Farce by any name.

[wabashcannonball 0]

After the farce that the Muir subject developed into, more an inter forum star wars than resemblance to any discussion, has anyone or any of the high heid yins of the various forums thought or attempted to get a statement from the organ grinder.

 

Murray as custodian of the club could if he so desired clarify matters, I am aware that there are those among us who are ever sceptical of Murray's utterances, but at this juncture his input may be more of a help than a hindrance.

 

Smith should also be given the opportunity to reiterate or retract his statement about the club being run by the bank, Muir appears to be a convenient whipping boy at this stage, a sop for those perhaps not wishing to question Murray or Smith, for whatever reasons.

 

An approach by ALL admin of all Rangers forum for a statement from our owner will either be successful or it wont, if not people are more than entitled to ask questions and look for the answers as they see fit, be it by protest or petition or any other legitimate means, but the man at the top must be given the opportunity to clarify matters, if he has not already been requested to do so.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

After the farce that the Muir subject developed into, more an inter forum star wars than resemblance to any discussion, has anyone or any of the high heid yins of the various forums thought or attempted to get a statement from the organ grinder.

 

Murray as custodian of the club could if he so desired clarify matters, I am aware that there are those among us who are ever sceptical of Murray's utterances, but at this juncture his input may be more of a help than a hindrance.

 

Smith should also be given the opportunity to reiterate or retract his statement about the club being run by the bank, Muir appears to be a convenient whipping boy at this stage, a sop for those perhaps not wishing to question Murray or Smith, for whatever reasons.

 

An approach by ALL admin of all Rangers forum for a statement from our owner will either be successful or it wont, if not people are more than entitled to ask questions and look for the answers as they see fit, be it by protest or petition or any other legitimate means, but the man at the top must be given the opportunity to clarify matters, if he has not already been requested to do so.

 

I see no harm whatsoever in asking Murray to clarify a few things. He is probably the only person that can shed some light on some of the areas under dispute.

 

 

Just for clarity, the protests as they stand would need to run alongside it in my mind, there are plenty of questions that the bank and Muir need to answer.

[Frankie 8,148]

I thought the protests - while directed at Muir primarily - are, by direct association, linked to Sir David Murray.

 

After all, Muir is a director placed on the board of Rangers FC and MIH at the behest of Murray so the same questions asked of Muir can be asked of our owner - estranged or not.

 

We can also be certain the owner knows exactly what is happening with regard to these questions and the subsequent behaviour of those who have undermined the ones asking them so reasonably. Be assured, there will be no one happier than him at the further division being exploited and maintained by people in positions of responsibility.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Hi NL, the focus on Muir while to an extent understandable is also puzzling, either you believe he works for SDM or you don't.

 

Enough has been said about his employer to satisfy me if not you, I believe he is Murray's man not the bank's.

 

As such I see him as an employee of SDM employed to look after the interests of SDM and Rangers in his role at the club, the bank in my estimation will be far from Muir's priority under Murray's remit, his job is to clean up Murray's mess, something Muir is by all accounts extremely good at...turning companies around.

[Frankie 8,148]

Hi NL, the focus on Muir while to an extent understandable is also puzzling, either you believe he works for SDM or you don't.

 

Enough has been said about his employer to satisfy me if not you, I believe he is Murray's man not the bank's.

 

As such I see him as an employee of SDM employed to look after the interests of SDM and Rangers in his role at the club, the bank in my estimation will be far from Muir's priority under Murray's remit, his job is to clean up Murray's mess, something Muir is by all accounts extremely good at...turning companies around.

 

I don't think that's an unreasonable take on events..

 

All the more reason why the questions aimed at Muir are relevant to Murray by proxy.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Hi NL, the focus on Muir while to an extent understandable is also puzzling, either you believe he works for SDM or you don't.

 

Enough has been said about his employer to satisfy me if not you, I believe he is Murray's man not the bank's.

 

As such I see him as an employee of SDM employed to look after the interests of SDM and Rangers in his role at the club, the bank in my estimation will be far from Muir's priority under Murray's remit, his job is to clean up Murray's mess, something Muir is by all accounts extremely good at...turning companies around.

