RST involved in new takeover bid?

[Frankie 8,296]

plg:

 

I think I can vaguely remember that and I found it petty and irrelevant and was glad it was quickly removed. I said as much privately to the author. Some senior posters on RM and FF should be above the kind of crap we've seen lately but I still don't think it necessarily represents anything other than a few individuals acting like school-kids. The vast majority on either forum couldn't care less about each place and/or probably use both places anyway so won't appreciate the tit-for-tat nonsense.

 

People have the right to be critical of any site, forum or organisation of course but much better it is constructive and based on facts rather than subjective opinions or mischief-making. I just think some find the odd disagreement or criticism a convenient excuse to resort to quite embarrassing behaviour which helps no-one.

 

Think I asked you this before but didn't get an answer, do you excuse the behaviour of some on FF lately - including your fellow board members - who also posted inaccurate information about people (which is still freely available) or resorted to abuse?

 

I don't particularly care if you answer that actually but I'm only asking to highlight the unnecessary behaviour of both sides of the 'argument'.

 

I'm just glad there are some (the majority in fact) who are above such crap as I simply don't see what anyone gets out of it.

[wabashcannonball 0]

You couldn't make this up....but they are....

[plgsarmy 111]

It's being alleged that the name was leaked by SDM. How did he know the name when you guys didn't?

 

The document was passed to his representatives who passed it on to their client. I believe he then took it to financial advisors and the bank. It was leaked from there I think, whether SDM was behind it, I have no idea.

[plgsarmy 111]

plg:

 

I think I can vaguely remember that and I found it petty and irrelevant and was glad it was quickly removed. I said as much privately to the author. Some senior posters on RM and FF should be above the kind of crap we've seen lately but I still don't think it necessarily represents anything other than a few individuals acting like school-kids. The vast majority on either forum couldn't care less about each place and/or probably use both places anyway so won't appreciate the tit-for-tat nonsense.

 

People have the right to be critical of any site, forum or organisation of course but much better it is constructive and based on facts rather than subjective opinions or mischief-making. I just think some find the odd disagreement or criticism a convenient excuse to resort to quite embarrassing behaviour which helps no-one.

 

Think I asked you this before but didn't get an answer, do you excuse the behaviour of some on FF lately - including your fellow board members - who also posted inaccurate information about people (which is still freely available) or resorted to abuse?

 

I don't particularly care if you answer that actually but I'm only asking to highlight the unnecessary behaviour of both sides of the 'argument'.

 

I'm just glad there are some (the majority in fact) who are above such crap as I simply don't see what anyone gets out of it.

 

 

Frankie, I do not condone lies nor abuse no matter where it appears.

[Bluedell 5,417]

The document was passed to his representatives who passed it on to their client. I believe he then took it to financial advisors and the bank. It was leaked from there I think, whether SDM was behind it, I have no idea.

 

Thanks again. Seems strange that he was so insistent with anonymity with you guys but he revealed himself elsewhere.

[plgsarmy 111]

Thanks again. Seems strange that he was so insistent with anonymity with you guys but he revealed himself elsewhere.

 

 

I agree but there you go.

[Frankie 8,296]

The document was passed to his representatives who passed it on to their client. I believe he then took it to financial advisors and the bank. It was leaked from there I think, whether SDM was behind it, I have no idea.

 

If that's the case, I assume Mr McColl will be changing who he conducts his financial business with, if his advisers or bank leaked the information. Wonder who he banks with...?

 

I must admit I find him stepping back just because his name has been prematurely mentioned a bit disappointing. That and his haste to mention the Partick Thistle stuff means perhaps he wasn't the best person to be involved anyway.

[maineflyer 0]

If that's the case, I assume Mr McColl will be changing who he conducts his financial business with, if his advisers or bank leaked the information. Wonder who he banks with...?

 

I must admit I find him stepping back just because his name has been prematurely mentioned a bit disappointing. That and his haste to mention the Partick Thistle stuff means perhaps he wasn't the best person to be involved anyway.

 

I'd love to hear directly from McColl himself. Somehow I don't think he would say half of what's been attributed to him - the other half would probably be what the press didn't want to print.

[Frankie 8,296]

I'd love to hear directly from McColl himself. Somehow I don't think he would say half of what's been attributed to him - the other half would probably be what the press didn't want to print.

 

We'll never know since he seem so reticent when it comes to publicity...

 

Perhaps he was never overly keen anyway so his potential as a buyer or underwriter overplayed?

 

No matter, it now looks likes like Ellis or no-one - until such time Dave King sorts out his SARS problem.

[Frankie 8,296]

PS: I'd love to hear directly from Ellis as well.