BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The fact he went ahead with the process when he knew he was out on his ear was simple spite Yes, it certainly was; but they did give him the perfect excuse. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Yes, it certainly was; but they did give him the perfect excuse.Perhaps but as you say yourself he was always going to do it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 You were 100% closer to it than me, so I am not going to argue with your opinion but if it was "payback" as you suggest then it was a silly thing to do for the reason I gave and also because it was fairly clear from his opening gambit that he was going to disband the RFB in any event, if the vote of no confidence was maintained, so he didn't need another excuse. As it happens, the RFB did give him another excuse by publishing Leach's comments about T3B. It is my view Leach knew exactly what he was doing and expected his comments to get out though not in the manner they did. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It is my view Leach knew exactly what he was doing and expected his comments to get out though not in the manner they did. It is my view that that was most definitely a trap and unfortunately the RFB fell right into it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It is my view that that was most definitely a trap and unfortunately the RFB fell right into it. Of course that's not the first time you've got it wrong re the RFB. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Of course that's not the first time you've got it wrong re the RFB. If you say so but I remain of the view that the RFB were right to maintain the vote of no confidence in the Board; but wrong to publish the Leach comment and most folk, the secretary included, agreed with me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,429 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Let us not forget that we were in a very dirty war with the old board, and any and all ammunition was fair game for them to use, so I see no reason why the RFB could not and should not have used the ammo Leach supplied with his outrageous and unsubstantiated claim about T3B. All is fair in love and war and all that! Is putting the process of disbanding the RFB in motion out of spite only days from them being sacked something a respectable person would do? Tells you everything about the charlatans that are Llambias & Leach, and makes the RFB decision to include the remark in their minutes even more credible. There is no moral high ground when the enemy are crawling around in the gutter using every dirty trick to try to retain their positions of power for the sole reason of being able to steal our clubs resources for themselves. L&L are utter scum and totally indefensible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 If you say so but I remain of the view that the RFB were right to maintain the vote of no confidence in the Board; but wrong to publish the Leach comment and most folk, the secretary included, agreed with me. The minutes were released in error there is little doubt about that and I bear my share of responsibility (even though I never wrote them or had access to the Facebook page) for that as does the secretary but no one will ever convince me what happened was wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I don't see how just saying something is off the record allows you to say what you like with impunity. If you say something damagingly slanderous about other non-present parties to deliberately try to deceive people and twist their viewpoint of that third party, then I think your right to confidentiality is forfeited. Confidentiality in such circumstances is in place for giving an open, honest, personal opinion that might not be flattering, not for outrageous, demeaning lies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I don't see how just saying something is off the record allows you to say what you like with impunity. If you say something damagingly slanderous about other non-present parties to deliberately try to deceive people and twist their viewpoint of that third party, then I think your right to confidentiality is forfeited. Confidentiality in such circumstances is in place for giving an open, honest, personal opinion that might not be flattering, not for outrageous, demeaning lies. That's a very interesting argument and one with which I would have considerable sympathy. It is also worth noting as I understand it that the Minutes with the comment were passed to Rangers and the RFB decided to publish after 5 days when no answer had been received from the Club. However, regardless of the pressure they were under, I am not sure that that gave them the right to publish well within the 14 days allowed to the Club. They might have got a way with it without that comment but including that comment was suicide. In any event, FS and others I have spoken to accept that the Minutes were issued "in error" if for no other reason than like it or not it was the Club's prerogative to publish in accordance with the Constitution. 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.