Anchorman

I'm disputing the use of the phrase 'gangster' not supporting the appointment, although I do believe in a man's right to reform (although possible not as a director of our Club). So you can pull back from the cliff edge of your 'tragedy' as you don't need to present an arguement, although stange that you would if it was so tragic, when no one is holding a gun to your head.

Is it??? Should be easy for someone to very quickly educate me then. If you are using it for someone who has been imprisoned for a crime then the world is full of 'gangsters'. If you are using it for more clandestine underworld activities then educate us all on the Easdales if you would be so kind as I haven't seen anything that goes even close to proving that. Other than some guy telling us that it's the 'word on the street of Wemyss Bay'. While there is no evidence then as someone stated earlier in the thread "old wives tales and gossip". I don't deal in that. I leave it told old wives and gossips.

If a hunchback comes out of jail will he go straight? When a pigeon chested man turns 50 does he hold a big doo? Are my poos pointed at the end so that my arse doesn't shut with a bang? What other questions are being asked in Wemyss bay mate, and what has it do with me??? I'm losing your thread (did I get that sentence the right way round?).

I think you missed the fact that the question was directed at me which is why I asked "what questions?".

What questions?

Here we go again with that phrase. Define someone please!!!

Too far now!! It's not the Kray twins or Mad Frankie Fraser we're discussing here. Lets get a touch of reality here. There's harder guys selling 'gear' up closes in Glasgow these days.

My understanding is that in the early days of Mr Whyte's tenure he tried to have a conversation with him about Rangers at one such top table (being that Whyte's family were all real bluenoses ). Apparently JM was none too pleased, to put it mildly, when he very quickly realised that CW couldn't hold a decent conversation about our Club's history or players, and was basically a shyster. I believe JM was close to wining and dining ON Whyte that night. Maybe a blessing for Whyte that it wasn't the 'old' James Mortimer.

It wasn't aimed at you mate. It was a general comment to posters. As I stated in an earlier post in this thread I think people (like James Mortimer) should be allowed to re-create their 'notorious' image and move on. I wonder how many would call James an 'unfit' character these days due to the publicity around his excellent charity work etc. And this was a guy who had the reputation as the Glasgow 'gangster' at one time.

If there are facts then put them up there and debate them. If not then we move on without creating our own rumours based drama. We've got enough 'drama' around our Club.

Spot on mate

'Gangster' is a very loosely used and mis-used term IMHO. If they walk through the door carrying violin cases then I may change my mind. Many businessmen start off with a 'by hook or by 'crook' approach to becoming successful, so in their early days of getting there they become known as 'gangsters' because they are pretty ruthless in what they do. Then when they get success they very quickly want to become legitimate - who wants to get 'dubbed up' when you have a full bank balance? James Mortimer is the prime example. In his hey dey when Victoria's night club in Glasgow got into full swing James was known in many circles as 'THE Glasgow gangster' especially after the demise of Arthur Thompson. James would frequently walk into Ibrox in his camel hair coat surrounded by his 'men'. However he very quickly became a very successful businessman who does piles of great charity work, and found himself very often sitting at the top table in functions etc with Walter & co. His name is all over the radio now for the right reasons. It does not pay these guys to constantly be known as 'dodgy'. I think they will be fine. I'm willing to bet in 2 years time we won't even be discussing their past.

You know the sad thing? Some of them would buy into ALL of it if it came from one of their sources. Nice one.

Are you serious FFS? The Style Police would have the pepper spray out for that number. That looks like something the Swansea fans have put up for a piss take.

Didn't do it last season when the chips were down. I don't know enough about Law, but I hope so. Law will probably be left on the bench . Boom boom!

Still lacks a 'game turner' in the middle of the park for me i.e. someone who can produce a wee bit of magic when the game falls into a pit of mediocrity, which happened way too often last season. He wouldn't have to cost a fortune. Look at Aluko and what he cost.

Is Luis Fernando Suarez (Honduras coach) any relation to another Mr Suarez on Liverpool's books? It's just when Ally says "He will certainly give us a bit of bite"

Are you fishing ya cheeky monkey? If you are, I reckon you may get a bite or two!!

It's all down to your definition of 'appeasement'. You seem to see it as a negative i.e. pulling the wool over our eyes. I don't see it that way. The statement that was put to the Club from certain fans groups was "we need stability and fast otherwise your season tickets could suffer". They react swiftly to put the one person at the helm who (for now) can give the feeling of stability. Who else could they put in there quickly? I would have Dave King at the drop of a hat, but he is never going to knock down doors in a hurried manner.

For me I can't help feel that this comment is as honest as the day is long, but that this 'conservative' true Rangers supporting financial businessman was too 'old school' and naive to the murky back-stabbing ways of today's corporate world, especially boardroom struggles that Dan Brown would struggle with. Some of the stuff he has taken lacked class from top to bottom. Granted he didn't do himself any favours, but did anyone seriously think for one minute that he had anything other than Rangers at heart?

I get where you are coming from, but 'fan appeasement (if taken in the context of concilliation)' is healthy I think as long as it has no clandestine undertones to it. Without it there is fan provocation and unrest, and I would rather be appeased (but not duped, which I don't think this is an attempt to do).

We complain about the leaks. Board meeting called to sort out the mess and the constant leaks. No leaks from the board meeting. We complain that there are no leaks. [P.S. - for "We" read "I" )

I have a lot of hope for Macleod but I don't know a lot about Law TBH. What's frustrated me about Black and Hutton very often is that as 'holders' they don't move very far off the toes of the back four, which has often effectively given us a back 5 or 6. The one thing that looks different about Peralta is that he seems to have a cracking 'engine' [Oh God stop me turning into cliche man!]. He seems to be up and down the park (I'm now starting to convince myself as I type that he might just provide something we need ) which was sadly lacking at times this season from our midfield.

Any footage I've seen of him shows him to be a 'spoiler' (Terry Hurlock type) and he looks very prone to yellow cards. I would really love to see someone in there who can run the show from midfield with a bit of creativity.