der Berliner 3,283 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 he's answered that as well. he doesn't trust that guy were not allowed to talk about in this thread apparently. *lol* ... some people can't let up. You can discuss whatever and whomever you like, but in a thread designed for McColl & Co., we do not exactly need to jump on the anti-/pro-Green bandwaggon in the second post again ... after having HALF A DOZEN threads on that today alone!. No discrimination or order or whatever you may have perceived it. Thanks. The statement by McColl means absolutely nothing, since it is as unspecific as it gets. Much like I saying "I don't trust Paul Murray." So what? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 No he hasnt. He has named himself and Park, but his article in the paper mentions that there are more. I absolutely agree that Green has to do similar, this is not, and I am not, pro-Green in any way shape or form. (just to clear that up!!) point one was on the timing. he answered that in one of the papers. the herald I believe. on the consortium some people said it was ok for green not to name them until he had bought us. I disagreed then and I agree with you now. they should be named and immediately. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 *lol* ... some people can't let up. You can discuss whatever and whomever you like, but in a thread designed for McColl & Co., we do not exactly need to jump on the anti-/pro-Green bandwaggon in the second post again ... after having HALF A DOZEN threads on that today alone!. No discrimination or order or whatever you may have perceived it. Thanks. The statement by McColl means absolutely nothing, since it is as unspecific as it gets. Much like I saying "I don't trust Paul Murray." So what? what your saying here is you don't believe mcolls answers. that's fine but its not something he can do much about. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I think it's fair to say the McColl guys have to answer the questions we have. To that end, have the RFFF guys arranged a meeting with him or his advisers? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 good point Frankie and how does smiths positio. at the rfff stack up now? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,320 Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 point one was on the timing. he answered that in one of the papers. the herald I believe. on the consortium some people said it was ok for green not to name them until he had bought us. I disagreed then and I agree with you now. they should be named and immediately. Not quite the same thing. The reason some were saying about not naming all the parties in the Green consortium was because we thought (wrongly with hindsight) that it may have some bearing on the CVA. Now all that is out of the way, it should be transparancy all the way. From all parties. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,283 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 How else would you describe they way they are working and useing the scum media? Taking your line ... "The way this group has acted is not how it should have been done / leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least." The last bit leaves much more room for behaving worse. I keep "disgusting" for the Scum and their lot, since there is not much "south" of that. And IMHO Walter & Co.'s behaviour was not exactly "disgusting". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,320 Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 I think it's fair to say the McColl guys have to answer the questions we have. To that end, have the RFFF guys arranged a meeting with him or his advisers? The RFFF are meeting at 3pm this afternoon, so hopefully they will release a statement soon afterwards. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Taking your line ... "The way this group has acted is not how it should have been done / leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least." The last bit leaves much more room for behaving worse. I keep "disgusting" for the Scum and their lot, since there is not much "south" of that. And IMHO Walter & Co.'s behaviour was not exactly "disgusting". Where were you when i was at school all those years ago ha ha. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Not quite the same thing. The reason some were saying about not naming all the parties in the Green consortium was because we thought (wrongly with hindsight) that it may have some bearing on the CVA. Now all that is out of the way, it should be transparancy all the way. From all parties. yeah for me it was wrong then and is wrong now. I think we both know the reason he wasn't naming people. I think frankies right. immediate meeting with the rfff and not a secret on this time. full minutes asap. 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.