boss

I suppose that's just life and nobody's perfect.

I myself am peculiarly susceptible to draughts.

:)scarWildeLoyal

Reading FF at the moment is no advert for Fan Groups.

The OP made some excellent points but made no mention of the elephant in the room. The debate elsewhere says much about the failure of supporters' representation to date.

1. I was laughing because I assumed you had wrote it so found my schoolboy error funny. Knowing you pretty well as I do, I thought you'd have seen the humour in that and accepted my mistake. But, just in case, I'm sorry for quoting you wrongly at that juncture. FTAOD, I wasn't suggesting you did have an input - no apology required.

 

2. I've already said your article asked a few relevant questions and made many valid points. However, to suggest it didn't cast him as a saviour is stretching it.

 

3. We're all backers of Rangers. And there's nothing wrong with also believing in individuals within that either so not sure why you're getting so annoyed just because I questioned your/Rab's optimism in that regard.

It's good that we both feel passionately about the future of our club. :cheers:

therabbitt wrote it?

 

OK then, let's look at your original:

 

"Donald Muir is the best Chief Executive that Rangers never had.

 

There, I�ve said it. I know it won�t find favour with many but it�s better to be right than to be popular; if I�ve upset some of you already, it was ever thus."

 

That opening few lines, along with the title (presented as a rhetorical question given the actual content IMHO), casts Muir as our saviour. But, like I say, this is nothing more than semantics which isn't moving the debate forward.

 

Yourself (and therabbitt it seems) are backers of Donald Muir. That much is clear and was all I was trying to say while expressing my own caution.

I'll take that as an apology for putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. A "sorry" would have been nice.

FTAOD I had no input whatsoever into the article that therabbitt has just published; and no amount of smilies from you will change that fact.

Muir was getting dogs abuse; I published an article balancing up the debate. It was not a rhetorical question - it was a play on "the enemy within". Imagine publishing an article that suggested that Muir actually is damn good at what he does and that he might not be quite the devil some were portraying him as for their own ends. I thought debate was good.

In any event, being the best chief executive that Rangers never had wasn't much of a competition, certainly over the last 20 years.

I am a backer of Rangers, not a backer of Donald Muir; that much is, indeed, clear.

Are we really going to get caught up on semantics here?

 

"I for one would like to applaud Muir for his steely determination and broad shoulders and I will always thank him for being one of the fundamental factors in bringing the club I love to my core back from the brink."

 

If that isn't casting someone as the saviour then I don't know what is.

 

Now, as I clearly said, you may not have backed a purchaser per se but you have backed a key player in the issue as a whole. FWIW, I don't think there is a great deal wrong with that given the strong argument you provide - all I'm suggesting is that when you criticise others for making premature decisions, you need to be careful not to make the same mistake.

 

All with the greatest of respect as ever...

And with the greatest of respect, you have quoted therabbitt's article in error, not my article. If you want to state therabbitt has elevated Muir to 'saviour' status then do so. But it is not helpful to say that I have done so and then use a quote from therabbitt as if it was from me.

Muir not be buying Rangers but he's a key player in the sale (and choice of buyer) so I think yourself (though not RM generally in my eyes) have indeed backed a horse...

I have backed no prospective purchaser and would thank you not to tell me that I have backed any horse.

Until he does so, I'd be very careful in casting him as our saviour - in mischief or not...

As you'll recall very well, I didn't cast him as a saviour; I asked the question: "Donald Muir - the Saviour Within?" It's for readers of the article to decide for themselves whether he is/was a saviour or an enemy or neither.

As all this unfolded, it was clear both FF and RM had an agenda, backers, and it's not like it just-so-happened that two sites that hate each other backed opposing horses.

RM has never had an agenda on the sale of Rangers. And I myself have never backed any of the horses. I am keen to see and hear from Ellis (or anyone else) regarding their plans for the club before I make my mind up.

But who told Murray to employ him?

Go on then, tell us?

An interesting point was just raised on FF regarding the potential stake retained by Murray. Bluedell will be able to expand, but with King holding a respectable portion of the shares in Murray's sports division, could he be the reason for only the MIH shares changing hands initially? King invested heavily and with the drop in price he would stand to see a good whack of that lost should all the shares be sold. Can he block the sale of the portion he is linked with?

If the MSL-owned shares are sold, the loan crystallises and King gets nothing. There will be a shareholders' agreement in place whereby King can probably block the sale of the MSL-owned shares. Perhaps it suits Murray to retain these shares anyway; or perhaps he wants to sell and a sticking block has been King.

I have it on good authority that tomorrow is the day after today or Wednesday, my source was quite cryptic, but he is a stoatin guy and I would trust him with your wife. However let me make it clear that I will broker no questioning as to the validity and all round good guyness of my "source", if tomorrow does not follow today, or it turns out not to be Wednesday I will of course reveal my "source" for all to be availed of. There endeth this bulletin, or should that be bullshit.....:fish:

 

PS... please note that I never said which tomorrow or what today...or what century the Wednesday in question would fall, feel free to disbelieve or believe as you wish, but from what I have seen posted there are little pixies who still live in pixie dell.....

