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

[maineflyer 0]

It's miserable to think we're in such a hole, where the only people rushing to speak on our behalf are a rabble of malcontents and paranoids. There really is no hope of re-constructing the club successfully if the current RST board are involved. On the one hand I see no evidence they could contribute anything of worth to such a process and on the other, they will be so busy looking for enemies in every corner that they'll never get round to it in any case.

[andy steel 0]

I try to keep out of RST threads as I'm not, never have been and never will be a member, but FWIW: anything these people are involved with I won't be touching with a barge pole.

[wabashcannonball 0]

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.

[Frankie 8,173]

wabash:

 

Firstly welcome to the forum.

 

Secondly, what is different this time is that SDM would no longer be responsible for any investment as was the case with the 2005 share issue you mention. As such, it is likely any take up of an ownership scheme would be more successful - depending on who is involved.

 

Your point about confusing information is most valid and that is one that I hope to see addressed at the club AGM next week. Similarly, the fan groups do need to do more so I'm encouraged with the Assembly's comments of yesterday compared to the disgraceful actions of (some of) those representing the RST.

 

Unfortunately those people still seem intent on making alleged 'tims with hatchet jobs answer for their behaviour' for asking reasonable questions of Graham Duffy's background. Make of that threat what you will. Unity and leadership it certainly is not.

[Bluedell 5,348]

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 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.

[Bluedell 5,348]

Unfortunately those people still seem intent on making alleged 'tims with hatchet jobs answer for their behaviour' for asking reasonable questions of Graham Duffy's background. Make of that threat what you will. Unity and leadership it certainly is not.

 

 

This was a member of RST board? Calling a life-member of the RST a "Tim" and making threats towards them?

[Frankie 8,173]

This is the post when discussing Boss' article:

 

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

 

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.

[Bluedell 5,348]

Thansk Frankie. Not as bad as I first feared, but not particularly reassuring or professional. I presume that they think that we should blindly follow everything that they say and not investigate anything.

[Frankie 8,173]

Obviously the meaning can be interpreted differently but, like you say, it's hardly the kind of comment that is helpful to the organisation.

 

At the very least it is rather intimidating and totally out of place.

[craig 5,199]

Yep, I guess this is just the type of RST leadership we need in order to UNITE the fans.

 

I feel for UCB and the other reasoned RST board members because when fighting against those type of comments they really are pissing in the wind.

 

When will they learn that these type of comments, far from uniting the fans, will fragment them even further. And whether they like that or not it WILL have a negative impact on trying to achieve the fans financial backing to the club.

 

I despair at times with the words and actions of some people who are supposedly acting for the greater good of the fans and the club.

 

Rather than suggesting that boss should "answer for his actions" they should actually be thanking him for doing some of their due diligence for them.

 

And they wonder why fans are not flocking to back them..... you couldn't make it up.