craig 5,199 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 I for one think Walter is wrong in that he has exaggerated the situation. There is no chance the bank is running the club. At best they are monitoring our activities and at worst they are moderating them. Muir is probably there in my opinion to throw cold water on anything that does not fit into the business priorities of firstly, not increasing the debt and secondly reducing it. At the same time, cash flow must be a major consideration. Banks do not have the knowhow nor desire to run football clubs, but they are motivated to protect their interests and make sure club boards don't do anything stupid. Just playing devils advocate here...... If the bank are there to pour cold water on anything which would increase the debt and/or not reducing it... would that not be akin to running things ? Everything we do has financial implication and if the bank can veto it then they are controlling things, or at least the things that matter. I also tend to disagree with you Re the banks not having the knowhow to run a football club. A football club is a business, very unique but a business nonetheless. Banks have employees with vast amounts of experience in a) running businesses and b) turning broken businesses around. I have no doubts that the bank have the knowhow to run RFC - they certainly couldnt do much worse than the current encumbent has. I do agree that they dont have the desire to - they dont have their own problems to seek and taking on the running of RFC and its problems would be something they would be cringing at. Re WS being wrong, I presume you mean wrong with his assessment ? IMO even if he is I am glad he made the statement as it seems to at least have brought things to a head, to an extent, and hopefully it has advanced quicker the winds of change that we desperately need. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norris Cole 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Covenanter has seen him at Parkhead giving it "DOBs" during an OF game. He's a professional politician first and foremost, and will no doubt be at a CoS remembrance service in a couple of weeks time. He knows how to play the games, hence his membership of a Jewish Friends of Labour (or similar) organisation. He can't be trusted IMHO, I'm a 90-minute bigot myself. Doesn't mean I hate Catholics. Though if he has said this in his position as a publicly-elected politician then that is a sacking offence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I for one think Walter is wrong in that he has exaggerated the situation. There is no chance the bank is running the club. At best they are monitoring our activities and at worst they are moderating them. Muir is probably there in my opinion to throw cold water on anything that does not fit into the business priorities of firstly, not increasing the debt and secondly reducing it. At the same time, cash flow must be a major consideration. Banks do not have the knowhow nor desire to run football clubs, but they are motivated to protect their interests and make sure club boards don't do anything stupid. My information is that the bank have been in the club and involved in decision making since before the end of last season (which i told several people on the site privately). I'm not sure that he has exaggerated the position. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 For what it's worth, I took Walter's comment to mean that no-one would be coming in, and everyone was available to leave, on the instructions of the bank and that, in his eyes, was tantamount to running the club. Maybe not day to day involvement, but to a football man like Walter the team is the club - if the bank is influencing player movement, and it is, they can be said to be running the club. But that sounds a bit convoluted now I write it down. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 naw, makes sense to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Backtracked was maybe the wrong word. He hasn't "stuck to his guns though" and tactitly given credence to the clubs statement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 27, 2009 Author Share Posted October 27, 2009 Backtracked was maybe the wrong word. He hasn't "stuck to his guns though" and tactitly given credence to the clubs statement. I wouldnt even call it that though. If you want to believe that then fair enough - but it seems more to me that the club made the statement and told him to toe the party line..... or else. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 I wouldnt even call it that though. If you want to believe that then fair enough - but it seems more to me that the club made the statement and told him to toe the party line..... or else. Either Smith toes the party line or he doesn't though. Can't have it both ways. Saying that he does, does not explain his initial outburst and sudden muzzling. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,651 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Maybe Smith has said what he wanted and got the reaction/publicity he wanted...? I doubt he's say any more as then he'd perhaps be in breach of contract. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Maybe Smith has said what he wanted and got the reaction/publicity he wanted...? I doubt he's say any more as then he'd perhaps be in breach of contract. Exactly Frankie! Looks to me like Smith was a whisker off being handed a P45 for saying what he did. Despite what anyone says about his appointment by SDM, I think Smith's allegiance is with the Club, his team & the fans, not the bloody bank choking the club. 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.