Guest Pokeherface Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8422821/Rangers-chairman-admits-the-club-could-go-bust-if-no-white-knight-is-found.html The protest organisers took absolute pelters last year over him, plenty of people on RM particularly went all out to prove him a friend of the club, attending clandestine meetings and publishuing articles in an attempt to discredit the protests and now our chairman has broken his silence over him. He truly is the enemy within, to coin a phrase. ââ?¬Å?Letââ?¬â?¢s be very clear on the situation with Donald Muir ââ?¬â?? itââ?¬â?¢s a condition of our credit facility agreement that Donald Muir is the representative of the bank on the board."Itââ?¬â?¢s very tough to engage in conversations at board level about strategies with the bank when we know that the bank guy is sitting there,ââ?¬Â said Johnston who, when asked why it had been denied previously that Muir was Lloydââ?¬â?¢s man, had a sharp retort. ââ?¬Å?I think it was Donald that denied that. Itââ?¬â?¢s been denied by a lot of people, but Iââ?¬â?¢m telling you what the issue is right now. I decided that I might as well,ââ?¬Â said Johnston. ââ?¬Å?What happened when I got here was that the banker that was involved with us refused to talk to our chief executive or to our chief financial officer. It was one of the most stupid aberrations that Iââ?¬â?¢ve ever come across and I said that to the bank. "He had never met our chief financial officer. He had never met Martin Bain [Rangersââ?¬â?¢ chief executive], so all the communications had to go through Donald Muir and Mike McGill, the other director, although essentially it was more through Donald than it was Mike. ââ?¬Å?So a lot of stuff got lost in translation.ââ?¬Â Would it be better for Rangers, therefore, if Muir ââ?¬â?? who is understood to have left the Murray Group on Thursday ââ?¬â?? also departed the club? ââ?¬Å?No question that his presence compromises things,ââ?¬Â said Johnston, although he added: ââ?¬Å?Iââ?¬â?¢ve always got on well with Donald Muir but I deal within the context of who he is.ââ?¬Â 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8422821/Rangers-chairman-admits-the-club-could-go-bust-if-no-white-knight-is-found.html The protest organisers took absolute pelters last year over him, plenty of people on RM particularly went all out to prove him a friend of the club, attending clandestine meetings and publishuing articles in an attempt to discredit the protests and now our chairman has broken his silence over him. He truly is the enemy within, to coin a phrase. I don't know if this will be a popular answer but in my view harsh treatment was necessary inside Ibrox. David Murray is to blame for the present situation and not Donald Muir. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pokeherface Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 People looking for answers and targetting what now appears to have been a very valid target deserved harsh treatment? I apologise if i am reading you wrong but that does seem a touch unfair in my opinion. More than a touch infact. From memory, Muir was not even a main target of the protests but seen as more of a way to gain leverage. I am sure that in the face of AJ's statement today the organisers would have considered that position very carefully. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 People looking for answers and targetting what now appears to have been a very valid target deserved harsh treatment? I apologise if i am reading you wrong but that does seem a touch unfair in my opinion. More than a touch infact. From memory, Muir was not even a main target of the protests but seen as more of a way to gain leverage. I am sure that in the face of AJ's statement today the organisers would have considered that position very carefully. Your statement leaves me completely confused as to who you see as the good, and the bad, guy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Some more straight talking from AJ. Does this just confirm that the gloves are indeed off and he is satisfied that Whyte is the man to take us over? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis 0 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 At the time of this article, NO ONE knew who the good guys or the bad guys within our club were. The target always has been, and still is, David Murray. He alone can sell us or not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Got to say that I'm very surprised nobody has focussed on this particular quote and point - What happened when I got here was that the banker that was involved with us refused to talk to our chief executive or to our chief financial officer. This one quote alone says A LOT. Obviously all we can do is speculate on the meaning of it, but to me this probably back's up leggo's 'theory' that Lloyds had certain people operating on our business with them who were, let's say, the polar opposite of the type of person we'd have liked. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Got to say that I'm very surprised nobody has focussed on this particular quote and point - This one quote alone says A LOT. Obviously all we can do is speculate on the meaning of it, but to me this probably back's up leggo's 'theory' that Lloyds had certain people operating on our business with them who were, let's say, the polar opposite of the type of person we'd have liked. I don't talk to my chief financial officer even although I am married to her. She is quite happy with that as long as she can spend my money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Johnson has put himself in a very difficult position if this deal doesn't come off. He must be super confident it is going to happen or I think he would be a little less outspoken 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8422821/Rangers-chairman-admits-the-club-could-go-bust-if-no-white-knight-is-found.html The protest organisers took absolute pelters last year over him, plenty of people on RM particularly went all out to prove him a friend of the club, attending clandestine meetings and publishuing articles in an attempt to discredit the protests and now our chairman has broken his silence over him. He truly is the enemy within, to coin a phrase. I think despite AJ's revelations it is still quite difficult for the average fan to make up their mind on just who is responsible for what at Rangers FC. The only certainty we have is that it is a shambles worthy of huge criticism. Even worse then that some supporters would consider it more appropriate to indulge in the kind of petty 'I told you so' crap we're seeing elsewhere, rather than work together to address the many failings we all have. Edited April 3, 2011 by Frankie 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.