Donald Muir The Saviour Within.

[bmck 117]

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

 

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. Given the intensity of the polemic against Muir, saying "he's actually vaguely alright and good at what he does" wouldn't quite have cultivated any response. Hyperbole may have been justified to make the point against the tide of hatred being levelled at Muir.

 

While they're sniping at each other, I don't think the RST, FF or RM have any great platform to point the finger at each other's priorities.

[Frankie 8,151]

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 *

 

I didn't write the articles UCB but, as I made clear above, they make a fair number of decent points. They're certainly a bit more worthy of our priorities than childish filters based on minimal evidence.

 

I just find it a pity that some are so keen to align themselves to any party involved when the situation is so fluid and likely to change. The truth lies somewhere in the middle so I don't think anyone has anything to gain from saying Mr X is the enemy and Mr Y is the saviour.

[Union City Blue 0]

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. Given the intensity of the polemic against Muir, saying "he's actually vaguely alright and good at what he does" wouldn't quite have cultivated any response. Hyperbole may have been justified to make the point against the tide of hatred being levelled at Muir.

 

While they're sniping at each other, I don't think the RST, FF or RM have any great platform to point the finger at each other's priorities.

 

I'm sure you know this already Barry but just to be clear, I'm not sniping at any forum or organisation.

 

I was simply saying that I cannot get my head round any Rangers fan promoting Donald Muir.

[boss 0]

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.

 

I'll take that as an apology for putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. A "sorry" would have been nice.

 

FTAOD I had no input whatsoever into the article that therabbitt has just published; and no amount of smilies from you will change that fact.

 

Muir was getting dogs abuse; I published an article balancing up the debate. It was not a rhetorical question - it was a play on "the enemy within". Imagine publishing an article that suggested that Muir actually is damn good at what he does and that he might not be quite the devil some were portraying him as for their own ends. I thought debate was good.

 

In any event, being the best chief executive that Rangers never had wasn't much of a competition, certainly over the last 20 years.

 

I am a backer of Rangers, not a backer of Donald Muir; that much is, indeed, clear.

[Union City Blue 0]

 

I just find it a pity that some are so keen to align themselves to any party involved when the situation is so fluid and likely to change. The truth lies somewhere in the middle so I don't think anyone has anything to gain from saying Mr X is the enemy and Mr Y is the saviour.

 

I agree. Although, there is also a dilemma therein.

 

It's easy to back no horses for fear of losing just because situations are fluid but sometimes it's OK to back the horse you favour.

[Frankie 8,151]

I'll take that as an apology for putting words into my mouth that I didn't say. A "sorry" would have been nice.

 

FTAOD I had no input whatsoever into the article that therabbitt has just published; and no amount of smilies from you will change that fact.

 

Muir was getting dogs abuse; I published an article balancing up the debate. It was not a rhetorical question - it was a play on "the enemy within". Imagine publishing an article that suggested that Muir actually is damn good at what he does and that he might not be quite the devil some were portraying him as for their own ends. I thought debate was good.

 

In any event, being the best chief executive that Rangers never had wasn't much of a competition, certainly over the last 20 years.

 

I am a backer of Rangers, not a backer of Donald Muir; that much is, indeed, clear.

 

1. I was laughing because I assumed you had wrote it so found my schoolboy error funny. Knowing you pretty well as I do, I thought you'd have seen the humour in that and accepted my mistake. But, just in case, I'm sorry for quoting you wrongly at that juncture. FTAOD, I wasn't suggesting you did have an input - no apology required.

 

2. I've already said your article asked a few relevant questions and made many valid points. However, to suggest it didn't cast him as a saviour is stretching it.

 

3. We're all backers of Rangers. And there's nothing wrong with also believing in individuals within that either so not sure why you're getting so annoyed just because I questioned your/Rab's optimism in that regard.

[bmck 117]

I'm sure you know this already Barry but just to be clear, I'm not sniping at any forum or organisation.

 

I was simply saying that I cannot get my head round any Rangers fan promoting Donald Muir.

 

I actually can get my head around a Rangers fan saying Donald Muir's actually a Good Guy when the consensus is he's a Bad Guy (my own view is he's just a Guy, and that I don't know enough about to form an opinion). I can even understand it being written polemically (or as you at-least-a-wee-bit snipingly called it 'fawningly') because moderate language would be easy to ignore in the face of a groundswell of bad sentiment directed towards him. I think you can't get your head round it because you're, perhaps, I dunno the background politics that seems to saturate all these debates, among those who were anti-Muir that the article gazumped in its mission to undermine/poke fun at/wind up those at follow follow. This annoyed me too, but only because it tainted the article, not because I was affected. I think, perhaps, being affected you are more likely to use fairly contentious language like 'fawning' and 'what kind of priorities do people have'. I wasn't affected by the article, other than that it was an interesting other-take on the situation, that I found a bit petty in its tone, and dubious in its priorities, that maintained my initial conviction that the truth was probably somewhere in the middle.

Edited June 10, 2010 by bmck

[bmck 117]

Muir was getting dogs abuse; I published an article balancing up the debate. It was not a rhetorical question - it was a play on "the enemy within". Imagine publishing an article that suggested that Muir actually is damn good at what he does and that he might not be quite the devil some were portraying him as for their own ends. I thought debate was good.

 

This is precisely the problem. The RST/FF (whomever) are attempting to poison your well, just like you're attempting to poison theirs. You talk about "for their own ends" they talk about sinister "priorities" and it's all nudge nudge wink wink. The only result is that everyone ends up with their words thoroughly positioned and undermined before they even start speaking - so you have no right to moan when your addition to the debate is undermined with dubious motives, just like they have no right to moan when you cast doubt on theirs. The only people that lose, though, when everyone's motives are being scrutinised when you consider what they say, instead of reading what they actually say, are everyone.

[wabashcannonball 0]

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 *

 

There are stories and there are stories, I heard that Muir got his retaliation in first...on behalf of Minty, totally wrong footing the new brush from Lloyds, who had inherited a noose from HBOS. I won't go through it all again, suffice to say that subsequent events have to a great extent proven that Minty held and holds increased leverage, which Muir utilised to the full. Be under no illusions, Muir through no fault of his own is cast as some hatchet man, I for one do not countenance what our possible fate may have been at the hands of an English bank without his expertise.

[Union City Blue 0]

I actually can get my head around a Rangers fan saying Donald Muir's actually a Good Guy when the consensus is he's a Bad Guy (my own view is he's just a Guy, and that I don't know enough either way). I can even understand it being written polemically (or as you at-least-a-wee-bit snipingly called it 'fawningly') because moderate language would be easy to ignore in the face of a groundswell of bad sentiment directed towards him. I think you can't get your head round it because you're, perhaps, I dunno the background politics that seems to saturate all these debates, among those who were anti-Muir that the article gazumped in its mission to undermine/poke fun at/wind up those at follow follow. So it's in your interest to use fairly contentious language like 'fawning' and 'what kind of priorities do people have', but I don't share those interests. I wasn't affected by the article, other than that it was an interesting other-take on the situation that maintained my initial conviction that the truth was probably somewhere in the middle.

 

 

I've stated my case: Donald Muir is/was there on behalf of either Murray and/or Lloyds - not Rangers.

 

If you really think I only speak on the basis of my "interests" and I can't think independently, I'll leave you to it mate.