Club. Transport yourself back to 2004 and assess the financial conditon of RFC then.

That was not the fault of anyone but the Rangers board and most of all , Murray.

To me it should be quite implicit what has happened with Rangers and SDM - to ask for "evidence" to back this up is much like asking a Class of children who daubed 'The Headmaster Is a Dobber' on the front entrance when the Class delinquent is sat in the corner shuffling their feet. Please use a bit of intuition.

Without evidence, how do you prove that he's exploited us to our detriment?

Is it impossible that both Rangers and his companies got mutually favourable deals?

It sounds like you guys are saying "Believe me! I may have no evidence but believe me. Even without evidence, it's obvious."

Also, do we not have healthy finances now?

I personally could not care less if everyone agreed with me , or if everyone booted my thoughts right out of the park. I stay true to my beliefs and that , to me , is really the only thing that counts.

As for current "healthy finances" - see £50,000,000 share issue backtrack from the propagator of our financial misfortunes and increased European mobility from the playing squad. This season especially we have couped an unexpected amount of cash from European competion and all the TV revenue that goes with it - not to mention the spectacular bonus of £9,000,000 for an academy product in Alan Hutton , and the £8,000,000 robbery of Newcastle for one Jean-Alain Boumsong.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

In the midst of debate with likeminded people (Rangers Supporters) then , having started from a common identity , you would think that some things would be implicit.

Bigmarvloyal is quite right when he highlights the futility of "evidence" supposedly required to prove that SDM has used the Club as a vehicle for gain to augment other business ventures. Often through exploiting assets and mismananging funds within the Club. Transport yourself back to 2004 and assess the financial conditon of RFC then.

That was not the fault of anyone but the Rangers board and most of all , Murray.

To me it should be quite implicit what has happened with Rangers and SDM - to ask for "evidence" to back this up is much like asking a Class of children who daubed 'The Headmaster Is a Dobber' on the front entrance when the Class delinquent is sat in the corner shuffling their feet. Please use a bit of intuition.

Without evidence, how do you prove that he's exploited us to our detriment?

Is it impossible that both Rangers and his companies got mutually favourable deals?

It sounds like you guys are saying "Believe me! I may have no evidence but believe me. Even without evidence, it's obvious."

Also, do we not have healthy finances now?

I personally could not care less if everyone agreed with me , or if everyone booted my thoughts right out of the park. I stay true to my beliefs and that , to me , is really the only thing that counts.

As for current "healthy finances" - see £50,000,000 share issue backtrack from the propagator of our financial misfortunes and increased European mobility from the playing squad. This season especially we have couped an unexpected amount of cash from European competion and all the TV revenue that goes with it - not to mention the spectacular bonus of £9,000,000 for an academy product in Alan Hutton , and the £8,000,000 robbery of Newcastle for one Jean-Alain Boumsong.

Boumsong was just over 3 years ago, when we were reducing debt.

What do you mean back-track? Did he pay £50m to Rangers or not?

[BCLoyal9 53]

Well Oleg , the £8 million Boumsong theft was part of the fire fighting process , as was the £50 million underwritten.

The £50 million "put into" Rangers could very fairly be described as backtracking considering the £70 million plus squandered prior. Although not entirely on Murray's account I'll grant you. A certain Dutchman sure liked to hammer the chequebook pro-offered to him.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Well Oleg , the £8 million Boumsong theft was part of the fire fighting process , as was the £50 million underwritten.

The £50 million "put into" Rangers could very fairly be described as backtracking considering the £70 million plus squandered prior. Although not entirely on Murray's account I'll grant you. A certain Dutchman sure liked to hammer the chequebook pro-offered to him.

That's hardly "backtracking"!

Backtracking is when you say you'll do something, but then don't make an effort to do it.

In the context you allege it to be present, it doesn't fit your example.

[BCLoyal9 53]

Well Oleg , the £8 million Boumsong theft was part of the fire fighting process , as was the £50 million underwritten.

