A Horse With No Name 0 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Brian says he'll make an offer for the club but hopes to be out-bidded as he doesn't want it but wants to make sure we don't die! That would be my point of view if I had that kinda money, but i'd've thought the best thing then is to join the Consortium putting the money onto a joint fund with the fans etc. I suppose it's a question of power and not wanting to be a bit part player... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,322 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Methinks he admits that he best works alone in such circumstances, not with people who may interfere at and from various angles. If that works for him, fair enough. What we usually disregard here is that hundreds of clubs are run by chairmen with or without boards. The vast majority - when being run like this - has not "failed" (for lack of a correct word) over decades. Only when mismanagement, illness, or something other befell the hierarchy, or the club punched above their weight (for too lonmg), things become unstable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Methinks he admits that he best works alone in such circumstances, not with people who may interfere at and from various angles. If that works for him, fair enough. What we usually disregard here is that hundreds of clubs are run by chairmen with or without boards. The vast majority - when being run like this - has not "failed" (for lack of a correct word) over decades. Only when mismanagement, illness, or something other befell the hierarchy, or the club punched above their weight (for too lonmg), things become unstable. Very true! Best case being Jack Walker at Blackburn Rovers (last I read about them anyway). Thing is though the larger the ownership the more democratic the club. I know some will say it holds up decisions but in most cases that's best, and procedures can be put in place that speed up important decisions and actions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 If Kennedy is only doing this to keep us in existence and not because he actually wants to run and own us long term, then I don't really want him either tbh. Maybe I'm living in cuckoo land but I want an owner/owners who want to be there, long term, and are willing to invest and run us properly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Not a bad catch net if all other plans fail the yahoos must be about imploded with all this positive news. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Brian says he'll make an offer for the club but hopes to be out-bidded as he doesn't want it but wants to make sure we don't die! That would be my point of view if I had that kinda money, but i'd've thought the best thing then is to join the Consortium putting the money onto a joint fund with the fans etc. I suppose it's a question of power and not wanting to be a bit part player... I personally didnt think it was that confusing : Doesnt want club to die Will put in a bid to ensure that doesnt happen Thinks fan ownership model best for club Not sure if that bid will take place (even though Murray has said it will each bidder will NOT know the details of any other bids, confidentiality rules) He wont join consortium as that is not how he works His bid is his way of ensuring that the club have a safety net in case the BK offer doesnt get off the ground. Personally, as it stands (and we have been here before taking people on face value), what he is doing seems to look like a noble deed to ensure the club doesnt die. But the perception and reality have taken a pounding with our current owner. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I'm not confused. He will stabilise us, he'l install the people he thinks are best for the job at boardroom level. Once that is done i've no doubt he'll be more than open to offers from a new buyer, that most likely will be a good few years away. once thing he won't do i spend big, he'll give our manager enough to compete for the SPL, and no more. All guess work on my part but it's the way i see it. it's not a bad safety net to have 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 If Kennedy is only doing this to keep us in existence and not because he actually wants to run and own us long term, then I don't really want him either tbh. Maybe I'm living in cuckoo land but I want an owner/owners who want to be there, long term, and are willing to invest and run us properly. I think that is what we all want.. So BK's then ? Right now they are the only ones with their name in the hat that tick the "want to be there for the right reasons" box I think. Kennedy has owned Sale Sharks for a number of years now. He hasnt sold or walked away. I think he doesnt want us to die.... which is definitely different from wanting to own us. However, if he saves us from dying by winning with his bid... there is no reason to suggest he wouldnt then want to own us long term. I may not be clear in what I am saying (although I am in my own head.....) - but circumstances do change. I think that we may also be taking his statement too literally too. We have had players in the past who have come to us as a "stepping stone" and fallen in love with the club, fans and everything about Rangers. There is no reason this couldnt happen with an owner too - plus, if he DID buy us then he has a wife and her family who are bluenoses.... would you honestly want to make poor decisions to piss YOUR Mrs off ? Balls to that ! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 I understand the safety net thinking but I'd say it was a better safety net (for Rangers) to put all our eggs in the one basket! Getting a sore head thinking about this fella's rationale. I'm away for my dinner then work - got a feeking migraine now! :wahoo: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I understand the safety net thinking but I'd say it was a better safety net (for Rangers) to put all our eggs in the one basket! Getting a sore head thinking about this fella's rationale. I'm away for my dinner then work - got a feeking migraine now! :wahoo: Look at it this way. He has a transparent past and seems to do pretty well on his "own" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.