TRS Exclusive: Ibrox Leak?

[coolk 0]

The article posted last night is not based on unsubstantiated rumour but from strong information obtained by the site.

 

Clearly we would not have published the story if we felt it couldn't be stood up.

 

its now up to the club to decide if they want to investigate further.

 

Are the club aware of the article and in particular the board?

[forlanssister 3,060]

I have no doubt that that is how you feel. Can you prove that they have the proof they claim to have? Up until today I had no reason to doubt TRS either, and what they claim may turn out to be true. However, as much as I like their standards in the past, I don't think they should be different that anyone else when it comes to substantiating their claims. Let me ask you another question. If this information had been published under another byline, for the sake of discussion Keith Jackson or Graham Spiers, would you be as vociferous in their defence without them giving a verifiable source?

 

Not for one second do I expect them to identify their source.

 

I don't automatically disbelieve anything simply because I don't like the messenger.

 

As hard as it may be for some to contemplate the fact is Jackson, Spiers et al all have their valid sources.

[Frankie 8,186]

If your strong information is enough for you to believe the story, then why don't you show it to us and we can make up our own minds, or should we blindly believe you?

 

With respect, we're not asking anyone to 'blindly believe' us. As an established website with several reputable, experienced writers we're merely publicising what we feel is an important issue for Rangers fans to be aware of. Everyone is more than capable of making up their own mind on the content.

 

Unfortunately, it's not possible for a variety of reasons for us to go into further depth. Like I say, we now hope the club will take the matter forward in the appropriate way.

[barca72 440]

Who says they want you to believe them ? Why must they divulge their information on the accuracy of their statement to you ?

 

I dont think that every other link is asked for substantive proof. Though I do recognise that we are far more suspicious these days than ever we were, thanks to both Green & Whyte.

 

Again, how do you know they havent proved it, just not to you ? They may have given details/proof to substantiate their story to lawyers, or to the admin of RM. Just because YOU havent seen any evidence or proof doesnt mean it doesnt exist, or indeed that it hasnt been shown to anyone.

 

I neither believe nor disbelieve it. I have found TRS to be very informative since its inception, but I also find it mind-boggling that a high ranking Officer of a public entity would engage in such a manner on what should be internal information to the club. It defies belief that someone of this standing would divulge such sensitive information for no real reason other than to show they are "Billy big baws".

 

If this isnt Ahmad then you can bet your bottom dollar that whomever it is has been fed information from the C-suite at Ibrox (C-Suite means Senior members of staff, Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Commercial Director etc etc) because they know far too much of the intricate proceedings than someone just having an "inside source"

 

Well I would think that a site as well-thought of as TRS would want everybody who reads their blogs to believe them. Otherwise why would they strive for the respect they have earned? We expect any other paragon of virtue in the media to produce proof of content if they want their readership to believe them, so why not TRS? I don't think that is being arrogant.

I don't know that they haven't proved it to a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, because they have not said they have proved it to someone else. However, if they want us to believe it then they need to prove it to us, otherwise they should not be printing what can only be described as unsubstantiated rumours. Your last two paragraphs prove to me the point that I have been trying to make. That is that in our own minds as fans we are very suspicious of where the next kick is coming from. We are at such a heightened state of anxiety that we will almost believe anything that is published, whether there is proof or not, In this case we tell ouselves that TRS would not knowingly lie to us because of their past history and because of the respect they have earned. However, this story has such high stakes that I believe it should not be released to the public domain without clear and obvious proof. The fans deserve that at least.

[Frankie 8,186]

Are the club aware of the article and in particular the board?

 

I'd be very surprised if they weren't.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

sandazas legal team will love some of these.

[barca72 440]

There may be more at play than just appeasing your curiosity here. Ever considered that ?

 

Then why put it in the public domain if their hands are tied. We have suffered enough rumour and innuendo, don't you think?

[54andcounting 0]

I'm guilty of 'blindly believing' at least TWICE now...first Whyte now Green.

 

I've read the posts of 'IamRangers' and it's feasible to assume it's Ahmad, but since I've admitted to being led easily then take my opinion with a pinch of saxas finest.

[barca72 440]

With respect, we're not asking anyone to 'blindly believe' us. As an established website with several reputable, experienced writers we're merely publicising what we feel is an important issue for Rangers fans to be aware of. Everyone is more than capable of making up their own mind on the content.

 

Unfortunately, it's not possible for a variety of reasons for us to go into further depth. Like I say, we now hope the club will take the matter forward in the appropriate way.

 

With respect Frankie, that's pretty weak. You know the point I am trying to make and that is dancing around the central point. If there was any evidence being shown that this was indeed Ahmad then we could weigh it in the context you are implying. Without any kind of proof we have nothing more than an unsubstantive rumour. I mean, it's like you walking in to your local bank and asking for a loan and saying to the guy 'you know me, you know I'm good for it'. I feel that there is something behind these rumours but I am trying hard not to pre-judge the outcome. Without proof that is very hard. You know this.

[Frankie 8,186]

With respect Frankie, that's pretty weak. You know the point I am trying to make and that is dancing around the central point. If there was any evidence being shown that this was indeed Ahmad then we could weigh it in the context you are implying. Without any kind of proof we have nothing more than an unsubstantive rumour. I mean, it's like you walking in to your local bank and asking for a loan and saying to the guy 'you know me, you know I'm good for it'. I feel that there is something behind these rumours but I am trying hard not to pre-judge the outcome. Without proof that is very hard. You know this.

 

No, it's not weak at all. It's a simple explanation of the situation which couldn't be any clearer.

 

Now, either accept that or not, that's perfectly fine but, as it stands, we can't say any more which seems to be understandable to most people.