 

Hi

 

I can see why that line of thinking would be prominent. One of the areas that confuses me is that Muir is often cited as someone with a 'long and fruitful' relationship with Murray, someone Murray had employed in the past and therefore a 'Murray' man. The facts appear to be that Muir was only employed by Murray for 3 months prior to taking up his role on the Rangers board, certainly not 'long' and far too short a term to be described as 'fruitful'.

 

As ever, the problem seems to be redoubled because of the confusion surrounding it.

[wabashcannonball 0]

I just think the whole thing has been dramatised out of all proportion Frankie, due in the main to media misinformation, propaganda and scaremongering. Most if not all questions were allegedly answered by Bain at his scheduled meeting with the RSA, questions relative to Muir's employer and outside interference in transfer matters.

 

The bank debt is being serviced, the facility is up for renegotiation next December, what exactly is this immediate financial crisis or where is it, WS will just have to learn sometimes you have to cut your cloth to suit, we are all in the same boat and the same camp.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Hi

 

I can see why that line of thinking would be prominent. One of the areas that confuses me is that Muir is often cited as someone with a 'long and fruitful' relationship with Murray, someone Murray had employed in the past and therefore a 'Murray' man. The facts appear to be that Muir was only employed by Murray for 3 months prior to taking up his role on the Rangers board, certainly not 'long' and far too short a term to be described as 'fruitful'.

 

As ever, the problem seems to be redoubled because of the confusion surrounding it.

 

Murray quite clearly states that he was introduced to Muir by Big Eck, of whom Muir is a golfing buddy.

 

Company doctor Muir is now on board. "Donald was a pal of Alex McLeish, so we knew him through football. He's helping me with change. He'll help to teach an old dog new tricks."

Edited February 16, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[Frankie 8,148]

I just think the whole thing has been dramatised out of all proportion Frankie, due in the main to media misinformation, propaganda and scaremongering. Most if not all questions were allegedly answered by Bain at his scheduled meeting with the RSA, questions relative to Muir's employer and outside interference in transfer matters.

 

The bank debt is being serviced, the facility is up for renegotiation next December, what exactly is this immediate financial crisis or where is it, WS will just have to learn sometimes you have to cut your cloth to suit, we are all in the same boat and the same camp.

 

I think that has been the case. Bain (and then Muir by meeting with contacts apparently) has answered some of the questions but the answers are open to interpretation and certainly change depending on short-term circumstances.

 

As such, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle which means the questions are still somewhat valid - if not on a daily basis - certainly on a month-to-month; window-to-window basis.

 

The problem we have - as you touch on - is that we have no-one capable of rising to the challenge of maintaining the pressure in a constructive, sensible fashion to complement the slightly more aggressive strategy of visible protest.

 

Quite simply, the only thing that the last few months have shown us is that the while the club certainly has its short-comings, the support (in terms of representative bodies) is even worse off.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Murray quite clearly states that he was introduced to Muir by Big Eck, of whom Muir is a golfing buddy.

 

 

Which is where semantics come into play mate. Eck could have introduced his friend to his employer at any time during his time with the club, it would not make Murray a liar. As I say, the main arguement for the Muir Murray side is that Murray employed Muir in other business roles prior to Rangers. In fact he only did so for a short while.

 

 

If reports are right, Murray owes somewhere in the region of �£750nillion, Rangers make up a tiny portion of that. If the bank had wanted to put Muir into the workings of Murray's various companies they would have started with the biggest (which happened) and worked to the others (which happened)

 

It is to be remembered that as well as knowing Murray prior to his role with Rangers, Muir was very well known to Lloyds and had infact done work with them (not to mention a certain accountancy firm)

 

 

I cant (and infact dont) claim that Muir is definately a 'bank' man but for me there is enough there to question him on exactly who he works for. If it is Murray we need to worry, if it is the bank I think we need to worry.

 

 

The one thing I cant get away from is actually fairly simple. He knows there are concerns about his role, he knows there are allegations being made and innuendo being spread, yet despite calls from fans and from journalists he has refused to release a simple statement. That has alarm bells ringing for me, alarm bells that are only compounded when he meets small groups of fans in 'secret'. Why is he meeting some people and not others? why is he happy to ignore the calls of the people he has a responsibilty towards?