Union City Blue

Thanks for clarifying, Pete. Not sure what else I can say or how much clearer I can be. Only time will tell, so I accept that and move on.

Oh dear. It was mainly a rhetorical question mainflyer, as you probably know - which is probably why you didn't answer it. I'm sorry but I'm not here to promote my personal contribution to the RST, nor explain it. I'm not an attention seeker nor a walking ego so, in public, this is a non-issue for me. It's a shame that you see me in the way you do, but you have your own mind and I won't lose any sleep over it. If people are courteous to me because they wish to have some kind of "influence", then so be it. I must admit I thought people were being decent because they are decent people, but I'll watch out for that now so thanks for the tip. Frankie can explain about the past all he likes - in fact he already has privately to some extent, as have others. I've heard 'both sides' and have also spoken to neutral people who have spoken to people on 'both sides', so I have a reasonably broad picture - broader than you and many others I imagine. The ever-helpful 'boss' chap has just posted some information too, I see. Very interesting it is, although it lacks one crucial thing; balance. Having said all that, I'm moving on. There is nothing to be gained by discussing this any more. I wasn't there, I've heard the tales, it was 18 months ago, times have changed, new things are happening, so what else can I add? That's about 250 words and 10 minutes of my life wasted, so I won't be doing that again. I know that won't satisfy you but sometimes you can't please everybody. I'm not going to be dragged back there no matter how hard you try.

OK, so let's say I accept all of that for a moment. As I wasn't there at the time and have heard numerous conflicting stories from all and neutral angles, how do you think I should address it with a view to de-polarising it?

If, in the end, everything always comes back to this old resignations issue then there's probably nothing left to discuss. I looked again at my post and I can't see why anything I wrote about the Trust would worry you.

Sorry Pete, but I've no idea what you mean.

I can assure you that there will be no "guaranteed places" for people in supporters groups on the board of Rangers FC. If people are concerned about that, then I hope this clears it up. I speak only for the Trust, but we'd want the best CEO, the best FD, the best Operations Manager, and the best Team Manager etc. the club could attract. Definitely. If the initial structure lends itself to fans rep's (i.e. some grass roots, not just money) being on the board then any Rangers fan should be able to stand (or fall) in a free and open members' election. That includes current RST Board members, the Euro-neds, and Gersnet posters. I know this sounds ridiculous, but I would argue that even maineflyer could stand. Well maybe that's stretching it a bit but in my ideal world, anybody can stand and I certainly hope that's the case. The OMOV issue tortures everyone it seems (apart from the people with the big money). I think we need to be grown-up about things and accept that if you are going to put in �£1m or �£1k then you might get a different say from the next guy who puts in a tenner. Where to draw the lines is the issue, with the added concern that money = power once again. This is just a personal opinion but I see the ownership of Rangers by fans as a process and I'll be happy to secure as much as possible if the first stage is meaningful and the next stage, in principal, is more. It's well known that rich guys dont necessarily get rich by being nice guys at the same time, so the issue of wealthy people being inclined to share power is sensitive & absolutely crucial. That is why diplomacy and co-operation is required at certain stages and why mischief-making is unhelpful at certain times.

OK mate, I am looking at the implications of the statements, you are interpreting things differently so we'll agree to differ. On the Murray situation I'd say you simply need to allow for all shades of opinion. Most Rangers fans I know aren't openly hostile to Murray and several still think he's the man. I have less intrinsic hostility than many and I don't dismiss the good times as readily as some others. But in the end, he screwed it up and this situation has been in the post for quite a while so you can't blame people for having a go.

I don't understand where you are coming from yet tbh. What did you think of AJ's statement that the business plan is "unsatisfactory for the ambitions of Rangers FC" and what do you think the implcations are?

In my opinion, when the bank controls the major decisions within a club (i.e. whether it can buy or needs to sell players, which affects its ability to compete), it is effectively running it by constraining it. When the Chairman says that the business plan which has been imposed is "unsatisfactory" then I reach the same conclusion. Anything else is of B-grade importance in my eyes. The bank needs to get out of the club, that's the first positive thing that can happen.

lol - I certainly wasn't talking about you mate!

HIGHLY :devil:

They just can't help themselves. Leftyism shows its true colours once again - a disgusting mix of red and green.

Is he not meant to be one of rising stars? (genuinely). Fair enough if he's not going to get a game and he can build up senior experience against older guys though. Hopefully a good move for everybody.

Craig, thanks. Regarding the first half of your post, one of the basic problems here is that the Trust is being given information in confidence. If we break certain confidences we believe it will undermine what we're hoping to help achieve - an improvement in Rangers' position and meaningful supporter ownership. I apologise for this and I know how things can sometimes be perceived & interpreted by many, some, or few - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction(s) generally, then sometimes we are in a no-win situation when it comes to explaining things at the time people want explanations. On a related point, there are other big players in the loop here (for their own reasons wishing to remain anonymous at the moment) who we know for sure have credibility, the inclination, the obligation, the motivation and the resources to do background checks on anything you care to mention. Although I can't discuss what these people have done in the background or what's been shared with us, I simply ask you to keep this in mind. I also realise I'm now leaving myself open to criticism for being vague etc so, as has been said quite a few times now, maybe I should shut the feck up for a bit until things further develop - which they surely will.

