Rangersitis 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Im sure whendbear referenced a thread on FF' date=' which would probably be right up your street. I dont do name calling or emotive language - I find it an obstacle rather than a conduit to effective communication.[/quote'] I know you don't, which makes the bracketing in your previous post all the stranger. Everyone calls things wrong, but when it happens repeatedly, coupled without any admission of culpability or show of humility, then observers are naturally going to question their judgment on these matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I know you don't, which makes the bracketing in your previous post all the stranger. Everyone calls things wrong, but when it happens repeatedly, coupled without any admission of culpability or show of humility, then observers are naturally going to question their judgment on these matters. Which is exactly the point I am making - to err is only human. I think all sides could learn from showing a bit of humility, especially when things are called wrong. Im still awaiting an apology from...well everyone...for the abuse I got for calling out Green ;-)) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Which is exactly the point I am making - to err is only human. I think all sides could learn from showing a bit of humility' date=' especially when things are called wrong. Im still awaiting an apology from...well everyone...for the abuse I got for calling out Green ;-))[/quote'] Not everyone. ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Permit me to correct these misconceptions which some of you clearly harbour - VB are not "backing any horse" or giving "unconditional support" to the board. If you wish to believe that then by all means fill your boots - but in doing so you only serve to add to the misinformation which is already out there. I think you will find the ones backing a horse are those whose support of Dave King appears to be unequivocal. Perhaps we as a support should reflect if it really is the role of our supporters groups to ostracize themselves from meaningful' date=' constructive or informative dialogue with the board - even if it is to raise concerns and seek assurances.[/quote'] Ignoring the fact that the 'misunderstanding' is surely understandable given the responses to the those who've questioned the board's competence and/or integrity, if the statement about the VB's recent meeting had given anything of substance about what was asked and answered, and what assurances were given it would surely go some way to correcting any misinformation. Takes two to have a constructive dialogue. Those from the UoF who met with the board thought they were having constructive dialogue only for the assurances over Auchenowie and Ibrox seemingly made in the meeting to be withdrawn. Any sane bear must surely harbour concerns about King, or anyone else, gaining total control. I'd hope no Rangers owner will ever be treated with anything less than healthy scepticism ever again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Ignoring the fact that the 'misunderstanding' is surely understandable given the responses to the those who've questioned the board's competence and/or integrity, if the statement about the VB's recent meeting had given anything of substance about what was asked and answered, and what assurances were given it would surely go some way to correcting any misinformation. Takes two to have a constructive dialogue. Those from the UoF who met with the board thought they were having constructive dialogue only for the assurances over Auchenowie and Ibrox seemingly made in the meeting to be withdrawn. Any sane bear must surely harbour concerns about King, or anyone else, gaining total control. I'd hope no Rangers owner will ever be treated with anything less than healthy scepticism ever again. I'll be honest with you Oleg, in terms of gaining insightful information or getting to the truth - I actually think such meetings are a total waste of time. All our fans groups over the years have had various meetings with SDM, Whyte, Green etc - did it really do us any good in terms of getting to the truth ? The only benefit I can see from such meetings is holding them to account in the future when the answers they furnish at such meetings are not consistent with their actions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll be honest with you Oleg' date=' in terms of gaining insightful information or getting to the truth - I actually think such meetings are a total waste of time. All our fans groups over the years have had various meetings with SDM, Whyte, Green etc - did it really do us any good in terms of getting to the truth ?[/quote'] It certainly appears that way. The only benefit I can see from such meetings is holding them to account in the future when the answers they furnish at such meetings are not consistent with their actions. Have any of them been held to account for anything in such a manner? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'll be honest with you Oleg' date=' in terms of gaining insightful information or getting to the truth - I actually think such meetings are a total waste of time. All our fans groups over the years have had various meetings with SDM, Whyte, Green etc - did it really do us any good in terms of getting to the truth ? The only benefit I can see from such meetings is holding them to account in the future when the answers they furnish at such meetings are not consistent with their actions.[/quote'] Fair comment. The accountability aspect is a start though. As you say, they can be hauled up on it later or, more worryingly, if they refuse to even give commitments it should surely set the alarm bells ringing loudly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 So should we judge both myself and Chris Graham by the same standard ? - as both of us made exactly the same mistake. The majority of fans i think were relieved when whyte took over from Murray. The majority were not supporting whyte one week before administration and only fools were still swallowing his shite. From Admin on it has been one long bull shittting of the support until we arrive at where we are today. Some fans trying to get change - others making the same mistakes again and again and again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Permit me to correct these misconceptions which some of you clearly harbour - VB are not "backing any horse" or giving "unconditional support" to the board. If you wish to believe that then by all means fill your boots - but in doing so you only serve to add to the misinformation which is already out there. I think you will find the ones backing a horse are those whose support of Dave King appears to be unequivocal. Perhaps we as a support should reflect if it really is the role of our supporters groups to ostracize themselves from meaningful' date=' constructive or informative dialogue with the board - even if it is to raise concerns and seek assurances.[/quote'] D'Artagan I'm after a piece of factual non-opinion based info and I wonder if you have an idea,.....Do you know how many fans are actually in the VB ? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather than the merits or otherwise of whatever fan group you care to mention, isn't it more important to get as close to the bottom as you can get of the motivations, MO and merits or otherwise of the actual executive board ? I think the most significant issue regards the fans at the moment is not recognized groups as such. It is the large middle rump who up until 2014 have been pretty much apolitical and just followed the team. It is within this group where there has been a change and whilst some will be fed-up with the football, the majority of them no longer have trust in the current board, the way they run the club and their longterm motivations. In other words it's a vote of no-confidence in the board from the customers of the PLC. So if this group is the most important in terms of volume, shouldn't their opinion weigh heavy when considering how to go forward. Their general concerns are close to those of the UoF and when you talk of "meaningful, constructive or informative dialogue with the board" that's all very well but what happens if communications aren't so because the board are disengenuous, misleading and fail to honour such simple things as a phonecall ? Why not forget the divisions, think of the majority of ST holders and concentrate efforts on the executive board ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 This meeting have anything to do with the Share Price falling today !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts