Club statement

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm not sure exactly why you are speculating on what might or should have been reported.

 

What I was pointing out was simply that the UoF issued a statement where it said ""A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security, they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback, or as any form of security for a loan or other finance,"

 

And that the board in their statement tonight said “Whilst the Board is reported to have offered legally binding undertakings during a fan group discussion in relation to Ibrox and Murray Park, this is not the case."

 

What I am saying is that 4 days after the meeting, the board want to appear as though they are contradicting what the UoF said in their statement about 'considering the legally binding undertakings'.

The UoF went away from that meeting waiting for a call because they had been told the legally binding undertakings were under consideration.

Apparently there was no call.

Tonight, the board deny reports of having offered legally binding undertakings........(What reports and from where ?)

They don't deny having considered it.

 

However the wording used is (as so much of board communications) to confuse rather than inform and gives the impression that things were resolved at the meeting and needed no futher communication.

 

------------------------------------------

 

I see a similar hand at work here as that who wrote the answer for GW on the question of 'blaming fans' in the twitter Q&A.

 

I wouldn't disagree with much of that analysis but as I said, it is clear that the Board have indeed considered and rejected a legally binding undertaking however the matter arose in the meeting.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the Board were committed to responding and they have done so.

 

I would have thought that it would have been better for both sides to agree a statement after the meeting, wouldn't you AGREE?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

 

 

I was elected to

the Board of RST at the AGM in September 2009 and I was appointed Secretary with

a place on our Management Executive Committee (MEC) in February this year. In

these positions I have been heavily involved in discussions with the representatives of

parties who have indicated an interest in purchasing or supporting the purchase of the

issued share capital of the Club.

 

 

 

I don't remember the context of that statement but it referred to 2010 and it was correct.

 

I was involved in discussions with a Trust Company who were representing Andrew Ellis, I introduced the lawyers who were acting for Jim McColl to the RST and I had a number of meetings and discussions with them on behalf of the RST.

 

I'm really not sure the point you are trying to make but I am not involved in any such discussions with anyone at the moment.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You see things you want to see. IMHO, the board simply replied to stuff like this:

 

 

 

Scotsman

 

I see not much contradiction, just people checking out semantics for any sort of misunderstandings or double-meanings. This I would consider desperate too.

 

That's a very good point. The Board are referring to the REPORTS not the UoF statement.

[buster. 5,184]

I wouldn't disagree with much of that analysis but as I said, it is clear that the Board have indeed considered and rejected a legally binding undertaking however the matter arose in the meeting.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the Board were committed to responding and they have done so.

 

I would have thought that it would have been better for both sides to agree a statement after the meeting, wouldn't you AGREE?

 

Speculating about something that didn't happen is largely irrelevant.

 

UoF went away from the meeting and issued a statement to inform.

The board at Ibrox went away from the meeting, apparently didn't get back in touch with the UoF after 'considering' and issued a statement on Saturday night that is in part, designed to mislead,

 

 

 

How can an educated person not learn from past mistakes and not smell a rat when the board continually look to mislead, confuse and divide in their communications ?

[buster. 5,184]

That's a very good point. The Board are referring to the REPORTS not the UoF statement.

 

The Scotsman article contains the UoF statement where it plainly says 'consider'.

Do the board think it more relevant to refer to reports rather than what was actually said at the meeting between the two parties ?

 

I would ask to see a link where a 'report' didn't mention the paragraph of the UoF statement where if it mentioned 'consider...legally binding undertakings'.

 

We've been here before in the Wallace twitter Q&A.

 

 

Do you think the corporate goverence they mention includes a special line in 'serial misleading' ?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Speculating about something that didn't happen is largely irrelevant.

 

UoF went away from the meeting and issued a statement to inform.

The board at Ibrox went away from the meeting, apparently didn't get back in touch with the UoF after 'considering' and issued a statement on Saturday night that is in part, designed to mislead,

 

A relevant question based on what actually happened is........Why do the board

 

How can an educated person not learn from past mistakes and not smell a rat when the board continually look to mislead, confuse and divide in their communications ?

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

I don't agree that the statement is designed to mislead, it may not be word perfect but I think when you view it in the context of the media reports such as the Scotsman highlighted by dB it is clear and unequivocal on the subject of security over Ibrox and the sale of ST's.

 

I would like to see a statement about Murray Park but IF there are any negotiations going on behind the scenes it would be commercially sensitive, not to mention a breach of stock market rules to make a public announcement ahead of any release to the stock market.

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

I wouldn't disagree with much of that analysis but as I said, it is clear that the Board have indeed considered and rejected a legally binding undertaking however the matter arose in the meeting.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the Board were committed to responding and they have done so.

 

I would have thought that it would have been better for both sides to agree a statement after the meeting, wouldn't you AGREE?

 

No chance of both sides agreeing to a statement.Whatever the board says the UoF, SoS etc will simply disagree. If the board say the sky is blue then the UoF,SoS will say it isn't.That's the way things are proceeding and I feel it is all getting rather tedious.

Anyone can see that the endgame of the UoF,SoS etc is to get the current board removed and replaced with 'rangers men' such as the murrays double act and DK without putting in a penny of their own money. But it is doomed to fail and they know it.The only thing they have left now is to try to destroy Rangers like our detractors were trying to do two summers ago in 2012. They failed too.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The Scotsman article contains the UoF statement where it plainly says 'consider'.

Do the board think it more relevant to refer to reports rather than what was actually said at the meeting between the two parties ?

 

 

Clearly they do.

 

As I said a joint statement would have been preferable.

 

I agree that the Wallace Twitter session was well rehearsed and told us little or nothing we didn't already know.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

No chance of both sides agreeing to a statement.Whatever the board says the UoF, SoS etc will simply disagree. If the board say the sky is blue then the UoF,SoS will say it isn't.That's the way things are proceeding and I feel it is all getting rather tedious.

Anyone can see that the endgame of the UoF,SoS etc is to get the current board removed and replaced with 'rangers men' such as the murrays double act and DK without putting in a penny of their own money. But it is doomed to fail and they know it.The only thing they have left now is to try to destroy Rangers like our detractors were trying to do two summers ago in 2012. They failed too.

 

Fair enough and I'd hazard a guess that the Board were pretty miffed at what the UoF put out.

 

If they didn't know it before, they certainly do know it now; time they closed the shop.

[buster. 5,184]

Fair enough and I'd hazard a guess that the Board were pretty miffed at what the UoF put out.

 

If they didn't know it before, they certainly do know it now; time they closed the shop.

 

Is it 'hate' of the UoF or part of the UoF that motivates and IMO blinds you ?