pete 2,499 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 You're right, not everything he's done has been bad ... and of course he can reasonably claim to be a very successful businessman. However, my only interest in David Murray is insomuch as he affects Rangers today. To an extent, it's the very fact that he can so easily claim such successes in his other business interests that almost demands that his oversight of our recent recline is highlighted to what often comes across as an unquestioning support. That he may be judged as having once been good for Rangers cannot cloud the issue as it stands today. If I'm wrong then I apologise but at the time we won NIAR the club's finances were relatively healthy as I recall. It has been the time since the Advocaat experiment started to unwind that Murray has lost the plot and for which his stewardship entirely deserves to be questioned - if only he would occasionally answer some of those questions! I'm really not the least interested in Murray as a person but his actions (or lack of them) as chairman these last few years have been negligent and unacceptable. I believe his outbursts at last weeks AGM showed a great deal about his relationship with this club. I realise these views run contrary to those of many members of this forum but they are the views I hold as honestly as I know how. Mainflyer, Firstly you are right about NIAR as Bluedell also pointed out. I stand corrected on that one. Secondly even although some people may disagree with you, that is what we want to debate. You have made some excellent posts today opening up debatable points, that is what we want on this forum. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Sorry but I have to disagree with the statement regarding Arab wealth. What proof do you have that arab wealth is less than legit ? Much arab wealth comes from oil and there has been plenty of that wealth to be passed around. mmm.... this is a very interesting point!! Lets see then eh. Arab Wealth? Well as you pointed out most of it comes from the oil industry, so let me ask you... Is the Oil industry legit? Serious question btw!! Now believe it or not, this is an important question because as individuals, large percentages of our incomes are forked out for fuel (re- the 85 yr old pensioners that have to pay almost 100 quid a month for electricity). Ok, so the electricity companies are taking a massive share of this money, but ultimately the people supplying the fuel are either the Arabs or 'the others'/nazi-style global domination obsessed governmental types.... depending on your opinion of course. The arabs, and the asians too to be fair, are churning out a huge amount of wealth and, for the most part, legitimately. Legitimately? Righty ho.. see my points above & if they aren't enough to make you think about what's actually going on in our world I'll maybe suggest more food for thought. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 sorry, double post thingy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,146 Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 Same here, but you can be guaranteed that it wouldn't be any different no matter what SDM did. If he'd dropped another 20 mil of his own money into the 2007/2008 transfer budget & we'd actually WON the UEFA Cup Final, he'd still get slagged rotten. He just can't do any good can he? ... Welcome to the SDM hate club!! Man, he might have money, but I'm glad I'm not him. There can't be a more hated man in Scotland. Pedo's receive less abuse. Mark Have a problem with some of the stuff you say here mate. 1. SDM hasn't put a great deal of his own money into any transfer budget over the years. Conservatively he's put in around �£70million to the club but not for transfer dealings and the vast majority of his investment was because of his own mismanagement. 2. For the most part, it's likely he'll get the bulk of that money back when he does finally sell up. If he/MIH hasn't already via the increased exposure and publicity of being the Rangers FC chairman and owner. 3. As for abuse, I agree some of it is beyond the pale. But I also understand why some people are so annoyed. I'd prefer more of a middle ground (from all parties) to avoid further splits in the club but SDM certainly didn't help with his comments (which I believe have been quoted out of context by some) last week. 4. In he opening post, I asked for leadership. That's not happened and neither do I feel comforted by some of the replies to the AGM questions. As such SDM remains fair game for criticism. 5. Some will be valid, some will not. So let's try and debate that via robust discussion and avoid the insults, abuse and huff-taking. That goes for everyone! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,146 Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 Is this a forum ? Do I put my hand up to speak ? If so you can fukk off. Please refrain for speaking to any Gersnet user like that. By all means disagree with Jon's intervention but do so privately. That goes for everyone else in the thread who wants to get personal. It's boring, childish and I don't have the time to go through threads and delete off-topic posts each morning. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I think one of the problems here is there while almost all of us on here know many of the faults of the chairman, there are some that seem to want to twist everything he does and perpetually demonise him whether it is justified or not. Now for the more fair minded people, this constant sniping just becomes boring and wearing and when it's shown many times to not even make any sense, some people start to pipe up. For example, he proposes redevelopment of the Govan area which could include an expansion of Ibrox and commissions a feasibility study and we're told by some it's all a complete lie to keep the fans quiet. Then we find there has been progress and the council are about to rubber stamp it. Even then SDM tells us the stadium expansion is being put on ice due to the economic downturn and we're told by some to expect moonbeams and again his character is attacked when he hasn't even promised anything at all. This then becomes interpreted as people defending SDM (which to the minds of some is a heinous crime) where in actual fact they just want to keep a proper perspective, and they are disparaged as being stupid, naive and ignorant. The detractors are then asked to back up their points with proper reasoning and evidence and all hell breaks loose with insults and accusations of censorship. I think there are many of us on here who know much about the failings of SDM but do not want to be subjected to such heavy propaganda against him (or anyone or anything) every time we visit the site. I prefer debate on here to be a bit more grounded and when someone is criticised, I think it should be when criticism is due rather than for everything they do regardless of what it is. I think there is a line between being skeptical of someone and being totally cynical that has been crossed, and pure cynicism bordering on hate is pretty ugly stuff to have to read all the time and it pretty much insults our intelligence. Watching Harry Enfield's "Self righteous brothers" can be funny, but only because it's annoying to be repeatedly subjected to it in real life. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Have a problem with some of the stuff you say here mate. 1. SDM hasn't put a great deal of his own money into any transfer budget over the years. Conservatively he's put in around �£70million to the club but not for transfer dealings and the vast majority of his investment was because of his own mismanagement. �£60m 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,146 Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 As well as the �£6million fee and the �£50million share issue 3 years ago, wasn't there another issue (2000?) where he put in around �£13million? Same time as Dave King invested his �£20million? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 I don't think he could have such a large percentage of shares without the extra investment and I'm sure Frankie is right. I believe, over the years, he's been buying small blocks of shares of the order of �£30-50k which starts to add up. Didn't he also buy ENIC's shares? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 As well as the �£6million fee and the �£50million share issue 3 years ago, wasn't there another issue (2000?) where he put in around �£13million? Same time as Dave King invested his �£20million? He put in �£10m at the same time as Dave King and the recent �£50m rights issue. The original �£6m, the purchase from ENIC and any other purchases he has made over the years have gone to shareholders and not the club. He therefore may have spent more than �£75m over the years, but only �£60m of it has actually gone into the club, as far as I can tell. 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.