Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

By Roddy Forsyth 11:00PM BST 01 Apr 2011

It soon became clear, though, that settling accounts was more on the Ibrox chairman�s mind when he sat down in one of the stadium�s plush lounges to offer a candid appraisal of the club�s situation and the progress of the takeover bid being mounted by the London-based Scottish venture capitalist, Craig Whyte.

 

By the time he had finished, he had delivered blistering criticisms of Lloyds Banking Group and Donald Muir ââ?¬â?? one of the bankââ?¬â?¢s placemen on the Rangers board.

 

Johnston also confirmed that, if Whyte�s takeover is not concluded by close of business on Monday, Rangers are likely to go into administration if they lose their battle with HMRC over offshore payments to players.

 

The clue that this was not going to be a soporific drone through questions of disposable assets and amortisations lay in the text of Rangers� interim accounts to Dec 31, 2010, released earlier in the morning.

 

They were pretty much in line with last yearâ��s equivalent figures, although turnover was down by �£4.1 million to �£33.7 million, with the same reduction in retained profit.

 

 

The downturn was accounted for by home games postponed because of severe winter weather and by a five per cent reduction in season ticket sales, ascribed to the economic climate.

 

However, amidst a note on the extension of credit facilities it was remarked that, ââ?¬Å?while we appreciate the support of the Lloyds Banking Group ... certain provisions imposed on the club continue to compromise, in our opinion, managementââ?¬â?¢s ability to conduct its role with maximum efficiency.ââ?¬Â

 

There was meat in that and, as soon as Johnston sat down with a small group of correspondents, it was served up in ample portion and more or less raw.

 

Asked how Lloyds had ââ?¬Ë?compromisedââ?¬â?¢ Rangers, Johnston said: ââ?¬Å?The bank look on us as a short-term project to the extent that at every opportunity theyââ?¬â?¢re not willing to concede that there isnââ?¬â?¢t an occasion or a transaction where they might want to participate.

 

ââ?¬Å?If we sell players, do we have any certainty that we will get all the money, 90 per cent of it, 80 per cent of it, whatever? It makes it tough for our management to understand and to plan for selling players when we donââ?¬â?¢t know how much of the money weââ?¬â?¢re getting to keep.

 

ââ?¬Å?The management team is reluctant to sell players because they donââ?¬â?¢t know if theyââ?¬â?¢ll get enough money to replace them. So when I say they compromise us, I mean

 

they compromise our ability to plan three-year cycles.

 

ââ?¬Å?They [Lloyds] have been fairly assiduous at saying, ââ?¬Ë?While we are willing to look at this on a case-by-case basis, weââ?¬â?¢re never going to give you carte blanche to think itââ?¬â?¢s all your money ââ?¬â?? if you get into the Champions League weââ?¬â?¢ll want part of itââ?¬â?¢. Therefore our management team is wary of doing certain things that in the long run might come back and haunt them.ââ?¬Â

 

But wasn�t the purpose of having Muir on the Ibrox board to ease communications between the directors and the bank?

 

ââ?¬Å?Letââ?¬â?¢s be very clear on the situation with Donald Muir ââ?¬â?? itââ?¬â?¢s a condition of our credit facility agreement that Donald Muir is the representative of the bank on the board.

 

"It�s very tough to engage in conversations at board level about strategies with the bank when we know that the bank guy is sitting there,� said Johnston who, when asked why it had been denied previously that Muir was Lloyd�s man, had a sharp retort.

 

ââ?¬Å?I think it was Donald that denied that. Itââ?¬â?¢s been denied by a lot of people, but Iââ?¬â?¢m telling you what the issue is right now. I decided that I might as well,ââ?¬Â said Johnston.

 

ââ?¬Å?What happened when I got here was that the banker that was involved with us refused to talk to our chief executive or to our chief financial officer. It was one of the most stupid aberrations that Iââ?¬â?¢ve ever come across and I said that to the bank.

 

"He had never met our chief financial officer. He had never met Martin Bain [Rangers� chief executive], so all the communications had to go through Donald Muir and Mike McGill, the other director, although essentially it was more through Donald than it was Mike.