I think the best way to put it is that we are happy to contribute to the nudging along in the right general direction(s), provided that is how we interpret the way things are going. Whether that is right, wrong or indifferent is, as you say, a matter of opinion. In terms of bickering etc, I've said all I'm prepared to say on that I'm afraid. On your later point, David Edgar has been speaking to different people from me at different stages and I've not been there, so I honestly don't know how accurately he's been interpreted in various places and I'm not suggesting anything different as far as I know. If I have, I didn't mean to.

I just meant that the article started life on a Rangers board and ended up in the media - that's all I meant and I wasn't suggesting anything at all relating to the who or how that happened. In terms of the stupid things GD's being criticised for, there may or may not be reasonable & satisfactory explanations - I don't know. If satisfactory explanations are forthcoming, it'll all be a distraction that nobody needs and did no good. If not, we'll need to see what remains unsatisfactory, on what basis and how material these things are. Too many if's and but's to take a position other than 'wait and see' I'd say. I do also appreciate that these things are a matter of public record - what I meant was the collective, underlying, implicit suggestion was that something is up regarding Duffy, which is how its been interpreted by a lot of people reading the article. Hence the comment about incomplete suggestions. As I said, it's up to Graham Duffy to satisfy everybody of his credentials and suitability to an appropriate level of detail, at the appropriate time. There's no way for people who don't directly or indirectly control the media to escape public scrutiny these days, so I expect that to have been factored in.

I really think we need to see how this plays out mate. One of the problems we have these days is the short-termist view on news. To borrow your phrase in another context, one day there's promising news and everyone gets a hard-on. The next day, there's some muck and everyone dives into depression. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle and only when everything's out there that people can objectively make up their own minds. It will be up to Graham Duffy to satisfy everyone of his credibility and suitability and as these people aren't stupid, I would be amazed if this wasn't factored in. The Trust will watch with interest and scrutinise along with everyone else. In terms of media-management, the consortium guys have played a blinder so far IMHO, so let's see what happens before we reach conclusions about how or why certain things are done at certain times. Maybe odd mistakes will be made along the way - I don't know and I'm not suggesting this was one - but the media are the media experts and they usually hold all the cards so it's not necessarily easy. Things are obviously moving, so the picture will emerge and then everyone can decide what they think. I know it's frustrating at the moment, but this seems to be the way its unfolding so we'll all need to live with that I'm afraid.

Morning all, Firstly, I would like to repeat that the Trust is primarily concerned about two things; what is good for Rangers and the furtherment of widespread, meaningful supporter-ownership. In that order. It is not up to us to decide what is good for Rangers on behalf of anyone else though and we are not attempting to do that - but if we believe things are moving in the right direction generally, we are on-side. That is a pragmatic position to take IMHO. The situation with Graham Duffy, as I see see it, is like this. He has stepped forward and - because we are talking about a consortium - I suspect he will simply be the first of several faces to do so as things develop. He is the only person to step forward up to this point though, hence the 'only show in town' comment. I would also speculate that anyone in his position will be fully aware that probes into his background will occur, most prominently in an often-hostile and sensationalist media. I would be surprised if he had not foreseen this and I can only assume that this was regarded by him and his partners as something which would not be detrimental overall. They would be pretty stupid if they didn't see these things coming. So I further assume that Duffy and his partners feel they will emerge with their credibility intact. How they achieve this I don't know - but if they fail then they will not get the support of the Trust (or Rangers fans, I imagine) going forward. If (if) Duffy can clear the questions up, then naturally I'd hope that no damage has been done as a result of inconclusive suggestions indirectly fed to the media by Rangers fans. The chucking of stones between message-boards and mischief-making, I'm not getting into. As I've said consistently before, I find it tiresome, disappointing and totally counter-productive for Rangers.

Of course. We're all Rangers fans.

As things stand, I agree with that.

Your mind is wandering mate.... the Herald seems to have good info, take it on board. The current owner of Rangers would NEVER open the club up to supporters in ANY way, never mind a meaningful one. This is about the future.

It really depends if this guy is the real deal or just using us for his own ends , I am having lunch tomorrow with a very good friend whom is very close to this , will let you know more then , if this is proper then all well and good until then I stay a sceptic Of course. It all depends on lots of things. Would be interested in hearing your news, obviously. You fooked up the quotes first, not me!

A new, lead, potential investor is quoted in the media today discussing membership schemes and supporter involvement. If you think about it, that is massive progress in itself. Pro-Trust and anti-Trust is petty and irrelevant IMHO. It's about Rangers opening the club up to supporters in a meaningful way.

Agree with that. I keep thinking he feels under pressure and he's too 'tight' physically.

understandable mate