Mr Duffy speaks again

[Bluedell 5,329]

There must come a time when we have to start trusting anyone who has come forward to help the Club.

 

There's not been too many people who have said that they don't trust Duffy.

 

There is nothing wrong is raising concerns over publicly available information. Are you suggesting that the support should blindly accept whoever puts themselves forward?

 

I'm sure any serious player has a lot more skeletons in their closet than a few late annual returns and I can't imagine Duffy losing too much sleep over it. It's actually an irrelevance in the overall scheme of things. It's fine to discuss it on messageboards but will not matter a jot when push comes to shove.

 

There are far bigger issues involved than that and the serious questioning over the proposals and the related finance hasn't started yet. It's obviously vital for the club and we all want to make sure that whatever "deal" is put on the table is the best one possible for the club.

[maineflyer 0]

I wondered if you would pick up on that. Interesting that he appears to have his finger on the pulse?

 

It's not difficult for him to have a finger on a pulse. Whether it's the pulse is another thing. If he's as interested in Rangers as he says he is then I guess he can read posts on websites just like the rest of us really.

 

What's much more interesting is that he is already judging scrutiny as "mischief making". Now where have I come across that before?

[chilledbear 16]

''As I have stated previously, between discounts and rewards the supporters should not be expending much more than they are at this time. It is difficult to complete this transition without some form of contribution and support. The supporters have voiced their wish to become an owner of the club. According to the last accounts Rangers had net assets of �£113m, that is the stated assets; the supporters want ownership of the club and therefore the assets. To ask 45,000 members to contribute �£1000 only raises �£45m, not even half the value of the asset, this investment in turn is being used to eliminate any risk to that asset, which makes the asset even more secure, however this comes with a price and a commitment''.

 

Is the figure quoted for the Net Assets correct??

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

It's not difficult for him to have a finger on a pulse. Whether it's the pulse is another thing. If he's as interested in Rangers as he says he is then I guess he can read posts on websites just like the rest of us really.

 

What's much more interesting is that he is already judging scrutiny as "mischief making". Now where have I come across that before?

 

To be fair I'd hardly call that scrutiny. Mischief making is entirely accurate. Basic basic fact with absolutely no context or depth to it.

[biggordy 0]

M F Duffy appears to talk the talk alright but unless we start trusting prospective "rescuers", no-one will ever get the chance to walk the walk.

 

Can I add that I was "taught to be cautious", but on this occasion after weighing up all that's been said so far concerning the openness of Duffy, especially when comparing him with "smoke and mirrors" specialist SDM, we should treat him with a feeling of optimism.

[Zappa 0]

I personally believe that a deal has been signed, sealed and awaits deliverance when you consider some events over the past few months. For example Murray stepping down when he did, Johnston shoed in, no transfer expenditure pre season, coaching staff contracted to January (half way through the season just doesn't make sense) Murray has also said for some time that the Club was up for sale and I believe his "exit strategy" was put in place at least 2 years ago.

I think you may be reading too much into the sequence of events. They are mostly related, but certainly not the contracts of Walter Smith & his coaching team only being till January. IMO, it's most likely that it was simply a case of them signing a standard 3 year contract with a view to possibly extending it if necessary. Why they weren't contracted for 41 or 42 months I have no idea, but it seems highly doubtful that it's related to the change of ownership of the club because there's no way that was planned to fall half way through this season when Walter & the others signed their contracts 3 years ago.

[Bluedell 5,329]

''As I have stated previously, between discounts and rewards the supporters should not be expending much more than they are at this time. It is difficult to complete this transition without some form of contribution and support. The supporters have voiced their wish to become an owner of the club. According to the last accounts Rangers had net assets of �£113m, that is the stated assets; the supporters want ownership of the club and therefore the assets. To ask 45,000 members to contribute �£1000 only raises �£45m, not even half the value of the asset, this investment in turn is being used to eliminate any risk to that asset, which makes the asset even more secure, however this comes with a price and a commitment''.

 

Is the figure quoted for the Net Assets correct??

 

Net assets are �£66.5m

[Frankie 8,150]

I wondered if you would pick up on that. Interesting that he appears to have his finger on the pulse?

 

I'd imagine like any prospective owner he'll want to know the views on the more active supporters as he launches his bid. Anything else would be bad planning.

 

However, unlike some are suggesting, I doubt any criticisms of him will bother him all that much and I read his comments as very much tongue-in-cheek. As were boss' to a reasonable extent.

[chilledbear 16]

Net assets are �£66.5m

 

 

He doesn't fill me with confidence.

[biggordy 0]

There's not been too many people who have said that they don't trust Duffy.

 

There is nothing wrong is raising concerns over publicly available information. Are you suggesting that the support should blindly accept whoever puts themselves forward?

 

I'm sure any serious player has a lot more skeletons in their closet than a few late annual returns and I can't imagine Duffy losing too much sleep over it. It's actually an irrelevance in the overall scheme of things. It's fine to discuss it on messageboards but will not matter a jot when push comes to shove.

 

There are far bigger issues involved than that and the serious questioning over the proposals and the related finance hasn't started yet. It's obviously vital for the club and we all want to make sure that whatever "deal" is put on the table is the best one possible for the club.

 

To "blindly accept" a proposal without knowing anything about the proposer is indeed madness.

What I'm saying is that we now know Duffy has disclosed quite a bit about himself and his business dealings therfore leaving himself open to close scrutiny.

We have to accept that every successful businessman will have had setbacks and will have cut corners on occasion (business acumen ?).

The fact is that he's real, he's ready, he's a fan, his proposals seem fairly sound, and we need sorted out as soon as possible.

 

Oh, and by the way, I'm not an employee of his.