Zappa 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Can't say this really phases me at all. There's far more important things to be concerned about than VB having a meeting with the Rangers board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 6,119 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Information is the key. Any grouping meets the Board and share that information with fellow Bears, I am comfortable. Let's use the information and build a bigger picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 its fair enough that they got to meet the board and ask them questions if however, upon receipt of those answers they start spouting about how they have faith in the board , all anyone need remember is their stance on whyte. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 its fair enough that they got to meet the board and ask them questions if however, upon receipt of those answers they start spouting about how they have faith in the board , all anyone need remember is their stance on whyte. Well given that their press notice says nothing about what questions were asked or what answers given, it's impossible to judge whether they can justify the seemingly unconditional support given to the board. If they want to keep that information to their members then that's up to them. But they can't expect anyone else to agree with them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The chaps have backed the wrong horse....again. Well given that their press notice says nothing about what questions were asked or what answers given, it's impossible to judge whether they can justify the seemingly unconditional support given to the board. Permit me to correct these misconceptions which some of you clearly harbour - VB are not "backing any horse" or giving "unconditional support" to the board. If you wish to believe that then by all means fill your boots - but in doing so you only serve to add to the misinformation which is already out there. I think you will find the ones backing a horse are those whose support of Dave King appears to be unequivocal. Perhaps we as a support should reflect if it really is the role of our supporters groups to ostracize themselves from meaningful, constructive or informative dialogue with the board - even if it is to raise concerns and seek assurances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 its fair enough that they got to meet the board and ask them questions if however, upon receipt of those answers they start spouting about how they have faith in the board , all anyone need remember is their stance on whyte. A stance the majority of Rangers fans shared? Folk need to get over what people thought about Whyte or otherwise and deal with the present Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 A stance the majority of Rangers fans shared? Folk need to get over what people thought about Whyte or otherwise and deal with the present No surprise that you would say that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 its fair enough that they got to meet the board and ask them questions if however, upon receipt of those answers they start spouting about how they have faith in the board , all anyone need remember is their stance on whyte. So should we judge both myself and Chris Graham by the same standard ? - as both of us made exactly the same mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 So should we judge both myself and Chris Graham by the same standard ? - as both of us made exactly the same mistake. See those who disagreed with your point of view, did either of you label them as ta**s? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 See those who disagreed with your point of view, did either of you label them as ta**s? Im sure Shoredbear referenced a thread on FF, which would probably be right up your street. I dont do name calling or emotive language - I find it an obstacle rather than a conduit to effective communication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts