Donald Muir Re-election Confirmed

[Union City Blue 0]

Maybe they were whoring Ibrox

 

Who?

 

What do you mean?

[rbr 1,247]

The Albion was widely believed to have been sold and leased-back IIRC, was it not?

 

I thought the Ibrox naming rights was a bit left-field so, yeah that seemed to put it to bed and be a crowd-pleaser. Having said that, no harm done and making a committment like that can't be criticised even if it wasn't necessarily a hot topic. Strange thing is, I reckon if we got a super-duper deal, most people would accept it and still call it Ibrox. Maybe they just realise it's not going to happen so no harm in saying it.

 

Exactly UCB , some of the biggest clubs in Europe are doing it but we are sticking our nose's up at a time when our management team and some of our ( and I say this reservedly) star players are either going out of contract or have no contract , it was pretty pityful from my point of view and I expected better from AJ

[ian1964 10,410]

Who?

 

What do you mean?

 

Only joking, just when they are saying they won't change the name of Ibrox, maybe they were just testing the water .

 

Shite post forget it

[Totti 0]

Only joking, just when they are saying they won't change the name of Ibrox, maybe they were just testing the water .

 

Shite post forget it

To be honest you might not be too far off the truth...If there's one thing the baffoons at our club are quite good at it's being sneaked and coy.

[Zappa 0]

Sounds to me like they needn't have bothered insulting people by asking them to vote on the Muir issue if it was set in stone that their vote's were worthless. No doubt it was a requirement.

[Zappa 0]

Sounds to me like they needn't have bothered insulting people by asking them to vote on the Muir issue if it was set in stone that their vote's were worthless. No doubt it was a requirement.

Just to add to that - was it not bloody obvious that this would be the outcome of the vote on Muir? It certainly should have been & I'm pretty sure that some of you said so before the event anyway, so what's the big deal exactly when you knew this would happen?

[Union City Blue 0]

Just to add to that - was it not bloody obvious that this would be the outcome of the vote on Muir? It certainly should have been & I'm pretty sure that some of you said so before the event anyway, so what's the big deal exactly when you knew this would happen?

 

At the most basic level it's about the thousands of little guys telling the big guy in public they don't like what he's doing. Other people see it as useful in the bid to move Lloyds into selling mode.

[Frankie 8,148]

Farcical scenes typical of the way the club is run. No communication, poorly organised and disrespectful disregard for obvious shareholding feeling.

 

The point was made yesterday though and, to be fair to Muir, he was the one person at the top table who handled it pretty well.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Frankie

[wabashcannonball 0]

At the most basic level it's about the thousands of little guys telling the big guy in public they don't like what he's doing. Other people see it as useful in the bid to move Lloyds into selling mode.

 

 

Lloyds cannot sell what they do not own, all in all the opposing of Muir was a futile gesture, as it was always bound to be. The outcome was only to emphasise the strength and power of Murray's shareholding, it also showed the fans and the club pulling in different directions, the framenting of fans views could end up being the greatest stumbling block to any solution, I suggest one thing is certain, Murray will not go cheaply.

[calscot 0]

Farcical scenes atypical of the way the club is run. No communication, poorly organised and disrespectful disregard for obvious shareholding feeling.

 

The point was made yesterday though and, to be fair to Muir, he was the one person at the top table who handled it pretty well.

 

 

Do you not mean "typical"?

 

Sorry if I sound pedantic but this really affects the meaning of your point...