Fascinating call available on download

[buster. 5,257]

Brian Bowman is yet another one who Dingwall has 'personal differences' with, however, as we have seen throughout this sorry saga, everything in isolation should be taken with a pinch of salt. The picture becomes clearer as the jigsaw is formed.

 

I will resist the temptation to 'return fire' regards hypocrisy in the interests of the (bigger) picture that seems to be becoming clearer.

The danger is that once the fog starts to lift, there is a change and another pea-souper comes down.

ie. another stage in an ongoing process (eg. post AGM December 2013)

 

The sp.ivs with executive control, have always been able to stay at least a step ahead.

You can be sure that with the upcoming events.... accounts, AGM, changes in board etc that they will have contingencies in place to maximise benefits.

 

As time goes on, more and more fans begin to see through the charade or ongoing 'robbery'.

The UoF statement from last night was as direct as anything I've seen put out there to the masses, regards detail and pointing fingers.

This statement to a degree addresses what Frankie asks for in the second post in this thread.

I'd implore that fans read the statement, take it on it's merits and not think about the messenger.

 

It perhaps needs a follow-up when Rizvi can be added to the Toxic mix.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

the wigs probably will own us post admin but if we won't fund them now we won't post admin either.

 

the wigs had better just get used to the idea that they either need to fund us to take us back to the top or their investment is worthless. if they can't or won't then they need to say goodby and let someone in who will.

[Ruff 0]

There is a poster on the LSE forum this morning claiming to have inside knowledge. Unfortunately until someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that they are doing what is best for us and then comes out with their version of the truth, I'm inclined to take all info with a pinch of salt.

[Rangersitis 0]

I will resist the temptation to 'return fire' regards hypocrisy in the interests of the (bigger) picture that seems to be becoming clearer.

The danger is that once the fog starts to lift, there is a change and another pea-souper comes down.

ie. another stage in an ongoing process (eg. post AGM December 2013)

 

The sp.ivs with executive control, have always been able to stay at least a step ahead.

You can be sure that with the upcoming events.... accounts, AGM, changes in board etc that they will have contingencies in place to maximise benefits.

 

As time goes on, more and more fans begin to see through the charade or ongoing 'robbery'.

The UoF statement from last night was as direct as anything I've seen put out there to the masses, regards detail and pointing fingers.

This statement to a degree addresses what Frankie asks for in the second post in this thread.

I'd implore that fans read the statement, take it on it's merits and not think about the messenger.

 

It perhaps needs a follow-up when Rizvi can be added to the Toxic mix.

 

I wasn't being hypocritical, merely stating a fact, and as you say later on, ignore the messenger but not the message.

 

The UoF statement was excellent and I meant to say last night that it is the type of comment that would get Mr Easdale calling his brief - if it is untrue, that is.

[Rangersitis 0]

There is a poster on the LSE forum this morning claiming to have inside knowledge. Unfortunately until someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that they are doing what is best for us and then comes out with their version of the truth, I'm inclined to take all info with a pinch of salt.

 

He hasn't revealed anything new. An inauspicious start when sporting such a username!

[Bluedell 5,679]

I don't feel anyone has credibility if they suggest that SDM is involved in some sort of consortium to buy us,

[Ruff 0]

He hasn't revealed anything new. An inauspicious start when sporting such a username!

 

My thoughts exactly!!!! Just joined today too and by the rate of the posts I think he or she is going to make a shift of it. I'll have to check back when I get finished and prepare myself for shock and awe

[buster. 5,257]

I don't feel anyone has credibility if they suggest that SDM is involved in some sort of consortium to buy us,

 

I think someone is simply putting out there what he is hearing on the grapevine.

 

I heard some time ago from a man who I've had good info from in the past that DM was sniffing around.

That may or may not have been true as it wasn't first or second hand.

If it was true that doesn't mean that it will happen or indeed that such 'sniffing' is actually serious.

 

Personally, I can't see DM getting involved again due to various factors, including our financial prospects not reconciling with his MO/ego.

 

 

Going back to the 'credibility' issue you brought up.

I think it wise to listen to people like BB and instead of adopting a black or white verdict, take each piece of info on it's merits, remember it and maybe one day you'll find that it progresses the 'jigsaw'.

 

I don't think unconstructive dismissal of what X, Y or Z comes forward with is a good idea.

It's better to get into constructive dialogue if possible and encourage communication between those who may be thinking about sharing something.

Edited September 10, 2014 by buster.

[Frankie 8,663]

I don't feel anyone has credibility if they suggest that SDM is involved in some sort of consortium to buy us,

 

Generally I'd agree and I'd also suggest if SDM was to be involved if would be as a last resort.

 

While he's been active in terms of consolidating his family's business interests (or at least the best of them from the bank) I'm not convinced he or his family would be all that enthused with going back to Rangers unless it was as a temporary white knight (and possible middle-man) type scenario.

 

But as has been remarked upon on this forum for several months now, he is in and around the periphery so it's not a surprise that his name continues to crop up.

[Frankie 8,663]

There is a poster on the LSE forum this morning claiming to have inside knowledge. Unfortunately until someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that they are doing what is best for us and then comes out with their version of the truth, I'm inclined to take all info with a pinch of salt.

 

Do you have a link mate?