Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts

[chilledbear 16]

This is the post when discussing Boss' article:

 

 

 

I can understand a bit of umbrage at Boss' lampooning of the Trust in the article but these kind of comments along with the paranoid rantings of Mark Dingwall yesterday are quite frankly ludicrous.

 

I didn't realise he was on the RST Board.

 

At least I can 'Google' Duffy and decide on his suitability. But having a Supporter on the Board representing me and my investment, how do I investigate them?

[wabashcannonball 0]

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.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

This is the post when discussing Boss' article:

 

 

 

I can understand a bit of umbrage at Boss' lampooning of the Trust in the article but these kind of comments along with the paranoid rantings of Mark Dingwall yesterday are quite frankly ludicrous.

 

That is part of the post. A tad unfair to merely quote that Frankie.

 

The full quote.

 

The article concerned was released on 'newsnow'. Anyone doing a Google search of 'Grantly Group, Graham Duffy' will see it crop up time and time again. Those behind it knew exactly what they were doing - this is why STV picked up on it.

 

We hear sanctimonious guff about the 'right' to ask 'legitimate questions'. Why not at the very least try to postulate benign answers rather than allude to prostitution and spout soundbites like 'I'm out'? Most of all, why not wait until Graham Duffy is in a position to speak more openly?

 

 

Tims could scarcely have done a better hatchet job. Those responsible must answer for their actions.

 

Celtc fans COULD scarcely have done a better job than that. I don't think thats an unreasonable statement to make. No-one is being called anything.

[Frankie 8,173]

Wait a minute OOA - The only reason I didn't quote the rest of the post because it was equally tedious and has already been covered in depth. But, here it is again for those concerned about the context...

 

1. The article was released to NewsNow to generate traffic for RM. In exactly the way this site, FF and the RST (previously at least) do. Nothing wrong with that.

 

2. The article was written to convey doubt about Duffy's credentials - doubt many fans agree with and deserve to know about. Sure, as I've said several times, perhaps Boss should have left out the RST digs but that is only deflecting from the more important message in the article.

 

3. I fail to see how valid questions about Duffy and the Trust is 'sanctimonious guff'? Such 'benign' questions were asked of the Trust in other threads and received the same aggressive, abusive response from the poster making these threats now.

 

4. It is not the Rangers fans' responsibility to ensure Duffy's background was beyond reproach and his intentions clear before he (and the Trust allegedly) went to the press. We can only make our minds up based on the information available to us and I thank Boss for helping us form an initial conclusion before we know more.

 

If all the above is behaviour of Celtic fans then I'm confused. It is the actions of Rangers fans interested in the whole issue and ensuring everyone is in receipt of the facts before they're asked to invest their hard-earned cash into a business led by someone with a dubious history and a group more eager to dish out the insults and threats rather than answer simple questions.

 

How would you describe that behaviour? Is that typical of a Rangers fan?

[craig 5,199]

What is ironic is that OOA comes on here and suggests that it is a fair statement that Celtic fans could scarcely have done a better hatchet job...... in that very same post whoever the author of it was had a very pointed go at an interested fellow Bear, something Celtic fans would revel in.

 

Irony ? I think so.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

The Chinese have a saying "may you live in interesting times" which i think is supposedly to mean hope you have trouble and upheaval. Well we are certainly living in interesting times as Rangers fans, but i really do believe we are going to come out of this period stronger and more united as a group. If we the fans know 100% that any monies given to the Assembly will be used to gain the fans a voice at Rangers, then i think this time any call to arms (so to speak) will be a success. Somebody made a good suggestion on the Bluenose forum about the Assembly getting collection boxes at Ibrox, so as any fan who may not have the finances to pay �£1000 for an share issue. Can still contribute some money through this collection when he can afford to and whilst at Ibrox.

Edited December 2, 2009 by aweebluesoandso
spellings

[elderslieblue 0]

I'll repeat what I previously posted. My information [which I accept as accurate] is the Trust have NOT spoken to Duffy. News Of The World published quotes on Duffys backgound attributed to the Trust . Those quotes were later broadcast on T.V. The programme which used the quotes has since apologised and withdrawn them. I assume the NOTW will also apologise this weekend.

 

Can anybody see where the backlash against Boss' wee jibe is warranted ?

 

I post this, not to defend the RST. They are capable of doing that themselves. BUT, I see that a few posters above continue to not only run with the original inaccurate infromation, but are now beginning to disect it and to criticise other Rangers fans for talking to 'shady businessmen'.

 

Or did the posters somehow all miss what I originally posted ?

 

We're all in this sh!t together. Divisions ain't helping.

[maineflyer 0]

I'll repeat what I previously posted. My information [which I accept as accurate] is the Trust have NOT spoken to Duffy. News Of The World published quotes on Duffys backgound attributed to the Trust . Those quotes were later broadcast on T.V. The programme which used the quotes has since apologised and withdrawn them. I assume the NOTW will also apologise this weekend.

 

Can anybody see where the backlash against Boss' wee jibe is warranted ?

 

I post this, not to defend the RST. They are capable of doing that themselves. BUT, I see that a few posters above continue to not only run with the original inaccurate infromation, but are now beginning to disect it and to criticise other Rangers fans for talking to 'shady businessmen'.

 

Or did the posters somehow all miss what I originally posted ?

 

We're all in this sh!t together. Divisions ain't helping.

 

Divisions need to be healed. They almost never heal themselves. What do you suggest?

[elderslieblue 0]

Divisions need to be healed. They almost never heal themselves. What do you suggest?

 

I'm a Rangers supporter, not Henry Kissinger.

[Frankie 8,173]

I'll repeat what I previously posted. My information [which I accept as accurate] is the Trust have NOT spoken to Duffy. News Of The World published quotes on Duffys backgound attributed to the Trust . Those quotes were later broadcast on T.V. The programme which used the quotes has since apologised and withdrawn them. I assume the NOTW will also apologise this weekend.

 

Can anybody see where the backlash against Boss' wee jibe is warranted ?

 

I post this, not to defend the RST. They are capable of doing that themselves. BUT, I see that a few posters above continue to not only run with the original inaccurate information, but are now beginning to disect it and to criticise other Rangers fans for talking to 'shady businessmen'.

 

Or did the posters somehow all miss what I originally posted ?

 

We're all in this sh!t together. Divisions ain't helping.

 

I believe STV removed/altered the website article because as they simply reported it direct from NOTW they had no way of knowing if the RST or NOTW were correct.

 

FYI; the original NOTW article is still available which I'd expected to have been removed by now if the Trust's claims about misrepresentation were correct - apology this Sunday or not.

 

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/scottish/scottish_news/622898/Graham-Duffy-vows-to-let-fans-see-bid-to-take-over-Rangers.html

 

Now, I obviously don't know who is right there. But the Trust's staunch defence of Duffy (and their initial acceptance of the NOTW coverage) culminating in the abuse we've read above suggests it's not as simple as quotes in newspapers - misrepresented or not.

 

In addition, I don't see any decisive behaviour from the people being abused. Only open questions which, as UCB has done in this very thread, can be answered politely leaving Graham Duffy to persuade us all on his intentions. Boss' article can help us make up our mind and also places pressure on Mr Duffy to be more open than he may have been without the article.

 

I really think the reaction from some is totally at odds with what Boss wrote and any criticism/questions therein.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Frankie