 

ââ?¬Å?So a lot of stuff got lost in translation.ââ?¬Â

 

Would it be better for Rangers, therefore, if Muir ââ?¬â?? who is understood to have left the Murray Group on Thursday ââ?¬â?? also departed the club? ââ?¬Å?No question that his presence compromises things,ââ?¬Â said Johnston, although he added: ââ?¬Å?Iââ?¬â?¢ve always got on well with Donald Muir but I deal within the context of who he is.ââ?¬Â

 

Johnston revealed that there were two HMRC issues, the latest ââ?¬â?? and much the smaller ââ?¬â?? being a claim by the tax authority for Ã?£2.8 million. ââ?¬Å?It relates to more than two or three players, but it relates to an issue 10 or 11 years ago ââ?¬â?? I donââ?¬â?¢t know the context of doing it,ââ?¬Â said the chairman.

 

"As the Americans say, this one came right out of left-field. It really, really is frustrating. No one knew about it a couple of months ago ââ?¬â?? and let me put on record that if we did know about it we would have had to put it in our annual report and take liability for it in the accounts.

 

ââ?¬Å?I donââ?¬â?¢t think it is a deal breaker. It wasnââ?¬â?¢t in any plan, it wasnââ?¬â?¢t in our budgets or anything that we have been trying to do. We have a very disciplined approach and I didnââ?¬â?¢t like that appearing over the horizon suddenly.ââ?¬Â

 

As for the Whyte bid, it is understood that Murray had set a deadline of March 31 for completion but that other delays ââ?¬â?? including slow delivery of the bankââ?¬â?¢s authorisation for the bid to go through ââ?¬â?? required an extension. Still, it is surely a case of deal or no deal by Monday?

 

ââ?¬Å?Exactly ââ?¬â?? that is the scenario that I am expecting,ââ?¬Â Johnston said. ââ?¬Å?I have to share with you the fact that amongst my fellow board members we have different views ââ?¬â?? but the board are reflective of my view which is, if we can get this thing right it will be good.

 

ââ?¬Å?The club is the commodity ââ?¬â?? we donââ?¬â?¢t have a seat at the deal. We have to shove ourselves into the room. Our mission has been to represent Rangers Football Club and hundreds of thousands of supporters. We have no legal right to request it ââ?¬â?? but we have a moral right to request it.ââ?¬Â

 

And if the deal fails and the HMRC judgment goes against Rangers in a few weeks?

 

ââ?¬Å?Thereââ?¬â?¢s a 10,000lb gorilla in the room and you donââ?¬â?¢t know what its appetite is,ââ?¬Â Johnston replied. ââ?¬Å?Even accessing all the resources we have access to, we couldnââ?¬â?¢t pay the bill.ââ?¬Â

 

From which the only conclusion is that, if there is no Whyte knight and if faced with an adverse judgment in the main HMRC case ââ?¬â?? which could amount to as much as a Ã?£30 million liability ââ?¬â?? Rangers would go bust after 139 years of existence.

 

Johnston�s silent nod of assent when asked that question was even more eloquent than any of the scalding words he had just uttered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have known for a long time that Rangers are a shambles, with skeletons fighting for space in every cupboard. Now they're going to make us agonize over our mess, rub our noses in it. Here's our fiver, where your tenner now huns? Well it's our bed, we made it and now we bloody well deserve to lie in it.

 

I've said for a long time that the club is rotten to the core and is no longer the club I started supporting. That the Rangers support is weak and stupid is amplified by the way so many fawned over Murray for years, closing their eyes and locking away what simple common sense should have told every one of us about the Fat Snake running the club. It's shameful to see Rangers reduced to this, our dirty laundry hung out for the benefit of all those who hate our very existence. It's also shameful to see any Rangers supporter still willing to excuse David Murray.

 

I haven't been near Ibrox in over three years, said I'd never go back while Murray remains. It's made no difference to Murray but it has made a difference to me and I feel a whole lot cleaner for doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They have known for a long time that Rangers are a shambles, with skeletons fighting for space in every cupboard. Now they're going to make us agonize over our mess, rub our noses in it. Here's our fiver, where your tenner now huns? Well it's our bed, we made it and now we bloody well deserve to lie in it.

 

I've said for a long time that the club is rotten to the core and is no longer the club I started supporting. That the Rangers support is weak and stupid is amplified by the way so many fawned over Murray for years, closing their eyes and locking away what simple common sense should have told every one of us about the Fat Snake running the club. It's shameful to see Rangers reduced to this, our dirty laundry hung out for the benefit of all those who hate our very existence. It's also shameful to see any Rangers supporter still willing to excuse David Murray.

