Donald Muir The Saviour Within.

[wabashcannonball 0]

That's not my understanding.

 

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. :spl:

[boss 0]

As all this unfolded, it was clear both FF and RM had an agenda, backers, and it's not like it just-so-happened that two sites that hate each other backed opposing horses.

 

RM has never had an agenda on the sale of Rangers. And I myself have never backed any of the horses. I am keen to see and hear from Ellis (or anyone else) regarding their plans for the club before I make my mind up.

[Frankie 8,151]

RM has never had an agenda on the sale of Rangers. And I myself have never backed any of the horses. I am keen to see and hear from Ellis (or anyone else) regarding their plans for the club before I make my mind up.

 

Muir not be buying Rangers but he's a key player in the sale (and choice of buyer) so I think yourself (though not RM generally in my eyes) have indeed backed a horse...

 

To be clear, as you know, there is nothing wrong with painting a more constructive picture of Donald Muir compared to those who have cast him as the villain but in the absence of our strategy for next season (agreed budget or not) I'd have thought the default position of the Rangers fanbase should continue to be one of support for the club - but accompanied with the right to continue to apply pressure to ensure our investment is used effectively.

 

There remain many issues with our football club and while Muir may not be directly responsible for them, he can contribute to addressing them. Until he does so, I'd be very careful in casting him as our saviour - in mischief or not...

Edited June 10, 2010 by Frankie

[wabashcannonball 0]

RM has never had an agenda on the sale of Rangers. And I myself have never backed any of the horses. I am keen to see and hear from Ellis (or anyone else) regarding their plans for the club before I make my mind up.

 

Through your good offices Boss, could you elicit any details from Mr Canadian Bacon of a private meeting between the NARSA board and Mr Chris Akers, that took place allegedly last Friday in Vegas, all in the pursuit of clarity and the great unwashed being availed of whither fact or fiction.

[boss 0]

Muir not be buying Rangers but he's a key player in the sale (and choice of buyer) so I think yourself (though not RM generally in my eyes) have indeed backed a horse...

 

I have backed no prospective purchaser and would thank you not to tell me that I have backed any horse.

 

Until he does so, I'd be very careful in casting him as our saviour - in mischief or not...

 

As you'll recall very well, I didn't cast him as a saviour; I asked the question: "Donald Muir - the Saviour Within?" It's for readers of the article to decide for themselves whether he is/was a saviour or an enemy or neither.

[Frankie 8,151]

Are we really going to get caught up on semantics here?

 

I for one would like to applaud Muir for his steely determination and broad shoulders and I will always thank him for being one of the fundamental factors in bringing the club I love to my core back from the brink.

 

If that isn't casting someone as the saviour then I don't know what is.

 

Now, as I clearly said, you may not have backed a purchaser per se but you have backed a key player in the issue as a whole. FWIW, I don't think there is a great deal wrong with that given the strong argument you provide - all I'm suggesting is that when you criticise others for making premature decisions, you need to be careful not to make the same mistake.

 

All with the greatest of respect as ever...

[boss 0]

Are we really going to get caught up on semantics here?

 

"I for one would like to applaud Muir for his steely determination and broad shoulders and I will always thank him for being one of the fundamental factors in bringing the club I love to my core back from the brink."

 

If that isn't casting someone as the saviour then I don't know what is.

 

Now, as I clearly said, you may not have backed a purchaser per se but you have backed a key player in the issue as a whole. FWIW, I don't think there is a great deal wrong with that given the strong argument you provide - all I'm suggesting is that when you criticise others for making premature decisions, you need to be careful not to make the same mistake.

 

All with the greatest of respect as ever...

 

And with the greatest of respect, you have quoted therabbitt's article in error, not my article. If you want to state therabbitt has elevated Muir to 'saviour' status then do so. But it is not helpful to say that I have done so and then use a quote from therabbitt as if it was from me.

[bmck 117]

RM has never had an agenda on the sale of Rangers. And I myself have never backed any of the horses. I am keen to see and hear from Ellis (or anyone else) regarding their plans for the club before I make my mind up.

 

I never meant 'on the sale of Rangers' explicitly, just the broad future of the club. The article writer mentioned straw men, and arguing against the idea that you are close minded on Ellis or the sale is to invent a claim that was never made so you can knock it down. I never mentioned an agenda with respect to buyers. Both this article and the original shows that RM backed the idea of Muir as being good for the future ('saviour' alone demonstrates stance, even if softened with a question mark). In this respect, my original comments stand and RM clearly did have an agenda and backed a horse (the whatever-FF-didn't-back horse, or the-opposite-of-what-FF-backed horse etc). Agendas are omnipresent though, it becomes a question of whether your agenda is worthwhile, and I'm sure RM could defend theirs. Like I said, what they wrote was worthwhile and provided good balance. Personally, though, I'm uninterested in spats between them and FF. I just find oneupmanship boring.

Edited June 10, 2010 by bmck

[Frankie 8,151]

therabbitt wrote it?

 

OK then, let's look at your original:

 

Donald Muir is the best Chief Executive that Rangers never had.

 

There, I’ve said it. I know it won’t find favour with many but it’s better to be right than to be popular; if I’ve upset some of you already, it was ever thus.

 

That opening few lines, along with the title (presented as a rhetorical question given the actual content IMHO), casts Muir as our saviour. But, like I say, this is nothing more than semantics which isn't moving the debate forward.

 

Yourself (and therabbitt it seems) are backers of Donald Muir. That much is clear and was all I was trying to say while expressing my own caution.

[Union City Blue 0]

therabbitt wrote it?

 

OK then, let's look at your original:

 

 

 

That opening few lines, along with the title (presented as a rhetorical question given the actual content IMHO), casts Muir as our saviour. But, like I say, this is nothing more than semantics which isn't moving the debate forward.

 

Yourself (and therabbitt it seems) are backers of Donald Muir. That much is clear and was all I was trying to say while expressing my own caution.

 

Donald Muir is a top-notch, expert troubleshooter who parachutes into businesses armed with an axe.

 

But going to the bother of promoting his case, offering plaudits ("the best Chief Executive Rangers never had") and suggesting he's owed an apology - when you'd be hard pressed to find any Rangers fan who gives a shit about the guy - is truly baffling.

 

What kind of priorities do people have, spending their time speaking up for Donald Muir?

 

* the question's not to you Frankie, I know you didn't write any of the fawning articles *