Frankie 8,157 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I don't think anyone was looking for Boss to 'apologise' for any of the facts on his article on Duffy. It was obviously well researched and he did a lot to put Duffys history in front of the average messageboard Rangers fan. The wee dig he had was what caused most of the furore I'd suspect. :box: No matter what Boss would have said sans Trust dig or not, some people would have used his article as a reason to open old wounds. The continued 'gang of 7' maliciousness as well as well-trodden myths about why some of these board members resigned 18 months ago (as well as our alleged political stance about aspects of the club then) are direct evidence of that. Perhaps the people responsible for these equally unnecessary digs will apologise as well so we can start with a fresh slate during this vital time for all. Obviously, I'm sure boss didn't apologise simply to look for one back but I'm glad he's been the gentleman here and taken the lead. I'm sure we'll all be taking about much more interesting stuff next week! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,157 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 I think Boss article made the doubts more profound. The interview today does not make things any better. Duffy will not be at the AGM, nor will any other members of the 'consortium'. We will have to wait off course till we hear more, lets hope there is more gravitas when someone else raises their head. Yeah, I doubt any of these people will attend but what I meant was perhaps they can gauge shareholder support from what questions are asked as well as judge the club/bank's intentions via the answers. From that they may then be in a position to offer more information. Certainly we'll need a lot more than we have right now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderslieblue 0 Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 No matter what Boss would have said sans Trust dig or not, some people would have used his article as a reason to open old wounds. The continued 'gang of 7' maliciousness as well as well-trodden myths about why some of these board members resigned 18 months ago (as well as our alleged political stance about aspects of the club then) are direct evidence of that. Perhaps the people responsible for these equally unnecessary digs will apologise as well so we can start with a fresh slate during this vital time for all. Obviously, I'm sure boss didn't apologise simply to look for one back but I'm glad he's been the gentleman here and taken the lead. I'm sure we'll all be taking about much more interesting stuff next week! Couldn't agree more Bear. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 No matter what Boss would have said sans Trust dig or not, some people would have used his article as a reason to open old wounds. The continued 'gang of 7' maliciousness as well as well-trodden myths about why some of these board members resigned 18 months ago (as well as our alleged political stance about aspects of the club then) are direct evidence of that. Perhaps the people responsible for these equally unnecessary digs will apologise as well so we can start with a fresh slate during this vital time for all. Obviously, I'm sure boss didn't apologise simply to look for one back but I'm glad he's been the gentleman here and taken the lead. I'm sure we'll all be taking about much more interesting stuff next week! Now we all know there never was a "gang of seven" but there were seven board members who did resign in close order from the RST. While we're talking about old wounds and fresh starts, I've never understood why none of these seven individuals have ever set out in plain language exactly why those resignations took place. I hear lots about moving on and putting the past behind us .... but who the hell knows what that past is? Frankie, you were one of those involved and you still maintain a commentary on these things, why don't you step into the light a little and put that episode in the RST's history into clear perspective? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I wouldnt be apologising m8; article writers are not a vehicle for objective truth, after the Vienna Circle we have slowly came to terms with the fact (heh) that facts are always presented with some authorial stance. Your article done infinitely more good than harm; if you offended the sensibilities of a millionaire and/or the trust, the problem is theirs and they should have wider shoulders. The best leaders welcome things that question their authority because they have the answers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I say, well said. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,157 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Frankie, you were one of those involved and you still maintain a commentary on these things, why don't you step into the light a little and put that episode in the RST's history into clear perspective? I think plenty was said at the time and I don't see what anyone would have to gain from going over it again now. I also doubt all that many bears are really that interested to be perfectly honest. Most want to concentrate on the positive stuff as opposed to the nonsense we've read from some of late. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I think plenty was said at the time and I don't see what anyone would have to gain from going over it again now. I also doubt all that many bears are really that interested to be perfectly honest. Most want to concentrate on the positive stuff as opposed to the nonsense we've read from some of late. I think you are wrong, it would be one of the reasons why I am not fully supportive of Supporters on the Board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I think plenty was said at the time and I don't see what anyone would have to gain from going over it again now. I also doubt all that many bears are really that interested to be perfectly honest. Most want to concentrate on the positive stuff as opposed to the nonsense we've read from some of late. Sorry but that's being as evasive as any currently at the RST. Much was indeed said but almost nothing was ever clarified. Here we have no shortage of fans discussing an event that virtually none of them know anything about. I think your assessment above is entirely wrong and I really don't understand why you are being so coy about those events. Either they happened or they didn't. If they happened then either they are relevant to \Rangers fans or they are not. If they are then why would anyone want to deny supporters a definitive picture? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOneAmoruso 0 Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) Some clarity would be useful. It wouldn't have any impact on current affairs but would certainly provide further depth to the disputes. Edited December 6, 2009 by OnlyOneAmoruso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.