 

I haven't been near Ibrox in over three years, said I'd never go back while Murray remains. It's made no difference to Murray but it has made a difference to me and I feel a whole lot cleaner for doing it.

 

MF, I respect your right to your opinion about Mr Murray, though I must question the language you use to describe him from time to time.

 

However, as fan who clearly has the best interests of the Club at heart would you not consider that it would be better to go to Ibrox to support the team both with your money and your voice than sit at home, particularly when I assume that you could afford to go along, which unfortunately many cannnot in these difficult times and the team need all the support they can get? (Sorry about the construction of that sentence but you'll get my drift, I'm sure).

Link to post
Share on other sites
MF, I respect your right to your opinion about Mr Murray, though I must question the language you use to describe him from time to time.

 

However, as fan who clearly has the best interests of the Club at heart would you not consider that it would be better to go to Ibrox to support the team both with your money and your voice than sit at home, particularly when I assume that you could afford to go along, which unfortunately many cannnot in these difficult times and the team need all the support they can get? (Sorry about the construction of that sentence but you'll get my drift, I'm sure).

 

BH,

 

Whilst I do agree with you in regard to supporting your team.... I have had the distinct pleasure (and yes I DO see it as a pleasure) of having spoken to MF on a number of occasions sometimes, some people, feel that they have given all they have to give to a corrupt organisation.

 

Is Rangers corrupt ? No, not in my opinion. In fact, in my opinion, if I felt they were, I would walk away. And I feel confident saying that MF would feel the same way.

 

Is SDM corrupt ?? Well.... there comes that $64 million question - my personal opinion is yes. Simply put, in my opinion, he has taken more out of RFC than he has put in. Sure, he funded the rights issue, but how about Azure catering ? How about the Albion ? How about a plethora of other services which seem to have SDM's fingers all over them ?

 

Why does it seem that we have so many shadows with this takeover ? Is it a coincidence that SDM is in the shadows ? Is it a coincidence that his personal wealth has dwindled by 78% since 2009 ?

 

My point, sorry for rambling whilst with beer.... is that, whilst you may think that the best thing to do is to attend every game to support the team, someone like MF (and I apologise for this MF, I really do) has spent far more than most of us in supporting this team and this club. I know VERY LITTLE about MF, but what I do know is that over the years he has spent a great deal more PERSONALLY than MANY of us. Without going into specifics, from a financial perspective, he has contributed more than most.

 

My above statements have me running the risk of the wrath of not only BH, anti-MF'ers but also MF himself. I know for a fact that his thing is not about shouting from the rooftops about his support of RFC, but he WILL, quite rightly, shout from the rooftops about the ills of our club - and rightly so.

 

Sometimes it is not about "follow following" - sometimes you need to appreciate that the way to see your club to survive is to buck the trend, rather than follow it.

 

MF may not appreciate this.... but I will... simply..... follow, follow his lead - thank you very much !

Edited by craig
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would it be better for Rangers, therefore, if Muir – who is understood to have left the Murray Group on Thursday – also departed the club? “No question that his presence compromises things,” said Johnston, although he added: “I’ve always got on well with Donald Muir but I deal within the context of who he is.”

 

AJ is doing nothing more than provide soundites here. Why does Muir compromise things ? This may come as a contrarian view...... but RFC (and AJ has been part of the process) have been operating on the never never for YEARS. Why is it that Muir is the bad guy ? Kind of simply.... he is the easy target, the fall guy if you will.... Reality is that RFC has been run like a fucking corner shop for years. But SDM, AJ, McClelland, Greig and all their cohorts in the boardroom have allowed the nonsense, the bullshit, the lies, to emanate from that same boardroom for long and weary.

