Malcolm Murray - Open letter

[der Berliner 3,282]

And yet more than half of the scaremongering innuendo has become hard fact over the past couple of years. I don't know about you, but for me that makes me less dismissive of these half-truths.

 

Obviously, some of the half-truth will actually become facts, one way or another. Likewise, a good deal is being either revealed as rubbish, or simply remains shrowded for ages. Who can actually say who's right and who's wrong in e.g. this boardroom struggle, if there is such a thing? Who can tell whether Easdale will be a straight-forward and good director (et al) at the club, despite his brother's alleged shady past?

The "half-truth" revealers and inuendo talkers will obviously mark out the stuff they predicted correctly - on hindsight - and I for one do not keep track of those who told more "rubbish" or more correct info (even though it would be easier here than on FF (due to the number of posters)).

 

Assuming 'anything' could be done in the first place.

 

Which is the crux of the matter. While we are at it, I do wonder what is actually being done by the RFFF these days.

[UCF2008 0]

Obviously, some of the half-truth will actually become facts, one way or another. Likewise, a good deal is being either revealed as rubbish, or simply remains shrowded for ages. Who can actually say who's right and who's wrong in e.g. this boardroom struggle, if there is such a thing? Who can tell whether Easdale will be a straight-forward and good director (et al) at the club, despite his brother's alleged shady past?

 

Here's the perfect example. His brother doesn't have an 'alleged' shady past. He does have a shady past. He served time for dealing in stolen goods and tax fraud. That is a fact. Not a half truth.

 

The allegation which nobody (including myself) appears willing to elaborate on for obvious reasons which have been practically spelled out to you already is that both Easdale brothers have a shady past ...and present. If you want to call that a half-truth or inuendo fair enough, but you were indeed warned.

[Zappa 0]

I used the plural (i.e., boards) here. Anyway, it was just an open "complaint". Of course everyone can use or ignore stuff to his/her heart's content. That doesn't make the fact go away that we are more often than not only served half-truth et al.

 

UCF2008 pretty much nailed it. A lot (in fact most) of the so-called scaremongering, innuendo and half-truths over the past couple of years have proven to be correct or are in the process of being proven correct. For that reason, I think it's unwise to constantly criticize the quality of information and the people willing to take it seriously enough to discuss it in detail on the "boards".

[simplythebest 0]

Message boards are a bit of a side issue, I agree with DB totally concerning boardroom people. They depart and have some negative words yet aren't explicit at all.

[calscot 0]

And yet more than half of the scaremongering innuendo has become hard fact over the past couple of years. I don't know about you, but for me that makes me less dismissive of these half-truths.

 

But then the biggest half truth of all was that we were guilty of cheating our way to titles via tax evasion...

[Thinker 886]

UCF2008 pretty much nailed it. A lot (in fact most) of the so-called scaremongering, innuendo and half-truths over the past couple of years have proven to be correct or are in the process of being proven correct. For that reason, I think it's unwise to constantly criticize the quality of information and the people willing to take it seriously enough to discuss it in detail on the "boards".

 

The Easdale situation is a special case in that people are understandably not willing to give too much detail on any specific incidents.

 

But in general I think a lot of posters too often state their opinion as fact, or their interpretation of a sketchy set of facts as "self-evident". Personally, I'd like to see a bit more explanation as to why some gersnetters have come to particular conclusions - not because I necessarily think they're wrong, but rather because I think it's unrealistic to expect folks to simply take another forum poster's word as gospel. (Particularly since often the only action being recommended in response to the information is to cancel season tickets.) I don't think pointing people in the direction of weighty documents and expecting them to pluck out the salient points for themselves is especially helpful either.

 

A request for justification does not mean that aspersions are being cast, and if a poster really wants convince others on a vital but technical point, a bit of substantiation goes a long way.

[reaper 0]

UCF2008 pretty much nailed it. A lot (in fact most) of the so-called scaremongering, innuendo and half-truths over the past couple of years have proven to be correct or are in the process of being proven correct. For that reason, I think it's unwise to constantly criticize the quality of information and the people willing to take it seriously enough to discuss it in detail on the "boards".

 

I take it Wattie and Ally are unaware of any shenanigans going on during their watch, obviously they would speak out and inform the fans if there was and they were wouldn't they, as obviously dignified silence would show a measure of acquiescence.

[Thinker 886]

I take it Wattie and Ally are unaware of any shenanigans going on during their watch, obviously they would speak out and inform the fans if there was and they were wouldn't they, as obviously dignified silence would show a measure of acquiescence.

 

I've no idea how much information Ally and Walter are privy to, or how much they understand about what's happening. (They're football men after all, not businessmen.)

 

It would be good if there was someone in a position of influence who possessed both a good understanding of the corporate world and an unquestionable love for Rangers Football Club, wouldn't it?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Thinker

[reaper 0]

I've no idea how much information Ally and Walter are privy to or, how much they understand about what's happening. (They're football men after all, not businessmen.)

 

It would be good if there was someone in a position of influence who possessed both a good understanding of the corporate world and an unquestionable love for Rangers Football Club, wouldn't it?

 

Here's me thinking Wattie was our chairman and Ally our manager, if they don't know what is going on they should be taking a good look at themselves.

 

It would be a good idea to have a hard headed businessman in the boardroom ready to make the decisions that are necessary even if he comes with a heavy stipend, oh wait ..

[Thinker 886]

Here's me thinking Wattie was our chairman and Ally our manager, if they don't know what is going on they should be taking a good look at themselves.

 

I don't think it's really necessary (or expected) for a football manager to know the financial ins and outs of the corporate structure.

 

Walter probably knows a hell of a lot more about that sort of stuff than either of us, but he doesn't have a huge amount of experience in business law does he? Maybe he's not the ideal candidate for that job. Who would you appoint as chairman to provide confidence that the best interests of the club and support are being looked after?

Edited July 11, 2013 by Thinker