Frankie
-
Posts
271,400 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
179
Everything posted by Frankie
-
Are you saying wabash is SDM deep under-cover...? :devil:
-
I noticed that a few weeks back. Problem is with the server which Barry may be able to request them to fix.
-
In other words, UCB wasn't invited to the Neptune.... :fish:
-
Amen brother :cheers:
-
I'm sure UCB will clarify for those of us who are confused...
-
Unfortunately, as you have found out, it is difficult to split your own opinions from Trust opinion which is why I went off on that wee tangent. As someone who suffered from the same unfairness during my time on the board, I apologise for talking about things which you won't want involved in as you carry out your own duties. PS: Good to see you taking an active part on here again. We've missed your input - just ignore the blawhards like me.
-
Quite an allegation to make so unlike Mr Dingwall, I'd prefer to keep things accurate. Where did the Trust confirm their receipt of said document? UCB is saying they do not have such a plan?
-
I'd respectfully suggest it is your business, being an existing Trust board member attempting to increase awareness (and credibility) in the organisation, to ask why one of your colleagues sees fit to publicly lie about the former chair of said group simply to deflect from his own failings. Such attitudes has seen a gradual but noticeable filtering away of well-kent contributors to other forums (especially recently) s they appear keen to widen their scope of debate must be worrying to him and those who agree with his flawed viewpoint that FF is the single most important recruiting ground/debating tool for the Trust membership. But, I completely understand you staying out of any such pettiness given Mr Dingwall is incapable of seeing the wood for the trees in that respect.
-
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.
-
To be fair Mr Dingwall has posted a variety of information suggesting he knows more than he does. In saying that, we all like to fly a few kites so I'll file those posts under that description. PS: He certainly does not know about who Graham Duffy employs as a stockbroker - that much is certain. But anything to deflect attention from the disappointing splits/arguments we've seen on FF of late.
-
I didn't write the articles UCB but, as I made clear above, they make a fair number of decent points. They're certainly a bit more worthy of our priorities than childish filters based on minimal evidence. I just find it a pity that some are so keen to align themselves to any party involved when the situation is so fluid and likely to change. The truth lies somewhere in the middle so I don't think anyone has anything to gain from saying Mr X is the enemy and Mr Y is the saviour.
-
Didn't their high heid yins deny this on their forum of choice?
-
therabbitt wrote it? OK then, let's look at your original: 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.
-
They sure are... I'll let you do that...
-
Are we really going to get caught up on semantics here? 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...
-
The winner does... And those in 2nd/3rd place also get one... Great odds for a bit of fun!
-
BUMP for this... Not a great deal of interest which is quite surprising. An excellent chance of winning a free t-shirt! :robbo:
-
I agree with BdTS...
-
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... To be clear, as you know, there is nothing wrong with painting a more constructive picture of Donald Muir compared to those who have cast him as the villain but in the absence of our strategy for next season (agreed budget or not) I'd have thought the default position of the Rangers fanbase should continue to be one of support for the club - but accompanied with the right to continue to apply pressure to ensure our investment is used effectively. There remain many issues with our football club and while Muir may not be directly responsible for them, he can contribute to addressing them. Until he does so, I'd be very careful in casting him as our saviour - in mischief or not...
-
That post was from FF earlier. BdTS' source is a good one but, like them all, is perhaps not helping the situation by releasing contradictory information depending on the day of the week. NARSA, the Trust, the Assembly - whoever your fan group of choice - need to stop using friends on forums and actually go to their members with some information which allows us to form an educated opinion on current events.
-
Found this succinct analysis on RM very funny (and probably not as crazy at it sounds)...!
-
I'd also like to add though that much of the people who organised the protests did so from a neutral position when it comes to favoured forums and the like. I myself was happy to assist this and do think the small (and certainly imperfect) efforts will have placed pressure on the club. The work of one man who stood up for his opinion at the Lloyds AGM also helped keep the issue public. What people should be concentrating on now is to ensure there is a balanced focus on debate while attempting to organise the support into a group of people who can discuss important issues and find an objective outcome. I'm not so sure articles saying 'I told you so' are overly helpful in that regard. Especially when they may be as premature as some of the complaints in the above article. PS: I understand that some of the criticisms aimed at the authors of the original articles was beyond shameful so I also don't blame RM for taking a chance to show that up for the nonsense it was.
-
While I certainly don't think Muir is the hero suggested by the article, much of the content is reasonable and it just goes to show people shouldn't back horses before the race has even begun... I just hope the author hasn't done same...
-
Generally, when you compare us with other forums, I think the debate has been conducted very well with people defending their point of view in an educated fashion. The ownership issue is THE main subject at the moment when it comes to Rangers so it would be unreasonable for us to lock a thread which should interest us all. Sure, the media interpretation of the day-to-day events may be frustrating but even they are entitled to have an opinion.
-
I just don't understand why he hasn't signed already then...? Same with Broadfoot. I guess Bain et al must be very busy with other matters.
