financial figures on PM history, taken from RM.

[TheWeissMan 0]

Try doing one for the RM poster boy Donald Muir, another for Charles Green and then compare with the ones above.

 

There is no need to do this. Its looking back and i have never been Greens biggest fan. Im certainly glad he is no longer there.

 

As per a previous post, you should remember me as TheAlukoMan, now TheLawMan (need to stop changing players as they always leave) and back in the day, we were mostly in tune on Craig Whyte despite the protestations of many. I am most certainly not a RM poster boy as people would see it.

[TheWeissMan 0]

Watch out Jack Irvines about

 

Jack Irvine was a huge fan of Craig Whyte. I am on record as not being and said so throughout.

 

This seems at times the only answer people have when faced with information that doesnt sit comfortable with them. "Lets say its Jack"

 

For the record, Irvine should be booted as far away as possible from our club. Stockbridge with him in my opinion.

[TheWeissMan 0]

Is this why the current board have been so quiet they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this pish.

 

Take out any opinions and show me anything on his publicly available directorships that is positive. This is someone who is trying to get in to run our club. I think i have the right to know what im letting myself in for with my vote.

[TheWeissMan 0]

Did the Rangers Media user provide sources for these figures?

 

Are the list of directorships exhaustive or just cherry picking?

 

The source is at the top of the page.

 

Its from Company Check - a searchable database of all UK companies and Directors.

 

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/907102823

[amms 0]

 

As per a previous post, you should remember me as TheAlukoMan, now TheLawMan (need to stop changing players as they always leave) and back in the day

 

Any chance you'd change your name to TheBlackMan?

[TheWeissMan 0]

Could anyone explain to me why RM have taken such a line.

There's always more subtle reasons than the obvious.

I don't want to cause a shitstorm but I'd very much like to know the real reasons for their stance.

 

I can only speak for myself as im far from taking the RM line as my posting history easily proves.

 

Paul Murray lied about reducing our debt. In the 2 years after he joined, our debt rose from £16m to £31m at which point Muir was appointed to the Board and a reduction plan was put in place to bring it down to the £18m we paid Lloyds when the crook took over.

 

Paul Murray lied about running Rangers on a Domestic break even model during his reign. Without European football we would have accumulated over £30m of losses in those 4 years. Apparently this is how he plans to run us if he gets back in.

 

Paul Murray in 2003 was charged with bringing in £200m of investment for Martin Currie. Having achieved only 10% of that, he left the business and Martin Currie had to suspend the fund.

 

Since that date, there is nothing in Company check that would suggest to me that Paul Murray is capable of running our club. In each of his current businesses, the liabilities are greater than the assets and the cash balances have been dramatically falling since 2008 to all time lows in 2012.

 

Now when we throw the other 2 guys in, Malcolm Murray and Scott Murdoch, between the 3 of them, their current portfolio has accumulated liabilities of £86 million with assets of £29 million. For the life of me, i cannot see how anyone can take those facts, as they are actual year end audited accounts figures, and have any sort of trust in this team to deliver.

 

They are telling us they are going to get investors in and run the club on a break even basis. With the exception of ONE company between them, no other business they are involved in is doing so. For me that tells a BIG story about the calibre of these gents.

 

This is all my opinion and is not based on me being a "RM poster boy" and i will never make the mistake of others and claim i am speaking for "the majority" or even for "RM". Its my considered opinion only.

 

I am always willing to learn new information though and i am happy to debate the business results, however it appears in the main, its is standard, non specific insults that get thrown about. "absolute rubbish" "RM poster boy" "its Jack Irvine" "bottom of the barrel"

 

Go through the factual information and pick out why we should back the Murrays and Co.

[TheWeissMan 0]

They are Anti rather than pro.

 

Anti - Paul Murray, Anti - RST, Anti - Mark Dingwall, Anti - FF, Anti - Chris Graham/Fury, in fact Anti anybody or anything associated with previous names.

 

I am anti PMurray, Anti RST, Anti Mark Dingwall, Anti FF, Anti MMurray however i was a huge supporter of Chris at the beginning when he first appeared on the scene on television and was writing blogs. My opinion changed of him when he got in tow with the RST and his demeanour completely changed.

 

I dont mind admitting any of that. It is my opinion.

[amms 0]

Anyway, more seriously I'd really love someone to do a forensic analysis of the Easedale's businesses.

[TheWeissMan 0]

The OPs were anything but neutral. They were attempted assassinations.

 

I dont pretend to be neutral as far as PM is concerned but as ranger_syntax pointed out, i am NOT RangersMedia. Im a poster on there who for 9 months was unpopular because of my views being at the complete opposite end of the scale to the majority.

 

However, it should be pointed out that unlike other Rangers forums, and im not meaning this one, i was always allowed my opinion and my posts were NEVER removed.

 

Thats neutrality. Not a dictatorship.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

TheLawMan was 'TheWeissMan' and is one of the best posters on RM, one of the few I bother reading.

 

Have not read what he has said here but just putting it out there.

 

Personally, you don't really need to scrutinise anyone in our board in the DM days. It's quite obvious what happened - we were run into the ground several times and the bank cut the debt. It is that simple. Without the bank's involvement we would have collapsed quicker than we did.

 

PS - I'm pretty sure he was MD of a fairly large company. Not that this necessarily means anything but you all maybe shouldn't jump on him calling him an idiot just because he doesn't suit your agenda. I'm sure if he was criticising Stockbridge you would all be loving this.