Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Tom Farmer owns Hibs. He takes no part in the running of the club and doesn't sit on the board. He believes the club is a part of the community he was raised in and should be protected for future generations, he did this after Hibs very nearly went out of business. I don't know McColl's motivations but I see similarities here. McColl is clearly a West of Scotland bluenose and has witnessed the club lurch from crisis to crisis. I admire the fact he 's saying openly he doesn't have the time to run the club or play an active role in it's affairs, very few people do. Running a club like Rangers takes up a lot of time and energy, full commitment should be demanded from those involved with the board. But to want the club run sensibly, professionally, soundly and for the benefit of the supporters is surely the most desirable thing here, no? Rangers don't need a sugar daddy and we shouldn't ever be a rich man's hobby again. If McColl can use his influence to ensure the club is run professionally and in the interests of the club and its supporters only then he gets my vote. If he see's his role as being similar to that of Farmer I'd have no problem with that either. There is no doubt at all that McColl has been successful in business, none. Part of that success will be in knowing his own limitations and abilities. Attacking him because he wants what's best for the club but recognises that isn't necessarily him is strange. Surely that should be applauded? Do all clubs not need a sugar daddy to some degree? Hibs seem an irrelevant example given how atrocious they are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 What attracted me to Billionaire Rangers fan ? let me think about that one. We won't be seeing any of that money from him. But I'm not adverse to his involvement, in fact I'd embrace it given the circumstances. Dave King in complete control sounds the best option to me though. Loaded and prepared to invest, known to not be a cunt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,293 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 What we don't know is how King would run Rangers if he got a controlling interest i.e. his management style. I don't think you'd get to his alleged level of wealth in a country like S.A by being charitable 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 We won't be seeing any of that money from him. But I'm not adverse to his involvement, in fact I'd embrace it given the circumstances. Dave King in complete control sounds the best option to me though. Loaded and prepared to invest, known to not be a cunt. I was only trying to be funny, i'm not as shallow as i make out. Intelligence is what interests me and how people like McColl and King can use theirs for the benefit of Rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Do all clubs not need a sugar daddy to some degree? Hibs seem an irrelevant example given how atrocious they are. No, I don't believe any clubs do. If all football clubs lived within their means, properly engaged with their support and were run as clubs for and about their 'members' football would be much the better for it. Well Hibs currently sit two divisions above us. 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.