Seldom has an attempt at wit fallen so flat.

Feel free - it's always flattering to have a post published on the main site.

 

PS I may leave you to think of the headline; you're always much better than me at thinking up a good line.

Publication is the sincerest form of flatulence.

in the next rangers accounts the debt will be 23 million

@kevinthomson8 No it won't unless we sell a player or two in the next 28 days.

@calscot The man who brought MF and NL together in thanks.

Was it wrong that my first reaction to this news was to think of this:

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?p=199901#post199901

 

You're a bad man, Bluedell, a very bad man. :spl:

Absolutely love it.

Done.

..........

Listen to the interview, he says something entirely different to,

 

"Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir (the enemy within) (the enemy within) and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds." Which is the first sentence in the printed article, not once is proof of funding mentioned in the interview, although Iwould have thought that would have been a mainstay of any interview, regarding the takeover, maybe I am just to auld and cynical and the fact that they were told the guy had the spondoolies simply slipped the mind...aye right...

You're point is that he contradicts himself by saying nothing about something that he prints in his meeting notes? You think that anything about something would be better than nothing about anything, and everything about something would be best?

Wow - you've convinced me that something about everything is wrong.

Andy Kerr SSB radio interview, rather different to what is in print regards Ellis.

 

http://www.clyde1.com/Article.asp?id=968104&spid=24537

 

Following the meeting, I was interviewed by Sky Sports News, Radio Scotland and Radio Clyde. I gave a factual account of the discussions and stressed the message that fans should buy season tickets and ensure that we maintain our support. I said we were all desperate for Walter to stay and that he would have some funds to strengthen the playing squad. I reiterated that the ongoing uncertainty was a big worry for fans and, the longer that continued, the more restless fans would become.

It's not clear from your post whether you are saying Andy Kerr said something different on the radio to what the notes of his meeting say.

Having listened to the radio link above, and for the avoidance of doubt, it seems to me that Andy has been entirely consistent both in print and on radio. It's a good radio interview and it's a useful summary of the meeting.

the fans� delegation were told that proof of funding had still to be shown, and left the meeting with the impression that deal was going nowhere fast".

It depends on which member of the delegation feeds stories to Thomas Jhordan. I think we should be told.

Those tell me that the club's finances are improving. We'll soon see if the bank agree.

The financial balance that now has to be struck is this:

- next year we will make a healthy profit

- that might be the last year for a while that CL football is semi-guaranteed

- should we spend all that profit now on new players/higher contracts

- and then be saddled with a loss in 2011/12 and high wages costs which we can't sustain

- or should we be just a bit more prudent and keep some of next year's profit for the following rainy-day season(s)

I find it a little strange. The business plan is in place so why do they need further negotations with the bank. It's unlikely that anything will happen that would not be cover by one of the business plan scenarios.

The bank facilities are in place through 2010 (per AJ at the AGM).

The June 2010 Accounts can only be signed off (in the autumn) once we have in place the necessary bank facilities for at least 12 months from date of signing i.e. in practice through 2011.

I think AJ is merely playing cautious because the unknowns at this stage include:

- will we win the league!

- will we qualify for the CL group stages automatically

- if not, will we end up in the CL or EL after the qualifying rounds

- what facilities will the bank agree to through 2011

- will Walter stay

- which players will we receive bids for (Boogie, Davis, McGregor, Wilson etc)

- will Boyd sign his new contract, thus using up �£18k per week of the wages budget

- will MIH survive

- if not, what will the impact be on our ownership

- will we have new owners irrespective of the MIH position

- if so, will we see an injection of funds

- what will the take-up be of season tickets

::

::

If businesses like certainty, we're certainly in about as uncertain a place as it's certainly possible to be. Of that, I'm certain.

I don't believe that they can legally do that, so what you have heard is incorrect..

Agreed.

They could simply file late and accept the late filing penalties. But IMO that would be a big no-no for a group like MIH. I expect them to file on time by the end of this month.

After all if boss can't write a character assassination there must not be many skeletons in the cupboard.

The boss only speaks the truth.

Interested scepticism is the name of this particular game.

Yeah, I noticed that.

 

Not like the fourth estate to paint a gloomier picture than necessary

You'd have thought you would have credited the author when you copied and pasted into FF. Last time I give this site the benefit of my research. :box:

I guess we still lose the automatic place after 2010/11?

Yes, we do.

My post was aimed at the Scotsman's article which isn't giving the full story and so is perhaps misleading.

Close, but a bit more to add.

If the winners of the CL in 2010/11 automatically qualify for the group stages, Scotland will still have their 2 places for 2011/12.

Also, looking forward to the country rankings for 2011, Switzerland's good year falls out which puts Scotland back up a place in the rankings so we have our 2 CL places again. (We also leap above Belgium in the 2011 provisional rankings but we can't rely on that being the final position.)

So in all probability Scotland will retain our 2 CL places ... but only by the skin of our teeth.