Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Without wishing to turn in this into a 'get BH' thread, I'm completely incredulous that anyone could have thought L&L were a good thing for the club. It's a triumph of hope, bordering on delusion, over reality. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,665 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 On the face of it, L&L may have been good for the club so I can see why some bears were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. However their actions since should have totally eroded that so if anyone still thinks their appointment (or indeed retention) was for the good of the club then they are deluded. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,813 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Still standing up for Ashley despite our retail deal which has seen us earn 500k in near 3 years according to lambias. Does he? One can hardly be objective in what has happened to us these last 12 months, but keeping to facts as BH does here (sic!) is not exactly standing up for Ashley or Llambias. I for one assume that BH does not like what those two did to our club any more than you do. As for being deluded ... at the time Ashley was the only source of money and essentially the only life support the board was willing to accept. A heinous and corrupt source, but still a source. That it was not "good" at any time is beyond debate. But having a board without any source of financial backing whatsoever was the worse option for the club. ... I very well know that they could have accepted King's or other people's money, but as the saying goes, turkeys don't vote for Christmas and these turkeys were ruling and running the club. Edited March 10, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Well he wanted then to remain on place where they could keep doing it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) On the face of it, L&L may have been good for the club so I can see why some bears were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. However their actions since should have totally eroded that so if anyone still thinks their appointment (or indeed retention) was for the good of the club then they are deluded. Just because we disagree doesn't make me deluded. The Board who were in charge of the Club at the time determined that the finance offer from Ashley was the best available at the time and set out the details to the RFB. If any director failed in their duty to the Club then I have no doubt that KingCo will hold them to account. But I would not rely on anything King says in that regard unless it could be independently established as a fact. I have already said twice that Leach's position was untenable after his comments about T3B. When and what particular action(s) of Llambias rendered him unfit for his executive position? Edited March 10, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Actually 3 of the 5 on the board went with king and we're sacked for doing so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Does he? One can hardly be objective in what has happened to us these last 12 months, but keeping to facts as BH does here (sic!) is not exactly standing up for Ashley or Llambias. I for one assume that BH does not like what those two did to our club any more than you do. As for being deluded ... at the time Ashley was the only source of money and essentially the only life support the board was willing to accept. A heinous and corrupt source, but still a source. That it was not "good" at any time is beyond debate. But having a board without any source of financial backing whatsoever was the worse option for the club. ... I very well know that they could have accepted King's or other people's money, but as the saying goes, turkeys don't vote for Christmas and these turkeys were ruling and running the club. You are correct, on the face of it the retail deals that Ashley has done with Rangers are hardly in Rangers' best interests but then there is no doubt that he was using Rangers to further his own business interests. Llambias is brusque that is for sure but he is or appears to be well versed in the corporate world and had achieved some cost cutting which his predecessor had not. He maintained his independence from Sports Direct but clearly that is open to considerable doubt and it is up to KingCo to prove otherwise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Just because we disagree doesn't make me deluded. The Board who were in charge of the Club at the time determined that the finance offer from Ashley was the best available at the time and set out the details to the RFB. If any director failed in their duty to the Club then I have no doubt that KingCo will hold them to account. But I would not rely on anything King says in that regard unless it could be independently established as a fact. I have already said twice that Leach's position was untenable after his comments about T3B. When and what particular action(s) of Llambias rendered him unfit for his executive position? Just because you say you are not deluded doesn't mean you are not deluded. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Just because you say you are not deluded doesn't mean you are not deluded. I can agree with that but I know there are many who agree with me, a minority for sure and perhaps not many if any on here, but not an insignificant minority. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 You are correct, on the face of it the retail deals that Ashley has done with Rangers are hardly in Rangers' best interests but then there is no doubt that he was using Rangers to further his own business interests. Llambias is brusque that is for sure but he is or appears to be well versed in the corporate world and had achieved some cost cutting which his predecessor had not. He maintained his independence from Sports Direct but clearly that is open to considerable doubt and it is up to KingCo to prove otherwise. How much cost cutting has he achieved? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.