 

Again, was AJ not part of the boardroom, and hence the decision-making process, during this term ? Sure he was. So why is it that Muir was the problem rather than the solution ? Why is it that AJ suggests that Muir is a problem ? In normal circumstances I would probably agree.... however, we have a club which has been boom and bust for 20 years and AJ has been part of that issue whilst in the boardroom for much of that..... why is it that we rush to agree that Muir is the problem ? Why is it that we are not questioning AJ, McLelland, SDM and all thew other Board members... the ones who HAVE been making the decisions for the last 20 years ??? Again, being contrarian..... perhaps Muir really IS our saviour.... anyone else thought that he may actually be saving us from ourselves ? He certainly looks like saving us from the boom and bust of SDM's last 20 years..... and no doubt we will hear "we need to get away from the grip of Lloyds"... again, it might actually be that the grip of Lloyds is the only thing keeping us alive - VERY SADLY.

 

 

Johnston revealed that there were two HMRC issues, the latest – and much the smaller – being a claim by the tax authority for Ã?£2.8 million. “It relates to more than two or three players, but it relates to an issue 10 or 11 years ago – I don’t know the context of doing it,” said the chairman.

 

"As the Americans say, this one came right out of left-field. It really, really is frustrating. No one knew about it a couple of months ago – and let me put on record that if we did know about it we would have had to put it in our annual report and take liability for it in the accounts.

 

“I don’t think it is a deal breaker. It wasn’t in any plan, it wasn’t in our budgets or anything that we have been trying to do. We have a very disciplined approach and I didn’t like that appearing over the horizon suddenly.”

 

This tax issue.... it happens. Tax is complicated. It is, perhaps surprisingly, easy to have an oversight when it comes to tax legislation. That said, I would like to think we are better than that. But it happens. Reality is that the 1st one (the Discounted Option Scheme one) is unfortunate and, probably, could have been avoided. However, the second, larger issue of the EBT's is not quite that simple. The reality is that ANY company and, indeed, any individual, should constantly be looking at ways of avoiding tax (yep, even those who are employees and do nothing more than let their employers pay their PAYE.... there are still ways to avoid tax) so long as they do it through avoidance rather than evasion. And whether we like it or not, it would appear that RFC have taken the stance that these EBT's are a measure of tax aviodance (legal) rather than tax evasion (illegal). HMRC seem to be taking the stance (late seemingly as it has taken them a LONG time to bring RFC (amongst others) to task over it) that this is tax evasion.... still, worth emphasizing, UNPROVEN. But RFC took a stance which, it must be pointed out, was NOT UNCOMMON at the time.

 

 

As for the Whyte bid, it is understood that Murray had set a deadline of March 31 for completion but that other delays – including slow delivery of the bank’s authorisation for the bid to go through – required an extension. Still, it is surely a case of deal or no deal by Monday?

 

 

This part confuses me. BD, boss, help me out here..... why is it the bank are pulling all the strings in regards to the sale..... Murray sets a deadline, fair enough. But what do the bank have to do with Whyte making his offer or otherwise ? Surely the bank are merely that... our BANKERS. That said, they really should have no, or very little, say in the sale of RFC. Something doesnt pass the smell test to me.

 

 

 

“Exactly – that is the scenario that I am expecting,” Johnston said. “I have to share with you the fact that amongst my fellow board members we have different views – but the board are reflective of my view which is, if we can get this thing right it will be good.

 

“The club is the commodity – we don’t have a seat at the deal. We have to shove ourselves into the room. Our mission has been to represent Rangers Football Club and hundreds of thousands of supporters. We have no legal right to request it – but we have a moral right to request it.”

 

 

This is the same board (primarily) who allowed this once esteemed club to get to where it is. Why is it we would listen to the current chairman (who, lest we forget. was part of the board whilst the club was being run into the ground) on how to run a company ?? So we have a Chairman who openly admits that his position is to "represent RFC and hundreds of thousands of supporters" at the time when that very same club, and support, he is representing, is at the wolves door. Yes, this is a chairman who proclaims, all of a sudden, to be looking after OUR best interests.... but conveniently is willing to ignore that he (and some of his "boardroom buddies") have been at, or near, the helm for long enough as to know that the club was heading towards the iceberg ala Titanic without the benefit of a direction-changing rudder. Anyone else see "deflection" being screamed from afar ???

 

 

And if the deal fails and the HMRC judgment goes against Rangers in a few weeks?

 

“There’s a 10,000lb gorilla in the room and you don’t know what its appetite is,” Johnston replied. “Even accessing all the resources we have access to, we couldn’t pay the bill.”

