Leggo's short memory\ inconsistency \ convenient amnesia - no credibility

[Anchorman 0]

Leggo is giving us it straight about Green. Telling us him and Whyte are two peas in a pod (he may be right). And we should listen to him - right? 'Cos he told us along along about that other sheister that he hated, Craig Whyte - didn't he? Or did he? Well as my memory serves me Leggo told us repeatedly that Whyte was the best thing to happen to Rangers in decades. He lost all credibility with me (even though some of his points are valid) when he went from Whyte's main 'champion' to the opposite side of the table when Whyte was proved to be what he is. Just as a taster this is a Leggo post from last year:

 

"Therefore, it can't be a surprise to anyone that the many enemies of Rangers continue to try to paint Craig Whyte in a bad light.

Remember, these are the same enemies who claimed Whyte would never complete his takeover of the Ibrox club, and were left looking like mugs.

Some folk, though, it seems never learn.

For now, this pack of toothless wolves, these enemies of Rangers, are gathering like a pack of bandits behind Donegal based self-style rebel, Philmacgiollabhain , in a pathetic bid to blacken Whyteâ??s character and motives.

But they are a danger. To themselves!

Philmacgiollabhain really should be careful what he writes about Whyte, and any of the multi millionaire Rangersâ?? ownerâ??s extremely wealthy and powerful business associates.

He does not have nearly enough journalistic experience to know how to circumnavigate the delicate laws of defamation.

His latest attack on Whyte is thinly disguised as sarcasm, and could soon attract the attention of Whyteâ??s high powered London lawyers, who have claimed the scalps of the Daily Mail, Daily Star and the Sun in recent libel actions.

I will leave any holes that can be picked in Philmacgiollabhainâ??s ill-informed rant regarding Whyteâ??s business motives to those lawyers.

But one aspect which Philmacgiollabhain raised which I am able to discuss is Craig Whyteâ??s background as a lifelong Rangers fan.

That family attachment to the Ibrox club is something which sets Whyte apart from his predecessor, Murray, whose only flirtation with football before Graeme Souness talked him into buying Rangers, was a failed bid to take over little Ayr United.

Prior to that, Murray was a rugby man, with an interest in an ice hockey team, and to this day rugby remains his sporting passion. He continues to back the Scotland side with hard cash.

In complete contrast, Whyte, and his dad, have been well known among some former Rangers players for years.

One seventies star has told me he knows Whyte senior well, and has known the new Ibrox overlord since he was still a schoolboy, taken to watch Rangers in action. He has even done business with Whyte.

What some people are finding hard to get used to is Whyteâ??s quiet and unassuming way of going about his business. There are no bombastic boasts and no hogging of the limelight and the mic from Whyte, unlike Murray.

That is just not Whyteâ??s style. As I have said before, he is a man who gives every appearance of taking Teddy Rooseveltâ??s advice to speak softly and carry a big stick.

So far, in the main, all we have heard is his soft voice. Even in dealing with Alastair Johnston the new Rangers owner has spoken softly.

The big stick though, will soon become evident to those who cross him. No matter where they are."

[forlanssister 3,050]

His sycophancy of Whyte pre-administration is why I find it difficult to take anything Leggat says too seriously, even when he has a valid point it's tempered by his previous scribblings.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

he admitted to being fooled by whyte just the other day. many were. me included.

[forlanssister 3,050]

he admitted to being fooled by whyte just the other day. many were. me included.

 

He was still licking Whytes' arse when all the evidence pointed to him being a c*&t.

 

Leggat has a major credibility problem, he's forever promising a big story only for him to fail to deliver.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

yeah he's up and Down. the nature of a daily blog perhaps.

[Anchorman 0]

The thing about the guy is that he is so outlandish he is almost convincing. He WASN'T misled about Whyte in the same way as others were. He 'championed' his every move from the rooftops. He shouted in his loudest voice that he had the evidence to prove that Whyte was the best thing since sliced bread. The difference between him and ordinary fans is that he has a media vehicle where, if his ego dictates, he can nail his flag to the mast in a way that ordinary punters can't. If he decides to do it in the inflated manner he did regarding Whyte then he has to be prepared to look foolish and lose credibility. Even apologise and admit he got it badly wrong and misled readers of his blogs (egos don't work that way)?

What annoyed me at the time was that I never trusted Whyte from the start but I was starting to believe that Leggo maybe DID have information to the contrary. It was, in fact, a load of BOLLOCKS he was spouting. Why should I now believe ANY of his stuff now, even though he may appear convincing, and possibly right?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

he has admitted his mistake. he might have apologised I'm not sure.

[simplythebest 0]

His response to getting it wrong about Whyte is to go to the other extreme with Green.

 

Even more pathetc.

[Anchorman 0]

he has admitted his mistake. he might have apologised I'm not sure.

 

An explanation about the supposed evidence regarding Whyte's credibility might have cleared a lot up. Unless it was bollocks. For example in the article he posted about Whyte in my OP, why didn't he tell us who could vouch for Whyte's history (with his dad) as a Rangers fans, 'cos no other person I know was ever able to vouch for him as a Bear.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I think whyte was a rangers fan. his sister certainly says so but she's a coke head.