Murray warns Reid over comments

[ian1964 10,416]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/scotland/article5201316.ece

[Frankie 8,151]

Just think Ian, if Murray had agreed a deal with the Juniors you would have played there alongside him in the 70s...

[bmck 117]

reid's typically responded with some "just defending the fans" pish.

[calscot 0]

I'm perturbed by quite a few quotes in that interview...

 

Not least that if you are on a forum saying his time is up you must be a sad, bigoted nutter who spends all your time emailing libel and abuse.

 

When I asked Murray about that group of Rangers fans who feel he has “over-stayed his welcome”, his reply was withering. “Well I say, maybe they've over-stayed their welcome,” he said. “And I think it is a small rump. You know how these websites work. It's the same guys sitting in the middle of the night sending e-mails to themselves. And then they start a thread and it says that you are gay or that I'm an asset-stripper. You all know how they work."

 

What a way to talk about your critics! Surely he must realize that there is plenty of totally justified criticism going around?

 

"I have put well over �£100million into the club and I won't get that back, I accept that."

 

While that figure is what he may have spent on shares, it doesn't mean that's the amount of money that he's out of pocket. That statement would be true if he get's 99.9M for his equity.

 

If he does sell, I imagine it'll be around the 50M mark - and that he'll keep a sizable proportion of his shares - so the actual loss may be minimal. He also neglects to factor in how much he's made from Rangers by using his own companies as contractors which in my mind, more than makes up for any loss.

 

With my limited knowledge, I'd imagine that he'll probably break even from Rangers and the fact he won't make a big profit is down to his own management of the club.

 

 

“I'm an asset-stripper? I've never been able to work that one out. How can you asset-strip yourself?"

 

This just doesn't make sense. Companies can only EVER be asset stripped by their OWNERS. David, if you can't work it out it's easy - assess stripping is buying a company and then selling the most valuable tangible or indeed intangible assets and either then wind the company up (if the assets are worth more than the cost of the shares) or keep it running without the assets and sell it on while pocketing the profits.

 

There are ways of hiding this, like selling of real estate to family for less than the market value or various ways of moving money around your other companies.

 

You can't asset strip yourself, but you can easily strip one of your companies to benefit another. This practice only usually creates an outcry when people lose their jobs, but when it's a football club then the fans sit up and take notice.

 

I'm not saying SDM did any of this but to say it's impossible is just pulling the wool over people's eyes.

 

"I think we all know what these websites are like. And you know what? I know these supporters. I identified some of them and I went to meet them. And they were like mice. So I think for any individual to use a nom de plume on a website, and call me an asset-stripper, and all these other things, is totally wrong. I don't think these people have much credence.”

 

I think this is more smoke and mirrors, he may have met some like this, but we're not all like that. It's also a bit much to call them mice. When you've got an ordinary guy giving his opinion on a website and then meets up with an powerful, angry Rangers owner with his expensive lawyers in tow, what does he think they are going to be like?

 

You don't have to have some huge, brass necked personality to be entitled to an opinion.

 

“I went to Dinard in December [2005] to meet him. I told Alex McLeish what I was doing. I said, ‘Look Alex, I think it's time for change.' "

 

From the man who never sacked a manager? It was the right thing to do but that definitely makes it a sacking.

 

“Years ago we signed [Maurice Johnston] as a football player first, but also to break the tradition of this club not signing a Roman Catholic - that had been wrong, we did the right thing, and that situation has improved beyond all measure,” he said.

 

That's just not true. The club had put itself on that road years before but were trying to do it quietly and discretely. John Spencer was a youth player who signed for John Grieg and at the time there were statements that Rangers did not have a policy of discriminating against any religion. There are plenty of stories recently about Catholics who were approached by Rangers but who turned the club down - not due to Rangers supports reactions, but because of the backlash they would get from family, friends and their Catholic community.

 

It was many years later that Celtic had their first Protestant on the board and I don't ever remember them signing a Jewish player. They still have a much higher proportion of Catholics on their books than the local demographic and indeed and excessive number of young Irish players which could be interpreted as discrimination against British players and possibly sectarian.

 

Sectarianism and racism does not mean exclusivity, and if it did, then Rangers could not be deemed as either.

 

“But there is still a rump of our fans whose behaviour is totally unacceptable. In Manchester there was no excuse for what happened, you can't defend the behaviour of some of our fans."

 

Maybe not, but how many were real fans? How many even supported Rangers at all? It was easy for local English hooligans to join in or indeed start it. I always find the tv footage strange - when you see the happy fans enjoying themselves, at least 95% of them have Rangers tops or colours on. When you see the rioters it drops down to less than 25%.

 

However, the circumstances are also unprecedented and which British club can truly say that their fans wouldn't have done the same under the same circumstances. It seems to be forgotten that almost as many Chelsea fans rioted in Fulham after the CL final - about HALF of them rioted where there can't have been more than 400 hundred of them altogether without provocation with their only reason being that they lost , compared to about 0.2% of Rangers fans who were definitely provoked.

 

I ask you, which club does not have this, "rump"?

Edited November 21, 2008 by calscot

[Bluedell 5,329]

Berkovic, mate.

[Bluedell 5,329]

"I have put well over �£100million into the club and I won't get that back, I accept that."

He has only put in �£60 million.

 

ââ?¬Å?I'm an asset-stripper? I've never been able to work that one out. How can you asset-strip yourself?"

Taking it at a slightly different direction from Calscot, he could be asset-stripping from the thousands of minority shareholders or the millions of fans, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge their importance. Saying that I don't believe he has asset -stripped the club.

 

 

"I think we all know what these websites are like. And you know what? I know these supporters. I identified some of them and I went to meet them. And they were like mice. So I think for any individual to use a nom de plume on a website, and call me an asset-stripper, and all these other things, is totally wrong. I don't think these people have much credence.�

It depends on the purpose of the meeting. You can be meeting him about one thing, but it's not particularly good manners then to turn round and ay,"By the way, David, you've only put in �£60m into the club". Doesn't mean you're a mouse. Just that you may have another agenda at the meeting.

 

From the man who never sacked a manager? It was the right thing to do but that definitely makes it a sacking.

Great point.

[ian1964 10,416]

Just think Ian, if Murray had agreed a deal with the Juniors you would have played there alongside him in the 70s...

 

What you on about ?,I was still at school in the 70's :box:

[Frankie 8,151]

Aye, ok then... St Joseph's maybe.

 

[Zappa 0]

We've had McConnell sticking his boot in, Salmond cuddling up to them, the current scottish Secretary's behaviour at OF games witnessed, numerous politicians criticising us for The Famine Chant etc. Reid is just one in a long line of politicians to have a go.

 

Yep and he won't be the last, but he's probably better connected than McConnell or Salmond whether he's still 'officially' active in government or not. IMO, he doesn't need to be an active politician to be able to pull the right strings.

[Zappa 0]

Btw Bluedell, Reid didn't just 'upset' the Muslim community, he actually actively participated in upsetting plenty of communities & sections of British society in with the sole purpose of creating a mindset of segregation as per British government policy. Was it a coincidence that while Reid was doing his stuff on this front that out of nowhere the former PM Blair was publicly announcing his (& thus the governments') support of 'Faith Schools' - IE: segregation?