wabashcannonball

I've no interest in his personal adversities or his success in business. As a Rangers fan the only issue for me has been his rank dishonesty and the fact that after twenty years he has left the club in far worse condition than he found it.

 

Unfortunately the only owner we have is David Murray and until something tangible appear to take his place, we'll have to lean on half-truths and speculation.

That is a strong statement to make, do you have an example of this rank dishonesty, proven to be so.

There is only one club that I can think of that was not left in a worse state than it was found, that would be Celtic.

The EPL is about 5 billion dollars in debt, that bubble will burst, that level of debt is not sustainable, and worse it relies on the whims of outside interests. Football is reliant on everyone doing reasonably well, even now the EPL is being condemned as being in reality a 3/4 team league.

As for half truths and speculation, the only place I see that is in news reports or newspapers and to an extent sportsboards.

The statement is clear enough to me at any rate and was I believe echoed by Murray, Rangers have a facility as granted by the bank, as with all CEO's AJ would like a facility of his choosing, but the reality is what it is. Rangers as ascribed by Murray in an interview I have belatedly read, will simply at this moment in time have to operate within those financial parameters, or find outside funding.

One thing that I find hard to understand is the open hostility towards Murray, a man who has come through his personal tragedies and proved to be a winner, that is the template for the American hero, in the States he would be lauded for his achievements, but the British seem to have a problem with self made success, maybe that is part of the problem.

Suspicion is for cops, facts are for financial institutions, I have seen not one fact here or anywhere else, that says this whole charade is nothing more than gossip and people with overblown ideas of their own importance.

So there is simply no evidence that the bank has or is running the club. As long as the clubs commitments are met the bank cannot and would not interfere, I take it that there is no evidence that the club has not met its financial obligations, or do we have more hearsay in this department. Evidence would be helpful, but this whole saga is increasingly being exposed as nothing more than gossip.

Most statements are open to interpretation.

 

Did Walter and the other club employees mean that the bank were deciding on what cleaning company cleans the offices? No.

 

Did they mean that the bank had withheld renewal of the banking facility, had a physical prescence in the club, were preventing the club from buying anyone and preventing walter from being offered a new contract. Probably.

 

The bank could point to the first and say that proves they aren't running the club and their statement was truthful. Walter could point to the second and say that it proves his statement was truthful.

 

If you believe Walter was lying and take the bank's statement at face value then that's your right, but I fail to see why people were saying that the bank were in at the club for months before Walter's statement if it wasn't true.

What I believe is that the bank have not corrected or attempted to correct the statement made by Murray, that he employs Muir and not the bank. Do you have any evidence, apart from people were saying, to contradict Murray's statement, do you have any evidence that Muir a well respected company doctor is a bank nominated employee, if so show it. There appears to be a collective wish, and a wish describes it more succinctly than anything else, that Murray is somehow removed from the process, based on hearsay and I am led to believe the utterances of a sportscaster by the name of King, still whatever sinks your boat.

Banks, their officers in particular, and companies in general are prohibited by law from making false or vexatious statements knowing them to be untrue. If you choose to believe the word of the Rangers manager over the word of the Bank, the club and the present chairman that is your right, there is not one piece of hard evidence financial or otherwise to back up your belief, Murray has also stated that he employs Muir, if that was factually incorrect the bank are duty bound to correct it, they have not. There does appear to be a lot of unfounded mischief being put about, but to the benefit of who, I have my own idea on that, but will keep my powder dry in the meantime.

The RST or any other body can deliver nothing, the club is the only body that can deliver any form of ownership/ involvement, for that to happen fans wills have to be affiliated to the club not some outside body. Without the goodwill of the club nothing will happen.

I have had a very quick look through various aspects and opinions regarding the situation, it appears everything is built on a remark made by the manager Smith, about bank involvement.

Despite the authoritive sources of the financial situation stating that his statement/remark has no basis in fact, it looks as if the manager Smith has been elevated to the role of financial expert as well.

It looks to me like acres of print built on nothing more than the remark of the manager, people really should take a reality check, as to fact and fiction.

I don't believe that you understand the reasons why the Rangers fans decided not to invest in the rights issue. The sole reason for the rights was to pay off the debt that Murray had run up. The fans saw that it was Murray's responsibility to pay it off, and as Murray had underwritten the rights issue, it appeared that any purchase of shares would have minimal impact.

 

it was nothing to do with mistrust and was nothing to do with OUR love for the club.

 

As for the financial situation, it's been well documented. I wouldn't pay too much attention to Duffy's one line analysis.

You don't know what I understand or anything about me, to begin your post with such a patronising remark is a lot of what is wrong with the situation. Thirty years in Saint Louis has taught me nothing is for free, the same fans that blanked the last issue no doubt enjoyed the success that was accumulative to that debt, underwritten by Murray on paper at least.

If you expect a free ride don't be surprised if there's a train wreck, and you find you have no insurance.

I can't see any major problem at the club that is not being addressed by the new structure of Alastair Johnston, of course if wrong I will hold my hands up. I went through the same business regime as the Bunnet, thin dimes are treasured prisoners every single one, Alastair Johnston is of the same stamp, whereas Duffy would not even be considered a light hitter over here.

Thanks for the welcome Frankie.

Rangers fans had the opportunity to contribute to a share issue in 2004, they decided their mistrust of the issue was greater than their love for the club, why will it be any different if another issue is floated. Can anyone state what the facts of the situation are regarding the financial situation of the club, the manageable debt apart. Duffy has stated in a British newspaper that the club is not in financial difficulty, why does he want to help or need to if that is the case.

I see the club have maintained a dignified silence, making a statement after the accounts were published and leaving it at that.

Murray on the other hand has made statements and very loudly, there is something about the whole drama that does not ring true, as sources claiming to be in the know fail to challenge any of Murray's statements, surely some journalist must have the sense to see what a scoop a face to face quotable on the record interview with Murray would have.

The danger to Rangers at the moment appears to be from the constant squabbling of fans, they really should get their acts together and attempt to form a truly representative body, but I fear that will never happen, to many factions and fragmentation's.