Grantly Group ââ?¬â?? insolvencies, dissolutions and breaches of the Companies Acts

[Frankie 8,529]

PS: I do actually hope the NOTW article is inaccurate as then I'd have a lot more faith in those who may have or may decide to engage with him in the coming weeks.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Frankie and Craig (don't know how to or if you are able to multi-quote over here)

 

Theres a bit of irony happening here as you say. It's ironic that yesterday the Trust were being criticized for only focusing on the Boss' opening sentence in his article yet today we have a role reversal? Frankie forgetting the gist of the post (and indeed not even quoting it) and instead focusing on the slightly contentious closing statement. A bit of consistency required I think.

 

As an aside, Davie has definitely been misquoted by NOTW and I fully expect this to be retracted like STV did yesterday.

Edited December 2, 2009 by OnlyOneAmoruso

[wabashcannonball 0]

I have had a very quick look through various aspects and opinions regarding the situation, it appears everything is built on a remark made by the manager Smith, about bank involvement.

Despite the authoritive sources of the financial situation stating that his statement/remark has no basis in fact, it looks as if the manager Smith has been elevated to the role of financial expert as well.

It looks to me like acres of print built on nothing more than the remark of the manager, people really should take a reality check, as to fact and fiction.

[Frankie 8,529]

Frankie and Craig (don't know how to or if you are able to multi-quote over here)

 

Theres a bit of irony happening here as you say. It's ironic that yesterday the Trust were being criticized for only focusing on the Boss' opening sentence in his article yet today we have a role reversal? Frankie forgetting the article (and indeed not even quoting it) and instead focusing on the slightly contentious closing statement. A bit of consistency required I think.

 

I've explained why I left out the context above and covered what else he said in full.

 

I apologise if not including that was irresponsible of me.

[Bluedell 5,601]

You don't know what I understand or anything about me, to begin your post with such a patronising remark is a lot of what is wrong with the situation. Thirty years in Saint Louis has taught me nothing is for free, the same fans that blanked the last issue no doubt enjoyed the success that was accumulative to that debt, underwritten by Murray on paper at least.

If you expect a free ride don't be surprised if there's a train wreck, and you find you have no insurance.

I can't see any major problem at the club that is not being addressed by the new structure of Alastair Johnston, of course if wrong I will hold my hands up. I went through the same business regime as the Bunnet, thin dimes are treasured prisoners every single one, Alastair Johnston is of the same stamp, whereas Duffy would not even be considered a light hitter over here.

Thanks for the welcome Frankie.

 

Given that you came on here and raised questions about Rangers fans' love for their club, and got the reasons wrong for their lack of investment last time (IMHO) then firstly, I think that you deserved a patronising remark for the former, and secondly it's obvious that I do know what you understand given that you highlighted it in your previous post for the latter. However if I misunderstood what you were trying to put across then I apologise.

 

The fans did not ask for the club to be put into debt at the levels we were at. Questions were raised at AGMs and the fans were misled/lied to by the directors. Free ride? I seem to remember my season ticket being expensive enough.

 

If we don't qualify for the CL next season then you will quickly see the major problems that have not been addressed by the new structure of Alastair Johnston.

[Frankie 8,529]

As an aside, Davie has definitely been misquoted by NOTW and I fully expect this to be retracted like STV did yesterday.

 

There you go adding stuff afterwards again....

 

Like I say, that is good news if that is shown to be the case. So the Trust have not had any negotiations with Duffy at all then?

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

There you go adding stuff afterwards again....

 

Like I say, that is good news if that is shown to be the case. So the Trust have not had any negotiations with Duffy at all then?

 

I know

 

I don't believe they have Frankie but I couldn't give you a definitive answer on that.

[Frankie 8,529]

Reading between the lines and going by their defence of the chap I'd say they have but that is merely conjecture. Perhaps the Trust could actually just come out and say; yes we've spoken with Mr Duffy; no, we've not spoken with Mr Duffy; or we plan to speak with Mr Duffy? Would have removed some of the more angst driven stuff we've seen.

 

PS: What's your thoughts on Trust board members abusing other supporters - you didn't mention that when talking about consistency?

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

Responding to abuse is a little bit different than just dishing it out willy nilly.

 

Don't think it's really necessary from either side but it's not for me to explain.

[Totti 0]

When you see all this infighting and misinformation you can see why RFC will probably never have any fan participation at board level.

 

Personally speaking, the only fan participation I'd really want is the ability to elect presidents/leaders so we don't end up with another 15 years of tyranny. But when you come across fans still pro-Murray you wonder if that's even a good idea. Your typical football fan knows fuck all about running a football club or business though and that is the extent I'd want.

 

I don't really care who runs our club or who they support as long as we become an efficient club and get a good side again. I'd gladly take a random Russian or Arab with money to burn (not going to happen).