Surely this cannot be true??!!

[Super Cooper 0]

The simple answer is no, it didn't. If you read 26th of foot's piece it should be obvious that it was written from his own personal experience and memories.

 

Then why did Gersnet get complaints from Britney and why is the article on your forum?

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Can we not just ask Leggo or the well known source to prove it, as it is them making the accusations, maybe it could be leaked to a twitter feed or everyone s favourite journo.

 

I would agree with that

 

But with the rumours upon rumours about everything. I think the board has to be seen to be accountable.

 

Even if it's just to say to say this story is bullsh*t and we are taking legal action, In my opinion its allowing bloggers to say what they like that partly got us is in this situation in the first place for example when the previous board allowed Rangers Tax Case to say what they liked

[Super Cooper 0]

What's the bottom line, have we been duped by Green and Ashley or what?

[Frankie 8,151]

Did your forum not publish an article on the main website covered in rumours without them being substantiated the other day?

 

Yes and no.

 

We did publish an article which was based on a user's personal experience so not rumours per se. However, clearly a few of the claims were unable to be substantiated so we edited the piece to reflect this.

 

This just proves my point in people having to be careful in what they claim as to what can be proved. For example, I'm pretty sure there was an anti-bigotry meeting which clashed with a Rangers match in recent years but I'm going on memory alone. As such, while I'm happy to suggest that informally I wouldn't claim so 'in print' without being sure of the facts.

 

There are slight nuances when it comes to such stuff and generally I don't mind rumours (they can be fun and worth discussing) but I'm a bit less patient when it comes to claims that would form an important part of a club meeting. In other words, I'd rather the meeting time wasn't wasted in here-say but questions asked based on genuine evidence.

 

I think it's only fair to all Rangers fans and shareholders that the AGM business is conducted on a factual basis.

[Super Cooper 0]

Yes and no.

 

We did publish an article which was based on a user's personal experience so not rumours per se. However, clearly a few of the claims were unable to be substantiated so we edited the piece to reflect this.

 

This just proves my point in people having to be careful in what they claim as to what can be proved. For example, I'm pretty sure there was an anti-bigotry meeting which clashed with a Rangers match in recent years but I'm going on memory alone. As such, while I'm happy to suggest that informally I wouldn't claim so 'in print' without being sure of the facts.

 

There are slight nuances when it comes to such stuff and generally I don't mind rumours (they can be fun and worth discussing) but I'm a bit less patient when it comes to claims that would form an important part of a club meeting. In other words, I'd rather the meeting time wasn't wasted in here-say but questions asked based on genuine evidence.

 

I think it's only fair to all Rangers fans and shareholders that the AGM business is conducted on a factual basis.

 

That's all that is needed Frankie and all i was saying, thanks.

[Zappa 0]

There are slight nuances when it comes to such stuff and generally I don't mind rumours (they can be fun and worth discussing) but I'm a bit less patient when it comes to claims that would form an important part of a club meeting. In other words, I'd rather the meeting time wasn't wasted in here-say but questions asked based on genuine evidence.

 

I think it's only fair to all Rangers fans and shareholders that the AGM business is conducted on a factual basis.

 

It's not always possible to provide the necessary evidence though, for good and relatively obvious reasons. Take one of the most recent examples: Scott Murdoch says that during the course of meeting and contacting all of the shareholders to establish who is supportive, he spoke to a shareholder who hadn’t heard from Green for months, only to then get a phone call from them saying that Green had suddenly appeared to speak to them in person last week.

 

Now, we only have Scott Murdoch's word on that because he's highly unlikely to be in a position to name the shareholder, but it's still quite an important point because we were told that Green is no longer involved in any way and yet there he was very recently, allegedly turning up to visit at least one shareholder in person, presumably to canvass AGM votes.

 

Anyone can say to Scott Murdoch "prove it" and he most likely won't be able to, but not because he technically can't, it would be a matter of confidentiality and principal. That situation of confidentiality doesn't invalidate the point or make it something that can only be taken with a pinch of salt though, does it?

 

We seem to be continually getting sidetracked from the simple matters at hand quite a lot these days with all this to and fro of claims, counter-claims and diversionary tactics. In the case of this claim from Scott Murdoch, it's essential that we cast aside all the nonsense and just try to get an answer to the issue of whether or not Green is still involved in any way at all, including visiting shareholders recently. An answer from Green himself won't be satisfactory because he's a liar and his word isn't worth shit.

 

In fact, is there actually anyone who can put our minds at ease on this point?

[calscot 0]

Did your forum not publish an article on the main website covered in rumours without them being substantiated the other day?

 

Not very comparable. Proving beyond doubt your true life experiences isn't always easy as not everything leaves behind an audit trail from years ago.

 

I find the use of "your forum" a bit strange - are you not now one of us, one of us? (Gooble gobble, Gooble gobble!)

[Super Cooper 0]

Not very comparable. Proving beyond doubt your true life experiences isn't always easy as not everything leaves behind an audit trail from years ago.

 

I find the use of "your forum" a bit strange - are you not now one of us, one of us? (Gooble gobble, Gooble gobble!)

 

I thought Frankie was the boss, is it not his forum?

[D'Artagnan 173]

Yes and no.

 

We did publish an article which was based on a user's personal experience so not rumours per se. However, clearly a few of the claims were unable to be substantiated so we edited the piece to reflect this.

 

This just proves my point in people having to be careful in what they claim as to what can be proved. For example, I'm pretty sure there was an anti-bigotry meeting which clashed with a Rangers match in recent years but I'm going on memory alone. As such, while I'm happy to suggest that informally I wouldn't claim so 'in print' without being sure of the facts.

 

There are slight nuances when it comes to such stuff and generally I don't mind rumours (they can be fun and worth discussing) but I'm a bit less patient when it comes to claims that would form an important part of a club meeting. In other words, I'd rather the meeting time wasn't wasted in here-say but questions asked based on genuine evidence.

 

I think it's only fair to all Rangers fans and shareholders that the AGM business is conducted on a factual basis.

 

Be nice if Britney himself operated to this standard.

[craig 5,199]

I thought Frankie was the boss, is it not his forum?

 

It is OUR forum.... i.e. the members forum.

 

Frankie, the admin and mods put the forum in place for ALL to enjoy. I dont think that any of the admin have such an ego as to consider it "theirs".

 

We prefer to consider everyone as equal participants.