craig 5,195 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Sorry Craig , just getting a wee bit tetchy about this , my bad No problem my friend. I should have clarified that I was never at any point, pointing fingers at you. It just irks me when we, as a support, can be hypocritical when it suits us. Not you, but us generally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 A guest of the club doesn't mean they were necessarily paying for him. That's the conclusion people jumped to. What else could it possibly have meant? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 I don't think so. I may have you as a guest at a Gersnet dinner but it doesn't mean I'm paying for it. That's not a fair comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 What I am getting at is that we very easily sweep under the carpet when someone makes a faux pas. "Easy mistake to make, let's move on" mentality". Yet I'm sure I saw some of the comments/tweets when it was confirmed CG was going had things such as "disgraced former director" - so it's fine to sweep under the carpet when someone gets it wrong that the Club are paying for CG yet a tweet made by CG whilst he was NOT a RFC director, made in jest and a considerable time ago..... Is not only not swept under the carpet but is trotted back out as a stick to beat him with. Double standards, that's what I'm getting at. How do you know it was made in jest; is that not just your opinion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 What else could it possibly have meant? That the Club asked him to speak on behalf of the proposal, therefore he would be the Club's guest. It does NOT have to mean that the Club were paying for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 How do you know it was made in jest; is that not just your opinion? I think it was fairly clear when it was topical at the time that the tweet he made was satirical. Been a while but did he even tweet it or was it a retweet ? Not that it makes much difference. What I recall it was satirical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 That the Club asked him to speak on behalf of the proposal, therefore he would be the Club's guest. It does NOT have to mean that the Club were paying for it. Well, I think that most people would take "a guest of the club" to mean the club were paying his way. If it had read "on behalf of the club" that would have been different. I'm going to seek further clarification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 (edited) I think it was fairly clear when it was topical at the time that the tweet he made was satirical. Been a while but did he even tweet it or was it a retweet ? Not that it makes much difference. What I recall it was satirical. 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. Edited May 1, 2016 by BrahimHemdani Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 That the Club asked him to speak on behalf of the proposal, therefore he would be the Club's guest. It does NOT have to mean that the Club were paying for it. It doesnt mean they were not either-------theres the problem. It was open to interpretation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 1, 2016 Share Posted May 1, 2016 Well, I think that most people would take "a guest of the club" to mean the club were paying his way. If it had read "on behalf of the club" that would have been different. I'm going to seek further clarification. And that would be why it seems they jumped to conclusions and assumed exactly as you have. Either way they should have confirmed "Is the Club paying for CG to travel and present" and the mess would have been avoided. But, like you, it seems they automatically assumed that being a guest meant the Club were footing the bill. Not sure it even matters that much as Chris has confirmed himself that he is paying his own way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts