SteveC 150 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Maybe people would return to the topic ... or if it's run its course, this thread can be closed just as well. Re the topic ... more bravado from the SoS. Some will like it, others may smile upon it. I doubt that those it is aimed at will lose any sleep whatsoever. If Ashley is the hardcore-capitalist people see in him, he could just as easily close the shops down and save himself some wages. Or sell ManU, Chelsea and other merchandise instead. One of our rare off the field agreements. The firmest ever in fact, though I'd quibble at the word "doubt" - "know" seems more apt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Then if he is always on to cause deflective, divisive and unconstructive arguement he should be given his own thread where he can do it by himself. Steve, will you boycott SD ? Ambiguous - Sports Direct or Supporters Direct 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Ambiguous - Sports Direct or Supporters Direct That's another idea........... The SoS (with a conclusive case) could also look towards 'Supporters Direct' for support in a boycott. Fans of Portsmouth, Coventry, even Hearts might sympathise or recognise our plight and gripe with Ashely/Sports Direct and join a boycott. Rangers Newcastle Portsmouth Coventry Hearts etc ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 That's another idea........... The SoS (with a conclusive case) could also look towards 'Supporters Direct' for support in a boycott. Fans of Portsmouth, Coventry, even Hearts might sympathise or recognise our plight and gripe with Ashely/Sports Direct and join a boycott. Rangers Newcastle Portsmouth Coventry Hearts etc ? Underneath all the EPL bullshit there's a groundswell of nostalgic love for old style football and anti capitalist unbridled greed across the nation.....it could be tapped into. Of course if we were at all involved it would immediately collapse into internecine warfare . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Who actually even shops at Sports Direct? I used to get the odd kit from there but I learned my lesson, A lot of Sports Direct's customers probably aren't even into football and are more into getting £10 tracksuits. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3909 04 0 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Who actually even shops at Sports Direct? I used to get the odd kit from there but I learned my lesson, A lot of Sports Direct's customers probably aren't even into football and are more into getting £10 tracksuits. Have to confess, I have been known to buy my funky trainers there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Its time like this that you wish you had never asked the original question. But to pick up some of the points raised - my original query stands - if you are pursuing a campaign for greater probity, integrity and transparency from our board then I believe it is detrimental to your cause to have a guy at the head who himself not himselgf a bastion of such qualities. Its akin to having a known adulterer leading a campaign for fidelty in marriage. SB your point about the e-mail simply being communication between various Rangers fans would carry more credibility had the various groups acknowledged their alignment to Murray prior to the release of that e-mail. I think their failure to do so was damaging to their credibility. And that is at the heart of my original question. Had the campaign being driven by a desire solely to increase honesty/integrity/transparency at boardroom level then I think that would have proven to be more inclusive of our entre support - particularly had it not aligned itself to any particular individual. What Rangers fan would not want that after all we have been through ? For those of us who sit outside both camps it has been amusing watching some of the arguments presented by either sides players - ie those suggesting Sandy Easdale was a "crook" and thus not fit to hold office whilst suggesting King is the way forward apparently cannot see the error of their argument. And vice versa of course. Im quite sure Bawburst from Rangers media knows Judge Southwood's comments verbatim. It would be much too generous to say over the last few months the current board have failed to provide evidence of transparency/probity/integrity - its a whole lot worse than that. Hildy is right when he says we as a support are still waiting for the "rich Rangers fan" to come in and save us - many were looking for King to make some kind of move and were disappointed when he didnt. There may be some considerable truth in the point which was raised re the covert King perhaps not being the ideal partner for a fans groups who appear to be highly visible - though his previous comments were perhaps an indication that he viewed them as too confrontational. Strangely enough, whilst disagreeing with the mo deployed, I find myself most at ease with Gunslinger's position - a desire to see change at boardroom level which ensures individuals being appointed who we can trust to run the club profesionally, with probity/integrity and transparency - for the benefit of the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Its time like this that you wish you had never asked the original question. But to pick up some of the points raised - my original query stands - if you are pursuing a campaign for greater probity' date=' integrity and transparency from our board then I believe it is detrimental to your cause to have a guy at the head who himself not himselgf a bastion of such qualities. Its akin to having a known adulterer leading a campaign for fidelty in marriage. SB your point about the e-mail simply being communication between various Rangers fans would carry more credibility had the various groups acknowledged their alignment to Murray prior to the release of that e-mail. I think their failure to do so was damaging to their credibility. And that is at the heart of my original question. Had the campaign being driven by a desire solely to increase honesty/integrity/transparency at boardroom level then I think that would have proven to be more inclusive of our entre support - particularly had it not aligned itself to any particular individual. What Rangers fan would not want that after all we have been through ? For those of us who sit outside both camps it has been amusing watching some of the arguments presented by either sides players - ie those suggesting Sandy Easdale was a "crook" and thus not fit to hold office whilst suggesting King is the way forward apparently cannot see the error of their argument. And vice versa of course. Im quite sure Bawburst from Rangers media knows Judge Southwood's comments verbatim. It would be much too generous to say over the last few months the current board have failed to provide evidence of transparency/probity/integrity - its a whole lot worse than that. Hildy is right when he says we as a support are still waiting for the "rich Rangers fan" to come in and save us - many were looking for King to make some kind of move and were disappointed when he didnt. There may be some considerable truth in the point which was raised re the covert King perhaps not being the ideal partner for a fans groups who appear to be highly visible - though his previous comments were perhaps an indication that he viewed them as too confrontational. Strangely enough, whilst disagreeing with the mo deployed, I find myself most at ease with Gunslinger's position - a desire to see change at boardroom level which ensures individuals being appointed who we can trust to run the club profesionally, with probity/integrity and transparency - for the benefit of the club.[/quote'] The drama from the 'email chain' only came from two camps. Moreover, the email leak was around November/December? Here are some statements/minutes from meeting Murray and co well in advance of no pope's pal leaking an email. http://www.therst.co.uk/update-on-the-latest-meeting-with-paul-murray-and-malcolm-murray/ http://www.therst.co.uk/meeting-with-paul-murray-and-jim-mccoll/ http://www.therst.co.uk/meeting-with-jim-mccoll-and-paul-murray/ http://www.therst.co.uk/supporters-groups-meet-with-paul-murray/ Each of those was before a bunch of drama queens leaked an email thinking they'd split the atom or had an exclusive. Most of the email chain meant nothing in terms of RST policy or both RSAs policy. Usually consisted of Paul saying this is what's going out to the PAs that night or following morning. I don't recall any denial, especially when it was myself who tweeted the involvement of Jim McColl in the 'reqs' party. All above aboard and transparent....unless people don't think having a line of communication is normal? Now, you will understand me laughing at grown men acting like a bunch of teenage girls. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Right folks, this thread has been cleaned up to remove most of the off-topic bickering and bitching which had almost completely derailed it and the thread is now open again for discussion of the original topic. If you want to bicker, bitch, slag off fellow fans and generally just cause arguments and trouble, then Gersnet is not the place to do it because that nonsense won't be tolerated here. If it continues, the ban hammer is coming out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 interesting development, it would seem from this: "A new company was formed by Mike Ashley within the last few weeks, the oddly named RANGERS RETAIL RIGHTS LIMITED. " More at: 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.