craig 5,195 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 It doesnt mean they were not either-------theres the problem.It was open to interpretation. Which means that whomever announced it and caused the stramash should have confirmed first what was ACTUALLY the case before posting saying the Club were paying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 I think that at the time it came out most people were of the opinion that the very best connotation that could be put on it was that it demonstrated extremely poor judgement and there were many myself included who felt that a person with such poor judgement in a social sense shod not be a director of Rangers FC. However that particular debate is in the past. Your dislike of Chris Graham means that no matter what he does you wouldn't want him as Director of the Club. You haven't had the best of judgement there though with your staunch defence of Llambias & Leach My recollection of it was that the anti-CG folks were saying as you were above. But those who were ambivalent towards Chris, and hence probably the most neutral, thought that it was an over-reaction for him to have to stand down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Which means that whomever announced it and caused the stramash should have confirmed first what was ACTUALLY the case before posting saying the Club were paying. Naw, whoever announced it and caused the stramash fucked it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 It's a simple mistake jumped on by desperate people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Just like bh support of leach and lambias should bar him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Response from Gary Gillan confirming they subsequently advised their members neither NARSA nor Rangers are paying but adding "I don't believe he was already going tho. Not 100% sure about that". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Your dislike of Chris Graham means that no matter what he does you wouldn't want him as Director of the Club. I can agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Is it possible that the original intention was that the Club were paying hence the "guest" wording but that subsequently they and Mr Graham thought better of that plan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 3,761 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Is it possible that the original intention was that the Club were paying hence the "guest" wording but that subsequently they and Mr Graham thought better of that plan. What is the point of discussing this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 I think that at the time it came out most people were of the opinion that the very best connotation that could be put on it was that it demonstrated extremely poor judgement and there were many myself included who felt that a person with such poor judgement in a social sense shod not be a director of Rangers FC. However that particular debate is in the past. If you applied that logic you wouldn't find anyone fit to stand as a director. Eceryone who posts on-line regularly would have something that would be count against them. I also don't believe that it had anything to do with your view that he should not be a director of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts