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

[Bluedell 5,350]

I think indirectly in this case means that they did simply pick it from the website.

 

Scottish Television has a chap registered on both here and RM so I assume he seen it, and got approval to publish it from his gaffer.

 

Fair enough. I thought UCB was saying that it had been deliberately fed to the media, so if that's not the case then apologies for any misunderstanding.

[Frankie 8,173]

Fair enough. I thought UCB was saying that it had been deliberately fed to the media, so if that's not the case then apologies for any misunderstanding.

 

Fortunately for us I don't think UCB is as petty as some of his peers on the Trust board.

[Frankie 8,173]

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.

 

Again that's all fair enough but you must concede that the Trust aren't just watching with interest but are arguably help conduct the peak/trough media circus by making the wrong comment at the wrong time.

 

Much better, IMHO, keeping silent until something tangible can be brought to the table. Then people can make up their mind on the project's own merits without the tainting of poor participation from different sides of the debate.

 

To be clear I don't think anyone is being unreasonable in their criticisms but the reaction from Trust reps has been bizarre. You can only lose out with such stuff - no matter where it is posted. No-one wins out of that considering we all want a better Rangers.

[Union City Blue 0]

Out of interest, who are you suggesting indirectly fed Boss's article to the media? Surely they can pick it up themselves from the website?

 

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.

[maineflyer 0]

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.

 

Will you be making that point to your fellow RST board members?

[calscot 0]

I think the danger of this (or indeed the bank becoming too involved in general) is that it may fall foul of the Rules of the SPL, in particular the definition of "Insolvency Event" in section I1 part e., whereupon we would risk being deducted 10 points by virtue of section A6.8.

 

Yeah, I just thought that there might be some way round it and that if the debt is paid in full, then technically there is no insolvency.

 

I'm very wary of the fans being fleeced by a takeover consortium a la Fergus McCann. It seems all they need to do is guarantee the loans, then float a share issue to fans in order to pay off the debt and be left with say a 60% controlling interest in a debt free Rangers after only spending a few hundred thousand quid.

 

The fans put up 99% of the money are are left with a minority shareholding and their shares will be worth a fraction of what they paid for them.

 

Looks like an nice easy earner for someone with a bit of money behind them and so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the interested parties have a dodgy background...

[bmck 117]

I just find it hard to hear ucb say he is above petty intersite squabbles as a means of undermining criticisms of the trust - some petty, some pointed - when the biggest perpetrators of this mentality arent those spouting negativity from the oblivion of the internet but the trust themselves. You would expect it of the anonymous internet, but not supposed leaders of men. To blame the media for the peaks and troughs when the trust is doing its best to create and use them seems fundamentally skewed. Everytime UCB posts I find myself agreeing, and then as soon as I read something in the paper or hear something said by them on FF about the rest of us I just think FFS, WTF is going on here.

[Frankie 8,173]

In terms of the stupid things GD's being criticised for, there may or may not be reasonable & satisfactory explanations - I don't know.

 

Indeed.

 

Which is exactly why the RST should not have publicly backed this person without knowing of his intentions and background sufficiently well beforehand.

 

Of course your media colleagues are suggesting the quotes attributed to David Edgar in the NOTW are false. You seem to be suggesting otherwise. Which is it as I certainly don't want to criticise people for saying something that didn't even happen?

[Union City Blue 0]

Again that's all fair enough but you must concede that the Trust aren't just watching with interest but are arguably help conduct the peak/trough media circus by making the wrong comment at the wrong time.

 

Much better, IMHO, keeping silent until something tangible can be brought to the table. Then people can make up their mind on the project's own merits without the tainting of poor participation from different sides of the debate.

 

To be clear I don't think anyone is being unreasonable in their criticisms but the reaction from Trust reps has been bizarre. You can only lose out with such stuff - no matter where it is posted. No-one wins out of that considering we all want a better Rangers.

 

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.

[Bluedell 5,350]

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.

My bad. Sorry, mate.

 

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.

 

TBF, it's more than implicit. He is a director of companies where the directors are failing in their legal responsibilities. There is no satisfactory reason for it.

 

However it may become small stuff in the overall scheme of things. I guess it didn't really matter if Brian Dempsey had or had not issues.

 

We'll just need to wait and see, as you suggest.