wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Why would they give different answers as opposed to those given at the meeting, I am with rbr, I don't think they asked any real questions, it would help if they published a list of questions asked and whither they were answered or not. Also agree with Pete, it has the air of manipulation and puppetry surrounding it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,157 Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 Why would they give different answers as opposed to thgiven at the meeting, I am with rbr, I don't think they asked any real questions, it would help if they published a lisof questions asked and whither they were answered or not. Also agree with Pete, it has the air of manipulation and puppetry surrounding it. As someone who has attended similar meetings, information is often given that is requested remains private. Not sure if that was the case here (possibly not given the number of people at the meeting) but occasionally minutes are kept succinct for genuine reasons. I'm sure the Trust representative in particular will have been vocal so I guess we'll have to wait and see what his interpretation of the meeting is. Andy Kerr and Ross Blyth are no mugs either - same goes for a few of the other faces there - so hopefully more was said than has been reported. However, I doubt it will have been enough to head off any protest given the official line is no different to what it was before the protest was organised. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,157 Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 To my mind rbr is right that we need information. I also believe there should be open and robust protest, which should have taken place years ago. However, I feel any protest must be directed clearly at the current chairman and his fellow directors. These are the people who owe a duty of care to the wider shareholding community (I'm one) and the supporters in general. These are the people who should be answering any questions. In fact, it's utterly shameful that Alistair Johnston hasn't sought to allay fears or at least offer regular and honest appraisals of the evolvig situation. I cannot agree with the misguided protests against Lloyds bank or even specifically targeting Donald Muir - at least from what appears to be known so far. What I've read so far about the planned protest hasn't been impressive. What is it about the Rangers community these days that we can't ever seem to get these things right? All fair points which I'm sure the protest organisers will agree with. I said in my initial reply to this thread everything was a bit rushed and imperfect. I don't agree with all the statement wording, I don't agree with the flyer wording and I'm unsure about the overall affect of what is being attempted. Perhaps the biggest flaw is the lack of a real target but given Donald Muir is a director of Rangers FC (and thus an employee), an employee of MIH and an expert in the bank's strategy; then it is pretty clear he is in the best position to answer the queries we all share about the club. In saying that, others have their place in the debate as well (from our manager, chairman, owner and potential owner(s)) but it isn't easy to factor every little thing into a statement that needs to be easy to read/understand. Thus, while I share your doubt about the quality of the work behind the scenes so far, what I can't argue with is the effort and commitment the people behind this have put into organising it - from attempting to get every fan group/site on board and contributing; to raising substantial funds; to accepting then acting upon criticisms; and from looking to improve the 'movement' via other future initiatives if necessary. That doesn't exempt them from criticism but I'm glad they've made the effort and I'm happy to highlight what they're trying to achieve for the moment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) I think you will find that Muir is a non-executive director Frankie not employed by the club, but employed by Murray, I believe his remit is to report back to Murray and monitor the Rangers boards performance, making suggestions to Murray on how the club can be, for want of a better word improved. My own take is that Muir is Murray's doppelganger at Ibrox. http://www.icas.org.uk/site/cms/download/AA/Non_Executive_Directors.pdf Edited February 10, 2010 by wabashcannonball 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,157 Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 My mistake regarding his status. On what basis do you have that belief about his remit? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I think you will find that Muir is a non-executive director Frankie not employed by the club, but employed by Murray, I believe his remit is to report back to Murray and monitor the Rangers boards performance, making suggestions to Murray on how the club can be, for want of a better word improved. My own take is that Muir is Murray's doppelganger at Ibrox. http://www.icas.org.uk/site/cms/download/AA/Non_Executive_Directors.pdf I'd say that was Mike McGill's remit. I don't actually see the relevance of whether Muir is or is not an employee. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 As someone who has attended similar meetings, information is often given that is requested remains private. Not sure if that was the case here (possibly not given the number of people at the meeting) but occasionally minutes are kept succinct for genuine reasons. I'm sure the Trust representative in particular will have been vocal so I guess we'll have to wait and see what his interpretation of the meeting is. Andy Kerr and Ross Blyth are no mugs either - same goes for a few of the other faces there - so hopefully more was said than has been reported. However, I doubt it will have been enough to head off any protest given the official line is no different to what it was before the protest was organised. If that is the case then the best course of action is to keep quiet on all the proceedings as the statement released by Rangers only causes more discontent , mis-information and more frustration IMHO 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'd say that was Mike McGill's remit. I don't actually see the relevance of whether Muir is or is not an employee. With respect Bluedell, if he is Murray's employee he is looking out for Murrays interests. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I am going to have to stop this, I find myself in total agreement with rbr ....again! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Is there a danger that we're getting to a point where unless a fan receives the answers he wants, he dismisses any meeting or plan as window dressing, or a sham? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jyKabLHVc 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.