MoodyBlue 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 News seems to have slowed down/gone eerily quiet. Very nervous. Just do not want to see an 'Ashley has provided a loan' headline whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 If we use a fitting analogy of a Bear I see Whyte as someone who hunts down a bear to kill it and sell on it's fur etc; Green as someone who buys a dying, pregnant bear, let's the mother bear die after the birth, then takes the baby bear and teaches it tricks before selling it to a circus which only cares about expoiting the bear for money; finally Ashley as someone who puts a tap into the bear's stomach to collect bile and sell it to the Chinese. Sarver seems more to be about taking the bear, bringing back to good health and then putting it in his safari park for people to pay to see and so make it pay its way. A harrowing but all too accurate analogy Calscot. Nicely done. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,255 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Bill Miller might've done a better job of turning us around I'm not exactly sure whether Miller knew what sort of "football club" he would have acquired. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,255 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) What category is Ashley in then? I could have sworn he was being championed not so long ago.... Well, for people of the black & white persuasion, there are only pros and cons. No-one on here championed Ashley. What people, me included, said was that having him at the club would, for the time being, mean survival of the club. As Ashley would sure protect his loans/credits/investments. That he raped and rapes the club all along was always mentioned. Being raped is sure an utter disgrace, being wound up because of the inabilities of the owners is far worse. One evil does not make another evil better, but I take Ashley ahead of an ex-Rangers. As for the evaluation of the other culprits, see the circus bear analogy above. Edited January 13, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buba3d 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 i do believe sarver was the right man and not another con man, hell he must be doing some great then if he owns the phoenix suns........ahh charles barkley 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,346 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Is there? I heard the same thing trotted out with Green's appearance on the scene simply because 'he isn't Whyte'. I'd say people fall into 3 categories at the moment: 1. Rangers-minded people that we hope will do the best for the club but no guarantees. 2. People we don't know so have no idea if they will be good or bad. 3. People that we know are bad. The current board are in 3 as is Ashley. Green was in 2 for while but they then moved into 3. Sarver is in 2. Surely all people in 2 won't end up in 3? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I'd say people fall into 3 categories at the moment: 1. Rangers-minded people that we hope will do the best for the club but no guarantees. 2. People we don't know so have no idea if they will be good or bad. 3. People that we know are bad. The current board are in 3 as is Ashley. Green was in 2 for while but they then moved into 3. Sarver is in 2. Surely all people in 2 won't end up in 3? Green was always in 3. Sarver would be in 2 if I thought that his bids were anything more than a tactic to increase pressure on those who would be in group 1. That system is one that we should all adopt, and when a name is mentioned, everyone gets to give them a rating. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,346 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Green was always in 3. I don't recall anyone coming up with anything that you could hang your hat on at the start which suggested Green was definitely bad. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Green was always in 3. Sarver would be in 2 if I thought that his bids were anything more than a tactic to increase pressure on those who would be in group 1. That system is one that we should all adopt, and when a name is mentioned, everyone gets to give them a rating. Great idea. Much better than football eh? Who cares if the team is dross & the caretaker manager is clueless & doesn't want to be there 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,263 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't recall anyone coming up with anything that you could hang your hat on at the start which suggested Green was definitely bad. Some are would have you believe they are/were clairvoyant 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.