chilledbear 16 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Its not that I dont want to know amms - my above arguments are purely around the fact that I dont think that the unknown shareholder is either Craig Whyte or anyone connected to him. Yes I would like to know - but I also recognise that there exists an obligation that an investor has the right to anonymity should they choose. Dont you think that the revelation or persecution of anonymous investors to be named' date=' particularly when it is built upon scaremongering, has considerable potential to damage our club with regard to future investment ?[/quote'] Still not sure where you stand. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Is the inclusion of the word 'thorough' really noteworthy other than to point out the words which immediately follow it in the same sentence? What they've said is that they've thoroughly looked over the information which was available to them ("available evidence"), but at the same time also been extremely clear in pointing out that there were inherent limitations to their inquiry. Now that's not an opinion or reading into their words to see what I want to see or anything, that's what it says right there in the statement in black and white. Someone has shouted though. Green was ushered out the back door as quietly as possible with a big fat pay-off (probably to keep his mouth shut!) and the Pinsent report or at least parts of it have been leaked. Ok, so it might not be one of our own people who leaked it, in fact it probably wasn't, but why would any of our own people leak something like that back then when we were getting rid of Green anyway, especially if his departure required a pay-off to shut him up? Don't get me wrong D'Art, this is not a comfortable thing to be discussing like this, but what are we supposed to do? Say "sssshhhhhh, don't speak about it! Nothing to see here!" and do a yahoo style sweep sweep routine? Truth is, there might NOT be any problems facing us because there might genuinely be nothing to see, but we won't know until there's more disclosures and transparency. The sooner that happens, the better because until this mess is all cleared up the club can't recover properly and sleep safely at night without looking over it's shoulder and silently worrying about yahoo and SFA threats. Things are certainly not right Zap - and Im sure Green has a lot to answer for - the full extent probably we will never know. Perhaps he didnt co-operate with the enquiry and the CF revelation is accurate. But even accepting all of that - my own experience is that suspects rarely co-operate in an enquiry - that does not stop investigators getting to the bottom of things. That statement from PM - to me at any rate has the mark of an investigator satisfied with the enquiry they have carried out - and of course they would have still been paid had they not reached a conclusion - they could easily have justified that with a statement that it was impossible to reach a conclusion due to lack of co-operation. But I go back to Regan and the SFA - and its not basing anything on their competency - more on their hatred of Rangers and Green in particular. Regan said the SFA could launch their own investigation should the PM one not satisfy - the fact that it did suggests to me at any rate, it was thorough. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Still not sure where you stand. Its simple CB - while I like any other Bear would like to know - I respect the right of investors to have their anonymity respected 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Its simple CB - while I like any other Bear would like to know - I respect the right of investors to have their anonymity respected Crucible doesn't want to know. He seems to be scared the SFA haven't been told the truth and that Whyte is still around. Though he trusts the present incumbents enough to support them at an AGM. I have a feeling it's more an anti certain individuals and Groups than an outright support for Easdales and Stockbridge. It's good to know that you support those of us who want to know the names, we must have the truth before we can move on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 To be honest, I'm far more concerned with the board's inability to announce the AGM than anything else. BPH etc could be anyone and I doubt any investigation would necessarily get to the bottom of that and I'm not sure Rangers FC could be held responsible if they were a proxy for Craig Whyte or anyone else that could be considered less than fit or proper. Let's get the AGM properly constituted and when the new board members are voted on (seems inevitable) as well as Dave King (seems inevitable); we can have no excuses about how the club is run. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 By all means get the AGM announced, if it takes the installation of new Board members to get to truth the sooner the better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Its not that I dont want to know amms - my above arguments are purely around the fact that I dont think that the unknown shareholder is either Craig Whyte or anyone connected to him. Yes I would like to know - but I also recognise that there exists an obligation that an investor has the right to anonymity should they choose. Dont you think that the revelation or persecution of anonymous investors to be named' date=' particularly when it is built upon scaremongering, has considerable potential to damage our club with regard to future investment ?[/quote'] I don't think it's Craig Whyte either, I think it's more likely to be Desmond White frankly. But the club is a shambles, it is being run very badly currently by anyone's yardstick. Rangers aren't like any other company, they aren't Tesco or Scottish Power where if I've got a grievance with them I can go to Asda or Morrisons or any number of other suppliers. It's Rangers or nothing for, I imagine, all of us. So no, I don't think their exists and obligation for anonymity, particularly if we're being as badly run as we are currently. As fans we should know the motivation of our owners. If they turn out to be a hedge fund or a pension scheme and they are 'scared off' by transparency then so be it, we're clearly not the company for them to invest in. The age of supporters being supplicant serfs should have passed, we should never again allow people to run our club without full interrogation of their motives, their intentions and their actions. We should demand accountability, otherwise we'll get what we deserve. For what it's worth, and it deviates from the point of this discussion, I don't think anyone but Rangers supporters should be investing in Rangers, we should invest in the full knowledge we won't get our investment back far less with interest because it will be used to strengthen and grow our club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crucible 0 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Crucible doesn't want to know. He seems to be scared the SFA haven't been told the truth and that Whyte is still around. Though he trusts the present incumbents enough to support them at an AGM. I have a feeling it's more an anti certain individuals and Groups than an outright support for Easdales and Stockbridge. It's good to know that you support those of us who want to know the names, we must have the truth before we can move on. I as you have no given right to know, you appear with others to believe that you do have a right, I can live with the fact that I don't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I as you have no given right to know, you appear with others to believe that you do have a right, I can live with the fact that I don't. No problem, everyone to their own. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I as you have no given right to know, you appear with others to believe that you do have a right, I can live with the fact that I don't. I've asked you this before but you've not answered, but I'll persevere because I find your mindset on this subject so opposite from mine that I'm intrigued at how you came to it. Are you simply disinterested in the ownership of Rangers? Is it all about the team on the park for you and you've not really much interest in boardroom and ownership issues? I'm not being dismissive or judgemental when I ask this, I'm just genuinely curious why someone who contributes to threads on the subject fairly regularly doesn't seem interested in who owns Rangers? 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.