Anchorman 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I will continue to point you to Andy's comment in #396 and my response in #490. You might not have noticed post #431 in your selective reading process, and who 'agreed' to that post. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 If he wants to own a string of clubs, then that suggests he hasn't paid to much attention to the SFA'rules on dual or multiple ownership - you would have thought that he would have had a look at the regulatory environment he was going to be operating in. That may be a good thing it may mean he had not have talked to Ashley:) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 What was embarrassing about not wanting the involvement of Club 9 Sports and Bill Miller? They were part of the on-going scam. Was still an embarrassment to the Club IMHO having banners like that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) You might not have noticed post #431 in your selective reading process, and who 'agreed' to that post. I read the post but didn't realize I was supposed to also read who agrees with or thanks a post. So now I am expected to read who agrees with your posts too ? Seriously ? Come on, be real here bud. In your attempt to belittle me you are using THAT as a rod to my back ? poor show. I have a busy job and it is busy season so hopefully you will forgive me for not paying attention to who is agreeing to your posts. Andy may have agreed to the post - however, what did he actually say ? He said we need to be run by Bears. His words not mine. Am I to take them anything other than literally ? Further, are you suggesting that we don't have plenty in our support who firmly believe that only Rangers Men will deliver us from the current carnage ? I would be very surprised if you believed that to be the case. I don't think there is any doubt that we have a significant number in our support who are firmly entrenched in the "it MUST be Rangers Men" camp. However, it also seems like there are a number who actually agree with MY posts on the subject, which would suggest that I am no lone ranger in the suggestion that we have a number in the support who believe that only Rangers Men can deliver us success. So, before you and I get into a more heated debate which is the only direction I see this going - and I am sure you are busy too - perhaps the best course of action here is to agree to disagree. Edited January 9, 2015 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 If he wants to own a string of clubs, then that suggests he hasn't paid to much attention to the SFA'rules on dual or multiple ownership - you would have thought that he would have had a look at the regulatory environment he was going to be operating in. I could be wrong but I THINK this was misinterpreted. I don't think he said "own" but wanted to invest. Similar but very different things in the footballing world and its regulatory environment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,471 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Absolutely spot on Craig.Many fans are hung up on the "Rangers'Men Only", so much so as it could put the Club in real danger or, at the very least make us unable to reach our full potential. You only have to look at every successful football club throughout the World...foreign managers, coaches, players etc. Long gone are the days when "they" won the big trophy with local boys. Possibly the only time it's ever happened! Yet their Board of "ce..ic" men pocketed a great deal of their fans' money for their own personal gain. So, the myth about have former players, fans etc coming back to run the Club is just what it is, a myth. I've not read anyone suggesting we should limit our players or coaches to Rangers supporters, no one at all, that part of your post is a complete strawman. Being owned and run by people with an emotional connection to the club doesn't seem to have hindered Bayern or Barcelona or Real Madrid. I think we should always remember the caveat placed on 'Rangers Men' is not just any Rangers Man. Park and Letham have strong business backgrounds, King does too, but he also has baggage that concerns some. If for example someone was suggesting that I should take control of Rangers simply because I'm a 'Rangers Man' then that should rightly be derided, Mr Sarver is clearly better qualified than me, but when comparing him to the '3 bears' or King then it's far less cut and dried, indeed on balance the people who understand the club, the support and indeed the sport seem more preferable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I read the post but didn't realize I was supposed to also read who agrees with or thanks a post. So now I am expected to read who agrees with your posts too ? Seriously ? Come on, be real here bud. In your attempt to belittle me you are using THAT as a rod to my back ? poor show. I have a busy job and it is busy season so hopefully you will forgive me for not paying attention to who is agreeing to your posts. Andy may have agreed to the post - however, what did he actually say ? He said we need to be run by Bears. His words not mine. Am I to take them anything other than literally ? Further, are you suggesting that we don't have plenty in our support who firmly believe that only Rangers Men will deliver us from the current carnage ? I would be very surprised if you believed that to be the case. I don't think there is any doubt that we have a significant number in our support who are firmly entrenched in the "it MUST be Rangers Men" camp. However, it also seems like there are a number who actually agree with MY posts on the subject, which would suggest that I am no lone ranger in the suggestion that we have a number in the support who believe that only Rangers Men can deliver us success. So, before you and I get into a more heated debate which is the only direction I see this going - and I am sure you are busy too - perhaps the best course of action here is to agree to disagree. I honestly stopped reading this towards the end of the first paragraph. Are you 14? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I honestly stopped reading this towards the end of the first paragraph. Are you 14? Get a grip of yourself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Get a grip of yourself. Grow up then instead of "attempts to belittle me" and "you are using THAT as a rod to my back". FFS - like a 14 year old girl arguing with her pals. People are getting bored now so give it a rest. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 anyone else sense that a Friday evening statement from one of the parties is being penned as we speak ?? 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.