 

This one for me is fair enough. I like to cast blame wherever I can... but this tax position is exactly that.. a position. I, for one, will not hold it against ANYONE should we lose the case. You take a position on what you know and, what the club's advisors knew, was that their position was a sound one. If we lose and we go bankrupt.... I wont be happy.... bit I also wont be blaming anyone for this. Simply, any company, any person, can take a tax position and you defend it. RFC were NOT THE ONLY CLUB to do this. So it was not an uncommon position to take.

 

 

 

From which the only conclusion is that, if there is no Whyte knight and if faced with an adverse judgment in the main HMRC case – which could amount to as much as a Ã?£30 million liability – Rangers would go bust after 139 years of existence.

 

Johnston’s silent nod of assent when asked that question was even more eloquent than any of the scalding words he had just uttered.

 

Yep, sadly this may be the case. But if the tax position is what puts us under then it is one item where I would actually place little blame, as stated before. You take a position, you defend it if you believe in it. Which RFC obviously did and do.

 

I am sure my use of quotes has been poor... I am sure I have screwed up my response... but you will have to forgive me the champagne, beer, rum and other hard liquors I have been drinking this evening which have allowed me to post.....

 

If I can work out the "post with quotes" or if I can simply be bothered.... I might even attempt to try again tomorrow morning....

Link to post
Share on other sites
By Roddy Forsyth 11:00PM BST 01 Apr 2011

It soon became clear, though, that settling accounts was more on the Ibrox chairman’s mind when he sat down in one of the stadium’s plush lounges to offer a candid appraisal of the club’s situation and the progress of the takeover bid being mounted by the London-based Scottish venture capitalist, Craig Whyte.

 

 

If "settling accounts" was the foremost thought on our chairman's mind then we have the wrong chairman. Sorry folks, but an emotional chairman, in either a positive or negative direction, is NOT what we need.

 

I would like to think that AJ is nothing more than an emotional neutral when it comes to the serious dealings of OUR club.

 

 

By the time he had finished, he had delivered blistering criticisms of Lloyds Banking Group and Donald Muir – one of the bank’s placemen on the Rangers board.

 

Johnston also confirmed that, if Whyte’s takeover is not concluded by close of business on Monday, Rangers are likely to go into administration if they lose their battle with HMRC over offshore payments to players.

 

 

Maybe it is me (BD and boss.... confirm your feelings) but I have NEVER, EVER been in the position where you would openly admit that your company could go into administration. I have never been a CEO or Chairman, but if I was in AJ's position and I had an option... I would NEVER suggest the company could go out of business. I respect what AJ has done for us (little though it seems) but to openly admit the Company may go out of business seems like a statement that goes to the core of why we are currently suffering from from the media barrage that we are. Simply put, we are allowing all and sundry to kick the shit out of us !

 

 

The clue that this was not going to be a soporific drone through questions of disposable assets and amortisations lay in the text of Rangers’ interim accounts to Dec 31, 2010, released earlier in the morning.

 

They were pretty much in line with last year’s equivalent figures, although turnover was down by Ã?£4.1 million to Ã?£33.7 million, with the same reduction in retained profit.

 

 

If anyone at RFC had a modicum of sense, intelligence, or simply pride, about them they would point out the deficiencies in what has been reported

The downturn was accounted for by home games postponed because of severe winter weather and by a five per cent reduction in season ticket sales, ascribed to the economic climate. Are we seriously prepared to allow the press to report that revenue is down (without considering the lower number of home games, plus Euro games). And following from that, why we allow them to report the lower profit numbers ?

 

All it really takes is either "Bluedell" or "boss" to provide their very solid analysis to prove, or disprove whichever side of the fence you are from, the facts as they are. FFS, BBC and STV have larger resources than we do (though, fairly obviously) they do not have the same level of analytic talent.

 

 

However, amidst a note on the extension of credit facilities it was remarked that, “while we appreciate the support of the Lloyds Banking Group ... certain provisions imposed on the club continue to compromise, in our opinion, management’s ability to conduct its role with maximum efficiency.”

 

There was meat in that and, as soon as Johnston sat down with a small group of correspondents, it was served up in ample portion and more or less raw.

 

Asked how Lloyds had ‘compromised’ Rangers, Johnston said: “The bank look on us as a short-term project to the extent that at every opportunity they’re not willing to concede that there isn’t an occasion or a transaction where they might want to participate.

