BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Perhaps BH's source is Derek Llambias. I am taking that as a bit of tongue in cheek sarcasm but just in case; I am happy to confirm that that is not the case, he was out the picture by then of course and I have never spoken to the man in any event. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Thank you although I'm not quite sure how you can agree with SB that I'm "delusional" and at the same time agree with my post. However, in my delusional state I guess I should be thankful for any support I can get. There are indeed two sides to every story and if I may say, that's something I have become better placed than many to know in recent years. However, a friend volunteered the information about this matter so I don't think the version I posted comes into the category you suggest. I don't think you are delusional Bh, on the contrary, you are a sharp cookie. But knowing a pinch about the club's workings , from previous first hand experience, everything that is said by club employees is not always gospel. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I don't think you are delusional Bh, on the contrary, you are a sharp cookie. But knowing a pinch about the club's workings , from previous first hand experience, everything that is said by club employees is not always gospel. I am happy to accept all of that, many thanks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,494 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 We can start blaming everyone for this and all start fighting about who and when statements were made but the bottom line is that Chris Graham made the re-tweet and gave people who wanted it ammunition to fire at him. That is nothing to do with anybody but Chris Graham. He made a total misjudgement in sending the tweet. Many have said it is not the only dubious thing he posted so maybe he was just not meant for the job. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones it is as simple as that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I genuinely believe there will be an opportunity for our support to move past the petty stuff and focus on improving the club. Its going to be a bumpy period as personalities and egos settle down after years of arguments but we all need to take the steps to do what's right for the club. I was sorry to see the way the CG stuff has worked out as Chris is someone who I like personally. But what's done is done and we need to see what we can do to help going forward. We are now in a position where our actions and support can have a marked impact on the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) We can start blaming everyone for this and all start fighting about who and when statements were made but the bottom line is that Chris Graham made the re-tweet and gave people who wanted it ammunition to fire at him. That is nothing to do with anybody but Chris Graham. He made a total misjudgement in sending the tweet. Many have said it is not the only dubious thing he posted so maybe he was just not meant for the job. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones it is as simple as that. Agree with that, but what about "he who is without sin cast the first stone" or " all saints have a past and all sinners have a future" My point being he had unblemished career so far as a board member. What he did before he became a board member especially imo something minor re-tweeting a satirical comment /cartoon immediately after the Charlie Hebdo Paris massacres. Had little baring on his competence as a Rangers board member imo Edited March 16, 2015 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I think what you posted was pretty clear and more or less confirms my information that the decision to remove him was made last Wednesday and it then took two days to agree or disagree the statements. How does "statement apologizing and everything moves on" manifest itself into "they decided to remove him" ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmu 0 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 the sad thing about this is that Paul Murray is in charge throughout this affair and has said nothing and I think that he will prove to be a liability. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) We are now in a position where our actions and support can have a marked impact on the club. I don't often agree with you Greg but that is a very intuitive and salient point. The high profile that fans have gained through the success of RST and RF in raising money to buy shares and obtain proxies means that fans and their representatives will be scrutinised like never before. Since football in general and the future of our Club in particular is such an emotive subject, there will be many who have what some might regard as skeletons in the cupboard in a football sense never mind their opinions about non-football related matters. All fans are ambassadors for the club and indeed when we go abroad as we have done in the past and will do again in the future we are ambassadors for our country as well. Social media is so instant and subject to such close examination that we should all think twice before we hit SEND/TWEET/POST or whatever. Edited March 16, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 How does "statement apologizing and everything moves on" manifest itself into "they decided to remove him" ? They weren't going to issue a statement saying that they had decided to remove someone they had appointed 24 hours before now were they? 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.