caseyjones 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Auchenhowie is the name of the road where Murray park is situated, suspect this could be a suggestion to rename Murray Park. I'm certainly no fan of SDM, but I think this would be a churlish act aimed at currying favour with the more vocal supporters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Absolutely. I'm not against asking questions and some should be answered (members of the consortium) but it's perhaps unrealistic for others to be answered at this stage. Don't for one minute expect each and every question to be answered but I do expect the alleged "Rangers businessmen" they intend to be placed on the board to be revealed and I reserve my right to write to any of their current employers to potentially complain and to make public the results if I feel the need arises. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 My motive is a level playing field, let the same standards apply to each bid. I have no personal interest vested or otherwise in any of the 3 bids other than a desire to avoid the winding up of Rangers Football Club plc. Each bid has been asked and each bid has declined to name all parties unless you want to compare Paul Murrays machine gun names approach which has half the people back tracking the next day. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Please folks - no arguing over stuff, that's counter-productive, We all want the best for the club and until we know more, folk are right to ask questions. The Asian-Pacific bid (told to emphasis that now) understands that and simply ask for time before revealing more in due course. Asian-Pacific as opposed to Singapore because of the nationality of the backers? Well done on getting that done, Frankie. Still quite a few major gaps in information, but that was to be expected. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Looks like they have some scepticism in Duff & Phelps too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Don't for one minute expect each and every question to be answered but I do expect the alleged "Rangers businessmen" they intend to be placed on the board to be revealed and I reserve my right to write to any of their current employers to potentially complain and to make public the results if I feel the need arises. And there in fell swoop is why they won't name them. Why would you feel the need to complain? Edited April 11, 2012 by GovanAllan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Looks like they have some scepticism in Duff & Phelps too. They can join the club on those guys. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Don't for one minute expect each and every question to be answered but I do expect the alleged "Rangers businessmen" they intend to be placed on the board to be revealed Agreed. and I reserve my right to write to any of their current employers to potentially complain and to make public the results if I feel the need arises. Even if you have no personal or business interest in their employer? Seems a bit unreasonable to me. I've got to agree with S_A. You're coming across as very defensive of TBKs. We all want answers and most questions have been asked about TBKs because they have revealed the most and therefore there's much more to ask them about. The others won't reveal as much and should be criticised for it, but it doesn't make the questioning of TBKs any less valid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Even if you have no personal or business interest in their employer? Seems a bit unreasonable to me. I've got to agree with S_A. You're coming across as very defensive of TBKs. We all want answers and most questions have been asked about TBKs because they have revealed the most and therefore there's much more to ask them about. The others won't reveal as much and should be criticised for it, but it doesn't make the questioning of TBKs any less valid. I may or may not have a personal or business interest though but I won't know till I know who they are. I wholeheartedly agree re questioning the BK's there are many,many questions I would like to see them answer. As I've said before I'd like to see the same standards applied to the 3 bids. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I'm certainly no fan of SDM, but I think this would be a churlish act aimed at currying favour with the more vocal supporters. Agreed. I didn't like the name at the time, and still don't, but think it's wrong to change it at this point. It can serve as a reminder that we, the support, always have to be on our guard and need to keep an eye on the guardians of our 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.