Andy Kerr statement from sunday's meeting

[craig 5,199]

No I didn't say he contradicted himself, I simply stated a fact, no mention of confirmed funding was made in the interview, now if you wish to confirm that mention of confirmed funding was made in the interview, knock yourself out...:box:

 

But no mention of funding is far, far removed from being a contradiction.

 

A contradiction by definition is stating something and then saying the opposite. If he didn't mention the proof of funds in the interview at all, how on earth could that be considered a contradiction ?? An omission perhaps, but certainly not a contradiction.....

[26th of foot 5,870]

But no mention of funding is far, far removed from being a contradiction.

 

A contradiction by definition is stating something and then saying the opposite. If he didn't mention the proof of funds in the interview at all, how on earth could that be considered a contradiction ?? An omission perhaps, but certainly not a contradiction.....

 

I agree.

 

It's like your talking to God, folks will accept your praying; however, if God is talking to you, folks assume your schitzophrenic.

 

I suspect the Cannonball to be in two minds about this?

[Super_Ally 0]

I fail to understand why there has been growing support for wabash's views on this since he joined the forum.

 

All he does is deny everything that is written, said and reported. He just says everything is rubbish. "No that isn't happening. No one is interested in buying the club. No one has spoken to Murray". It appears to me that there is far too much going about in the media and online for it all to be a figment of our imaginations.

[wabashcannonball 0]

But no mention of funding is far, far removed from being a contradiction.

 

A contradiction by definition is stating something and then saying the opposite. If he didn't mention the proof of funds in the interview at all, how on earth could that be considered a contradiction ?? An omission perhaps, but certainly not a contradiction.....

 

Good you agree that I never said he contradicted himself, how could he, he never mentioned Ellis's funding in the radio interview. I am now off to partake of liquid refreshment starting in the Thornwood, on to the Rosie and further afield, be good now...

[calscot 0]

We have had far more successful trips to England for friendlies than we have had riots. Fulham, Derby, Newcastle, the emerates cup etc etc etc. There is a huge following south of the border and having been at every one of the above games I can say I saw nothing but a great time had by all, home fans and away.

 

I went to the Fulham and Ipswich games and didn't see the slightest bit of trouble.

 

You only have to compare Manchester with the Chelsea fans in Fulham:

 

Manchester

200,000 Rangers fans travel to the biggest game in decades, spend all day drinking while being shoved around by police and stewards in places too small to hold the number of people. Then just before kick-off they switch the telly off - what did they expect? In the end about two to three hundred Rangers fans went on rampag - 0.2% maximum and with provocation and mitigation.

 

Fulham

400-500 Chelsea fans hit the bars for the CL final in the evening, their team lose, over 200 rampage. That's about the same number as Rangers from 400 times less people - ie around 50% with absolutely no provocation.

 

The questions are: which one gets repeated headlines? And then, why?

 

There is no comparison that can be made with Rangers with any other fans in the country to say other fans would have acted differently. Does anyone actually believe that any other club in the UK could bring 200k to another British city to watch their team in a European final and behave after the screen is switched off just before the game?

 

To single Rangers fans out as the only ones capable of this is just plain stupid.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

Presumably Muir met Ellis in his position as a director within the MIH group and not as a Rangers director. There are certain things that he would be aware of in one position that he would not be able to reveal in another. He is not withholding any information that he has learned in his position as a Rangers director.

 

Conflicts of interest in business are common and I'm sure Muir has no problem in dealing with them in the correct manner.

 

Mr BlueDell. Would Ellis and Murray have broken any laws up to now if Ellis was in fact a 'hired gun' and none of the actions that Ellis is claiming to have carried out were infact true?

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

I went to the Fulham and Ipswich games and didn't see the slightest bit of trouble.

 

You only have to compare Manchester with the Chelsea fans in Fulham:

 

Manchester

200,000 Rangers fans travel to the biggest game in decades, spend all day drinking while being shoved around by police and stewards in places too small to hold the number of people. Then just before kick-off they switch the telly off - what did they expect? In the end about two to three hundred Rangers fans went on rampag - 0.2% maximum and with provocation and mitigation.

 

Fulham

400-500 Chelsea fans hit the bars for the CL final in the evening, their team lose, over 200 rampage. That's about the same number as Rangers from 400 times less people - ie around 50% with absolutely no provocation.

 

The questions are: which one gets repeated headlines? And then, why?

 

There is no comparison that can be made with Rangers with any other fans in the country to say other fans would have acted differently. Does anyone actually believe that any other club in the UK could bring 200k to another British city to watch their team in a European final and behave after the screen is switched off just before the game?

 

To single Rangers fans out as the only ones capable of this is just plain stupid.

 

Could not agree more mate.

[Bluedell 5,365]

Mr BlueDell. Would Ellis and Murray have broken any laws up to now if Ellis was in fact a 'hired gun' and none of the actions that Ellis is claiming to have carried out were infact true?

 

It depends what could be proven. Thinking about buying something and not doing so is not a crime.

 

Let's say Ellis is indeed a hired gun. Presumably they would have put some correspondence in place between them to suggest that Ellis was in fact interested in buying the club. Due diligence can be anything from a 30 second scan of the published accounts to a 20 man team from KPMG for a month. He may have carried out the former and therefore can claim to have carried out due diligence.

 

There has been so little said in the press that there is virtually nothing for anyone to claim that they have been misled.

 

For a crime to be committed, it probably would need to be shown that someone has suffered a loss, which I think would be very difficult to prove or else someone would have had to have gained out of it. SDM may well have done so, but what real evidence is there and who is going to pursue it?

[craig 5,199]

Good you agree that I never said he contradicted himself, how could he, he never mentioned Ellis's funding in the radio interview. I am now off to partake of liquid refreshment starting in the Thornwood, on to the Rosie and further afield, be good now...

 

Oh good lord, not again. Post 14. "He said something entirely different" suggests a contradiction. You can argue the semantics all day but you are suggesting a contradiction.

 

"Something different" is not the same as simply ommitting something.

 

Don't bother with a retort as it is tiresome stomping over old ground with you.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

It depends what could be proven. Thinking about buying something and not doing so is not a crime.

 

Let's say Ellis is indeed a hired gun. Presumably they would have put some correspondence in place between them to suggest that Ellis was in fact interested in buying the club. Due diligence can be anything from a 30 second scan of the published accounts to a 20 man team from KPMG for a month. He may have carried out the former and therefore can claim to have carried out due diligence.

 

There has been so little said in the press that there is virtually nothing for anyone to claim that they have been misled.

 

For a crime to be committed, it probably would need to be shown that someone has suffered a loss, which I think would be very difficult to prove or else someone would have had to have gained out of it. SDM may well have done so, but what real evidence is there and who is going to pursue it?

 

 

Would it be correct to say that 'yes, they have broken the law (if they have, for artguements sake, pushed the price up) but it would be very hard to prove both the intent and the effect'?

 

 

There are strong rumours that Ellis is directly influanced by Murray and is only 'bidding' or showing interest in order to fullfill a couple of desires held by Murray. I am just rrying to work the idea around to see if it is viable, likely or plain rambling. It i hard to just discount the idea though.

 

 

Thanks again