The £50 million "put into" Rangers could very fairly be described as backtracking considering the £70 million plus squandered prior. Although not entirely on Murray's account I'll grant you. A certain Dutchman sure liked to hammer the chequebook pro-offered to him.

That's hardly "backtracking"!

Backtracking is when you say you'll do something, but then don't make an effort to do it.

In the context you allege it to be present, it doesn't fit your example.

Making a (albeit insane) forward looking action in making unsustainable amounts of cash available to a spend-happy mananger in Advocaat , and following that up with a firefighting rights issue - augmented with some hasty player sales some years later - is most definitely backtracking in my book.

There was mismanagement at the top level , countered clumsily and belatedly once the SHTF.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Well Oleg , the £8 million Boumsong theft was part of the fire fighting process , as was the £50 million underwritten.

The £50 million "put into" Rangers could very fairly be described as backtracking considering the £70 million plus squandered prior. Although not entirely on Murray's account I'll grant you. A certain Dutchman sure liked to hammer the chequebook pro-offered to him.

That's hardly "backtracking"!

Backtracking is when you say you'll do something, but then don't make an effort to do it.

In the context you allege it to be present, it doesn't fit your example.

Making a (albeit insane) forward looking action in making unsustainable amounts of cash available to a spend-happy mananger in Advocaat , and following that up with a firefighting rights issue - augmented with some hasty player sales some years later - is most definitely backtracking in my book.

There was mismanagement at the top level , countered clumsily and belatedly once the SHTF.

I'll stick with my book. It's called the dictionary.

[BCLoyal9 53]

"I'll stick with my book. It's called the dictionary."

Right you are.

Definition: Find a solution by trying one of several choices. If the choice proves incorrect, computation backtracks or restarts at the point of choice and tries another choice.

Explained in a computing context , but in this Digital Age I'm sure you catch my drift.

Touche

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

"I'll stick with my book. It's called the dictionary."

Right you are.

Definition: Find a solution by trying one of several choices. If the choice proves incorrect, computation backtracks or restarts at the point of choice and tries another choice.

Explained in a computing context , but in this Digital Age I'm sure you catch my drift.

Touche

Better stick to an English Language dictionary.

a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

That makes more sense.

[BCLoyal9 53]

"I'll stick with my book. It's called the dictionary."

Right you are.

Definition: Find a solution by trying one of several choices. If the choice proves incorrect, computation backtracks or restarts at the point of choice and tries another choice.

Explained in a computing context , but in this Digital Age I'm sure you catch my drift.

Touche

Better stick to an English Language dictionary.

a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

That makes more sense.

Well I must say that has radically redefined my interpretation of "backtracking".

Praise , and thanks.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

"I'll stick with my book. It's called the dictionary."

Right you are.

Definition: Find a solution by trying one of several choices. If the choice proves incorrect, computation backtracks or restarts at the point of choice and tries another choice.

Explained in a computing context , but in this Digital Age I'm sure you catch my drift.

Touche

Better stick to an English Language dictionary.

a concise explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase or symbol

That makes more sense.

Well I must say that has radically redefined my interpretation of "backtracking".

Praise , and thanks.

You're welcome.

Any time.

[bigmarvloyal 0]

Jeez. I just hate the First Generation Rangers Fan, I really, REALLY do not like them one iota.

As for the silly wee uni and school kids trying to argue with people who have more wisdom and real world business knowledge... they are a different breed altogether.

[bigmarvloyal 0]

Haha... you are about as cute as Liewell with your words son. A job at Celtic Park is on the agenda for you I think.

That's more than a bit out of order.

Im not wasting any more time on ya' champ... people like you are not very high on my agenda.

No need to be nasty simply because you can't back up your argument.

That's not my fault. It's your's.

#

My argument doesn't need backing up.

You don't even have the brains to think for yourself.

Leave it at that.