financial figures on PM history, taken from RM.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

The guy has only been here for 22 working days. He wont know this history of Jack Irvine right now and he probably wont know the history of Stockbridge either. Im guessing he wont even know about the video either.

 

if that's the case, he has no business being anywhere near a boardroom. Jesus wept, you'd find out more information that that about the local corner shop if you were applying for a job there!

[amms 0]

And vice versa.

 

Seem to be a set of fans that will back PM and MM no matter how badly they have done in the past.

 

No, only until there's a better alternative.

[chilledbear 16]

And vice versa.

 

Seem to be a set of fans that will back PM and MM no matter how badly they have done in the past.

 

It also looks like some fans will vote for anyone, as long as P. and M. Murray are kept out.

 

You have to wonder when Rangers come into the equation.

[amms 0]

So you think a guy of Somers standing should take on a Chairman role of a huge business in a bit of distress then spend time googling to see what people think of the PR team ?

 

As for the £14m loss, and remember im not a fan of BS, but what if he takes the Malcolm Murray approach and says, its not my fault, i was doing what i was told and out voted.

 

When all is said and done, Paul Murray failed miserably last time he was at the club. Malcolm Murray failed miserably the last time he was at the club. Malcolm Murray was embarrassing in his capacity as Chairman and his antics at social events were very questionable. His "No surrender" and his appearance on Talk Sport was embarrassing as well. And the guffaws at the table at the child abuse joke the other week were ridiculous from people who are vying for a place on Rangers Football Club Board.

 

I will take my chance with Mr Somers who has no failures in business to be noted and no tainted past at our club.

 

I'd expect someone of any standing would do a thorough research of any business they were taking on the chairmanship of before accepting the position. Indeed I'd say it is negligent not too. I also find it incredulous that no employee or supporter has mentioned how divisive Irvine is to him. As you've pointed out though these big company men probably don't have time for trifling things like supporters concerns.

 

I love your 'what if Stockbridge was forced into it' line, well I assume he'd have resigned or been removed if he disagreed with with so much. Another strawman though, well done.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you think Paul Murray should have done last time he was a director, he was only one voice round the table and a minority one at that. That he's still preferable to the current mob tells it's own story.

[TheWeissMan 0]

I'd expect someone of any standing would do a thorough research of any business they were taking on the chairmanship of before accepting the position. Indeed I'd say it is negligent not too. I also find it incredulous that no employee or supporter has mentioned how divisive Irvine is to him. As you've pointed out though these big company men probably don't have time for trifling things like supporters concerns.

 

I love your 'what if Stockbridge was forced into it' line, well I assume he'd have resigned or been removed if he disagreed with with so much. Another strawman though, well done.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you think Paul Murray should have done last time he was a director, he was only one voice round the table and a minority one at that. That he's still preferable to the current mob tells it's own story.

 

I think you know exactly what i mean. At the meeting the other week every difficult question put to P and M Murray about their time on the Board was deflected and they made out they were fighting a losing battle because others had more sway. I am merely asking if its not a distinct possibility that the same could be said for BS, as much as i despise him and want him off the Board.

 

I dont see how the Murrays can claim this without you questioning it but for others its out of the question.

 

Also on my other strawman, once again Paul Murray was beating that drum on BBC Scotland today. Its a pity none of them are clever enough and none of the fans close to him are brave enough to ask why Malcolm cant provide the information he so craves.

 

And for another strawman, and again on the radio, P Murray claimed BS position was untenable for 2 reasons, that he was there when the business lost £14m and for his conduct in office. He said it without a hint of irony and without a seconds thought that his partner in crime fitted the exact same description.

[chilledbear 16]

I think you know exactly what i mean. At the meeting the other week every difficult question put to P and M Murray about their time on the Board was deflected and they made out they were fighting a losing battle because others had more sway. I am merely asking if its not a distinct possibility that the same could be said for BS, as much as i despise him and want him off the Board.

 

I dont see how the Murrays can claim this without you questioning it but for others its out of the question.

 

Also on my other strawman, once again Paul Murray was beating that drum on BBC Scotland today. Its a pity none of them are clever enough and none of the fans close to him are brave enough to ask why Malcolm cant provide the information he so craves.

 

And for another strawman, and again on the radio, P Murray claimed BS position was untenable for 2 reasons, that he was there when the business lost £14m and for his conduct in office. He said it without a hint of irony and without a seconds thought that his partner in crime fitted the exact same description.

 

So there is criticism for both sides. I don't think anyone doubts that. The question we all have to answer is who do we trust the most. If I want someone to run a Company for me, do I choose Murrays, Murdoch and Wilson, or Easdales, Stockbridge and Somers, not forgetting their mouthpiece Irvine.

 

No contest for me.

[j1mgg 0]

So there is criticism for both sides. I don't think anyone doubts that. The question we all have to answer is who do we trust the most. If I want someone to run a Company for me, do I choose Murrays, Murdoch and Wilson, or Easdales, Stockbridge and Somers, not forgetting their mouthpiece Irvine.

 

No contest for me.

 

And vice versa again.

 

It was what you think that counts, and surprisingly some people think the new additions to the board can do a better job than PM, MM and he other 2

 

With regards to what Paul Murray could of done being only one small voice round a big table, easy, he could have resigned just as mentioned in the post asking the question.

[chilledbear 16]

As you say opinions.

 

You have to wonder where some get them when they give their support to the Easdales, Stockbridge etc.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

And vice versa again.

 

It was what you think that counts, and surprisingly some people think the new additions to the board can do a better job than PM, MM and he other 2

 

With regards to what Paul Murray could of done being only one small voice round a big table, easy, he could have resigned just as mentioned in the post asking the question.

 

why would p murrray have resigned? the team was winning and the financial situation was being managed extremely effectively.

[Zappa 0]

At the meeting the other week every difficult question put to P and M Murray about their time on the Board was deflected and they made out they were fighting a losing battle because others had more sway. I am merely asking if its not a distinct possibility that the same could be said for BS, as much as i despise him and want him off the Board.

 

I dont see how the Murrays can claim this without you questioning it but for others its out of the question.

 

I'm not even a fan of Malcolm Murray, but trying to insinuate or suggest that he might have been in the same or a very similar position to Stockbridge in terms of boardroom politics is just ridiculous because Malcolm Murray was completely independent of Green, Ahmad, Stockbridge and their cronies. It sure as hell wasn't Malcolm Murray on those recordings of meetings with Craig Whyte, it was Stockbridge and Ahmad. You know, the recordings of Ahmad & Stockbridge discussing selling £5million worth of shares in the club to convicted fraudster Rafat Rizvi BEFORE the oldco was put into liquidation.