RFC Statement: Disappointed with Lawwell

[barca72 440]

What?

 

 

 

It was a remark to Tims at the Tim agm, good luck getting him to resign, you've no chance.

 

It was a remark made at a public gathering and reported in the press ( see the Scotsman, so far ), if he can't remember how many hats he has to wear then we should not be shy in reminding him. As to how far this is taken will depend on how much leverage the SFA still has over us. I suspect the Easdales would welcome the exercise.

I missed your, What?, that was a reference to your original post.

[amms 0]

It was a remark made at a public gathering and reported in the press ( see the Scotsman, so far ), if he can't remember how many hats he has to wear then we should not be shy in reminding him. As to how far this is taken will depend on how much leverage the SFA still has over us. I suspect the Easdales would welcome the exercise.

 

He could have had tattooed to his forearm he's still not going to resign and no one is going to sack him for it.

If you don't think the Easdales have other things to concentrate on you've not been paying attention.

[amms 0]

What odds McMurdo has a blog on this tomorrow about how the board intend to pursue this all the way and unleash the hounds of hell on all enemies of the club?

We've been fed so much shite we're starting to enjoy it.

[Zappa 0]

Had Rangers released the following statement 'We're delighted to note that Celtic shareholders and their Chief Executive retain a huge interest in Rangers, some things will never change.' we'd have humiliated Lawwell and made our point at the same time.

 

Agree with the sentiment, but the wording of that statement could be technically misconstrued (by the market).

[Tom Davison 0]

Lawell has too many allies in football circles and around the media for any meaningful action to be taken. Sadly that is the way it is likely to remain as no one takes anyone who speaks on behalf of Rangers seriously, for now. Like most of us they probably don't know, who is speaking on behalf of Rangers. Liawell's remarks will be passed off as a joke. Didn't happen that way with some of Green's remarks but that just confirms that Lawell has no shortage of allies.

[barca72 440]

Very few wars are won in one battle. To get rid of this guy we are probably going to have to enlist the help of UEFA or FIFA. To achieve this we shall need a list of registered complaints showing his bias etc. There is no reason we can not start this process now and maintain our dignity. Should we just wait until something falls out of the sky and does our job for us?

[crucible 0]

Disturbing air of people trying to accomodate liewwell's comment, thankfully it was fully addressed on Rangerschat tonight without fear or favour.

[ian1964 10,409]

[MikeN63 0]

jings, to use an old man statement, I came in after a very occasional night out and read the initial thread statement about something to unite us and then read 4/5 pages of argument, but for feck sake, this guy is not worthy of his position, agree or disagree with our vague board, this anti-Christ should not be in this position. We can all surely agree to that? No, then we have bigger problems than just the boundaries of our own club.

[andy steel 0]

But there's a couple of reasons why we ought to be wary, Mike.

 

I reckon all of us are united in feeling that Lawwell is a tit, probably ought to be given a skelp by the SFA since his comment was unbecoming an office bearer (chortle). But...

 

We have to be really aware of Rangers trying to take attention away from the shambles that is the current boardroom;

 

We've been here plenty of times before (we will take action!) and nothing ever happens;

 

We have zero allies in the game at the moment and are thus unlikely to win any battles, let alone one over the man whose snake eyes holds the chairmen of other clubs' rigid with terror;

 

And so we need to box really clever, ideally by establishing our history at the expense of Timothy's obsession, as so excellently set out by AMMS earlier on.

 

I'm all for the club standing up for itself, but pick you battles, pick your battles.