 

“If we sell players, do we have any certainty that we will get all the money, 90 per cent of it, 80 per cent of it, whatever? It makes it tough for our management to understand and to plan for selling players when we don’t know how much of the money we’re getting to keep.

 

“The management team is reluctant to sell players because they don’t know if they’ll get enough money to replace them. So when I say they compromise us, I mean

 

they compromise our ability to plan three-year cycles.

 

 

Maybe it is me.... but our chairman effectively admitting that the bank are ruling ALL of our decisions to me, at least, suggests we have the wrong management in place. We would be as well having the marshmallow man in that position. FFS, we have a Chairman who is essentially saying "I am the figurehead of this company, but it makes no difference what I say, the bank will make the ultimate decision". Again, maybe it is just me but FFS GROW A SPINE and show these tax-paying subsidised banks that they are not the law - again, FFS, their decisions effectively screwed the Bank of England.... yet they are still casting a shadow over RFC..... despite the fact that RFC have paid off probably 25-25% of their debt in ONE YEAR. Regardless of the circumstances, regardless of what may happen going forward, there are very few companies in the current financial climate hwo could do the same thing and still retain their competitiveness.

 

If we actually had a board who actually had testicular fortitude (and the likes of Bluedell, boss, MF etc etc) then we may not actually be in the mire we appear to be in. It is a fucking travesty that we find ourselves in this position.... not because of what we have done... but because of who we are, what we stand for... and the fact that we allow ourselves to be stamped all over !!

 

“They [Lloyds] have been fairly assiduous at saying, ‘While we are willing to look at this on a case-by-case basis, we’re never going to give you carte blanche to think it’s all your money – if you get into the Champions League we’ll want part of it’. Therefore our management team is wary of doing certain things that in the long run might come back and haunt them.”

 

 

The fact that we have allowed LBG to state this shows how spineless we are. Were we strong enough we would actually make public (and, yes, embarrass LBG) the conditions of the agreement we have.... unless, of course, we are completely constrained by LBG to the extent that their statements are factual, which would concern me in this regard as they are essentially saying they own us, and more concerningly, they own our decisions.

 

 

But wasn’t the purpose of having Muir on the Ibrox board to ease communications between the directors and the bank?

 

“Let’s be very clear on the situation with Donald Muir – it’s a condition of our credit facility agreement that Donald Muir is the representative of the bank on the board.

 

"It’s very tough to engage in conversations at board level about strategies with the bank when we know that the bank guy is sitting there,” said Johnston who, when asked why it had been denied previously that Muir was Lloyd’s man, had a sharp retort.

 

“I think it was Donald that denied that. It’s been denied by a lot of people, but I’m telling you what the issue is right now. I decided that I might as well,” said Johnston.

 

 

This might just be me... but I do not see Donald Muir as the "Enemy Within". I actually see him as the "Friend Within". He has been put in ther by who knows who. However, he IS a turnaround specialist and only the most naive of us would consider him an enemy, especially given that our "esteemed" owner has seen us go through boom and bust over the last 15 years. The reality is that a conservative, factual, commercial person is. sadly, EXACTLY what we required. We have spent so long thinking that Donald Muir and LBG are the enemy that we havent stopped to think that they may actually be the saviour. Muir and LBG may actually be saving us from ourselves. Anyone that thinks otherwise has either not lived through, or have completely ignored, the last 15-20 years of boom and bust of SDM. FFS, I would rather have had Donald Muir's "conservative reality" over the last 15-20 years than what we have had to encounter - and anyone who suggests otherwise is, IMO, deluded.

 

 

“What happened when I got here was that the banker that was involved with us refused to talk to our chief executive or to our chief financial officer. It was one of the most stupid aberrations that I’ve ever come across and I said that to the bank.

 

"He had never met our chief financial officer. He had never met Martin Bain [Rangers’ chief executive], so all the communications had to go through Donald Muir and Mike McGill, the other director, although essentially it was more through Donald than it was Mike.

 

“So a lot of stuff got lost in translation.”

