Utterly divided support

[calscot 0]

Divisions between the users of grammatical and non-grammatical language!

 

Help ma Boab!!!!

 

Eh, what division?

[calscot 0]

some of it is what I am saying yes.

 

the latter parts.

 

Care to expand?

[Danny 0]

You: Am I wrong?

 

Me: Yes, you are.....

 

You read as good as you write.

You might not want to typo if you're going to insult others' writing.

[caseyjones 0]

Eh, what division?

 

[Zappa 0]

The trust’s position on any takeover will be guided by the following principles:

•A deal must remove the threat of liquidation and returns the club to being a thriving institution.

•Support for a CVA that puts the club on a firm financial footing.

•No one person can again run the club on a whim. Rangers supporters should be a key partner in any deal

•Should include measures to ensure governance of the club is greatly improved and democratised.

•Should greatly expand the ownership of shares in the club.

•Provide a roadmap with regard to the operation of a meaningful club membership scheme.

 

As I keep saying, none of the bidders for the club can guarantee that (the first point in bold). Even if they say that a pure CVA plan to exit administration without the use of a newco is their preferred option, they can't possibly guarantee anything or remove the threat of liquidation. It's misleading and manipulative to not be honest about this aspect.

 

Paul Murray and MD have both previously claimed on national TV & radio that a Blue Knight takeoever would not involve liquidation, but when Kennedy joined up with TBKs he didn't say the same at all, he said that a newco route would be an option to them as a last resort, so a plan b or c if you like. That completely contradicted what the fans had previously been told about TBKs plans and kinda made a mockery of the give liquidation the red card protest too because a newco route was apparently a viable option for TBKs, albeit supposedly not their preferred option.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Zappa
typo!

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Care to expand?

 

I think we both know which parts of your post are and aren't up for debate.

 

so I'm disputing the parts that are.

 

specifically your assertions on what there bid have been which must have come from d&p.

[calscot 0]

I think we both know which parts of your post are and aren't up for debate.

 

You have the benefit over me there. For me, I will debate any part of it.

 

so I'm disputing the parts that are.

 

specifically your assertions on what there bid have been which must have come from d&p.

 

Could you possibly be more specific - which part has come from D&P?

 

I'll recap: I gave you several reasons why TBK have not made a good impression on me and possibly others. You said all my reasons are based on lies from D&P. Could you enlighten me as to what these lies are? You never know, that knowledge could change my viewpoint on TBK.

 

I don't mean to be picky but I don't quite understand the clause, "what there bid have been".

[the gunslinger 3,366]

You have the benefit over me there. For me, I will debate any part of it.

 

 

 

Could you possibly be more specific - which part has come from D&P?

 

I'll recap: I gave you several reasons why TBK have not made a good impression on me and possibly others. You said all my reasons are based on lies from D&P. Could you enlighten me as to what these lies are? You never know, that knowledge could change my viewpoint on TBK.

 

I don't mean to be picky but I don't quite understand the clause, "what there bid have been".

 

I'm in a hurry mate but in essence I am saying tbk bid matched millers.

[Gingerger 0]

ok, I just spent about twenty minutes reading through most of that so I'll chuck in my tuppance worth.

 

I'll teeter on the bring of "getting personal" when I point out the obvious fact that several on here, including myself, have a bit of a history with MD. Having been a member of FF for about ten years I was banned for life for a single controversial post which suggested the possibility that some of our support may in fact be just a bit bigoted. I'm sure there's any number of similar stories that could be told by other members and I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm merely pointing out that MD has a proven history of shouting down people who oppose his views and getting rid of dissenting voices, often without excuse/justification. He is therefore rather a controversial and, dare I say, divisive character for many of the internet loyal. I'm afraid the RST are hindered not helped by his presence because personal agendas seem to be very much part of his make-up.

 

The Rangers support are a diverse bunch. The vast majority take no interest in forums like this or FF but many talk on here as we speak for the whole. MD just does that to a wider audience. I actually agree with much of what MD says but sometimes I emphatically disagree. I have no problem with him & the RST backing TBK openly, the only criticisim I'd make is that he shouldn't talk as if he speaks for the support as a whole because he/they have no mandate for that.

[3909 04 0]

It's not as simple as saying MD is to blame.

 

In fact remove MD and you'd arguably remove even more of the Trust's influence.

 

You're answering a different question there. MD may well be the RST's greatest strength but in terms of recruiting new or former members, he's also their biggest weakness. Bigger than all other factors combined. By some distance.

 

With all due respect and with no wish whatsoever to start an argument, there really isn't much point in repeatedly pondering why the RST cannot attract new members if you're not prepared to listen to the answer.