Mr Duffy speaks again

[maineflyer 0]

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.

 

You call it what you choose to call it ... but you're wrong. Genuine supporters rightly want to know who he is, what he is and how he proposes to be involved in our club. Since our representative organisations are not doing this job, or at least are not providing the balanced information we need, it is being left to journalists and individual research. To me this is exactly what interested people do in every walk of life.

 

You need to spend less time in defensive mode, looking for the mischief both you and Mr Duffy have apparently found, and more time providing the evidence to support Mr Duffy's credentials as a prospective white knight for Rangers. With respect, if you have this information then please present it. If not then what position are you actually in to judge whether mischief is masquerading as enquiry?

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

You call it what you choose to call it ... but you're wrong. Genuine supporters rightly want to know who he is, what he is and how he proposes to be involved in our club. Since our representative organisations are not doing this job, or at least are not providing the balanced information we need, it is being left to journalists and individual research. To me this is exactly what interested people do in every walk of life.

 

You need to spend less time in defensive mode, looking for the mischief both you and Mr Duffy have apparently found, and more time providing the evidence to support Mr Duffy's credentials as a prospective white knight for Rangers. With respect, if you have this information then please present it. If not then what position are you actually in to judge whether mischief is masquerading as enquiry?

 

Perhaps you need to spend less time in offensive mode? Just a thought.

[maineflyer 0]

Perhaps you need to spend less time in offensive mode? Just a thought.

 

I think it's more a difference between active and reactive but, again, you have to choose the words in your own posts. However, if you see anything offensive in my posts then please do point it out. None is ever intended and you mustn't confuse aggression with conviction.

[Zappa 0]

I don't really understand how a property company that's presumably been trading for under 10 years has a whole stack of property and no debt. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but just that I don't understand it (although no reason why I should - property isn't my area of expertise and if it was straightforward to do then everyone would be doing it).

It's certainly a strange one, but how much property his company actually owns still isn't crystal clear & the two major developments that he speaks of aren't even currently under way by the sounds of things, so essentially aren't anything more than land, design & planning much like SDM's Torrance Park development at Newhouse.

 

Then there's the other property company Duffy says he bought shareholding in, but that one is rather vague & he may not even be the majority shareholder.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

I think it's more a difference between active and reactive but, again, you have to choose the words in your own posts. However, if you see anything offensive in my posts then please do point it out. None is ever intended and you mustn't confuse aggression with conviction.

 

I meant offensive in relation to your defensive comment. Not that you cause offence which you certainly don't.

 

Hard to get meaning across on a messageboard mate.

[Union City Blue 0]

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.

 

As I posted the other day, anybody stepping out of the shadows relating to buying Rangers would inevitibly know that they will be scrutinised and their credentials verified.

 

However, if Mr. Duffy perceives the Rangersmedia article as "mischievous" it cannot be in the bit least surprising given the headline, the sarcastic mocking opening directed at him, and the author's conclusion where he stated that "he wouldn't be investing" and was "out".

 

Anyway, we move on and whether Duffy wants to dwell on this criticism is up to him - although I'd doubt it.

[maineflyer 0]

I meant offensive in relation to your defensive comment. Not that you cause offence which you certainly don't.

 

Hard to get meaning across on a messageboard mate.

 

I know it. Sometimes it's necessaary to be blunt in order to be clear. We have no issues, I'm sure of that.

[chilledbear 16]

As I posted the other day, anybody stepping out of the shadows relating to buying Rangers would inevitibly know that they will be scrutinised and their credentials verified.

 

However, if Mr. Duffy perceives the Rangersmedia article as "mischievous" it cannot be in the bit least surprising given the headline, the sarcastic mocking opening directed at him, and the author's conclusion where he stated that "he wouldn't be investing" and was "out".

 

Anyway, we move on and whether Duffy wants to dwell on this criticism is up to him - although I'd doubt it.

 

Is it Duffy we should be worrying about, I would say it is the thousands of Rangers Supporters who they need to invest THEIR money.

Everything I can find out about Duffy and the rest of 'the consortium', will be what I need before I will invest money.

[maineflyer 0]

As I posted the other day, anybody stepping out of the shadows relating to buying Rangers would inevitibly know that they will be scrutinised and their credentials verified.

 

However, if Mr. Duffy perceives the Rangersmedia article as "mischievous" it cannot be in the bit least surprising given the headline, the sarcastic mocking opening directed at him, and the author's conclusion where he stated that "he wouldn't be investing" and was "out".

 

Anyway, we move on and whether Duffy wants to dwell on this criticism is up to him - although I'd doubt it.

 

I find it impossible to believe Mr Duffy is as thin-skinned as to take genuine offence at website comments. If he thinks there is something of a more deep-rooted agenda against him then he must be receiving it from elsewhere? Personally, I think he can only be referring to mischief with tongue firmly in cheek.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Anyway, we move on and whether Duffy wants to dwell on this criticism is up to him - although I'd doubt it.

 

If he did then he wouldnt be the person to get involved with the club. It's extremely minor stuff from his viewpoint, and to get wound up by one thread would be an indication that he couldn't handle the pressure....not that I'm suggesting Duffy has. I'm sure he laughed it off as an irrelevance.

 

I'd also say that a few on the RST board have got too fixated with it. There's far more important things to worry about, and hopefully things can move on. The focus should be elsewhere.