 

 

Again, if the bank were not discussing the situation with our CEO and CFO then may I suggest that, rather than blaming LBG (as seems to be the case here) we should be looking closer to home ? It suggests that our CEO and CFO are so ineffectual that the bank are treating them as nothing but "lackies". Seriously, an institution the size and importance of RFC should not have our Chairman effectively admitting that the bank are treating our senior "Officers" as nothing more than an inconvenience. Appalling ? Yes. By whom is the bigger question.... LBG ? Not in my opinion. RFC ? Absolutely - we have a CEO being paid in excess of 500k a year..... we have a CFO who is probably paid in excess of 350 k a year..... and we have bankers who are effectively saying they couldnt care less.... and that they will run rough shod over us however they see fit......

 

Anyone else see how we could save 1 mill a year with, simply, the loss of TWO jobs ???

 

I screwed up my quotes etc.. nuts. Sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites
MF, I respect your right to your opinion about Mr Murray, though I must question the language you use to describe him from time to time.

 

However, as fan who clearly has the best interests of the Club at heart would you not consider that it would be better to go to Ibrox to support the team both with your money and your voice than sit at home, particularly when I assume that you could afford to go along, which unfortunately many cannnot in these difficult times and the team need all the support they can get? (Sorry about the construction of that sentence but you'll get my drift, I'm sure).

BH if you're more concerned with the language than the intent behind it then that's disappointing. If calling Murray a Fat Snake doesn't suit you as a matter of descriptive preference then that's OK but if you're concerned because you still think he deserves to be respected then (in my opinion) you're very much part of the problem and I'm genuinely sorry to see it.

 

If you're saying that having the best interests of Rangers means buying a season ticket or going to games then I really feel sorry for you. Too many use the notion of loyalty as an excuse for sticking their head in the sand and hoping for the best. I can't do that and I consider myself as committed and loyal a Rangers supporter as any. I've long been convinced that we would end up in the very mire facing us today and, to me, the issue has been about saving Rangers, not whether we win or lose a league title.

 

It shouldn't take a huge intellectual effort to see that Rangers is more than just the name. This club has more tradition than most and (for me at least) it must actually stand for something. I'm happy that that 'something' will change and evolve over time but I cannot accept that we stand for the sort of deceit that has characterised the running of the club for many years. I won't support it either. The club means more than that to me - or perhaps more accurately, supporting the club means far too much to me.

 

Adopt whatever approach to supporting Rangers seems right for you but, please, don't question my commitment to Rangers. And don't expect anything but opposition from me if you're serious about defending David Murray's honour. Fat Snake doesn't really do it for me, I'm not sure any words could. I've watched Rangers being systematically disassembled by Murray for twenty years and I'm deeply committed to the notion that he is as much the enemy as any rabid Rangers-hater with green around his neck. Perhaps when we finally hear the truth about Murray's willful neglect and mismanagement even you will find some choice words to describe him too. Unfortunately, before that happens we might have a great deal more to worry about than what I call David Murray.

 

Get off your high horse and beyond the simplistic bollocks of what I choose to call the Fat Snake. You eventually got there with the failed RST, maybe you should think about taking less time to get there with RFC. I'd love to be walking into Ibrox this afternoon but I wouldn't dream of doing so while Murray remains in control. If and when he goes, I'll be delighted to 'support' the club again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole sorry mess should at last open the eyes of even the most fervent Murrayite to the disgraceful way he has handled his custodianship of what was a once great institution , the fact that he is willing , in fact more than willing to allow this great club to be reduced to it's present level never mind where , god forbid , it might end up shows him for what he is .

 

Like MF above I would love to be going to Ibrox today , I was a season ticket holder for over 20 years , bondholder , shareholder , bought the strips , Rangers news blah blah blah , it doesn't bother Murray one iota that guys like me no longer feel able to give him my support , some will look upon that as being unworthy of a genuine supporter so be it , but everyone must make their own stand ,this is getting to be our own last stand , we have very little room left to manouver , it's ok for Murray he can bugger off to his Chateau or his villa's where ever .

 

 

He is the owner of this club and as such has a duty and obligation to look after it , however what he is doing is not only shameful but cowardly and deserves nothing more than contempt .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I could never understood Cammy F. when he slated Murray all these years ago but slowly all the skeletons are coming out the cupboard. Looking at our club today is looking like the result of an earthquake and as someone said god knows for how long and how many aftershocks will be hitting our club.

I just hope this is sorted out soon and Murray disappears from all that is Rangers. Hopefully we have enough of the shell left of our club to rebuild it to where it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.