Jump to content

 

 

Chris Graham Twitter problem


Recommended Posts

IMO with freedom of speech comes responsibility and judgement, both of which were sadly lacking from his actions in re-tweeting the said post.

 

I am not a fan of Mr Graham, so I know some of you will take the following with a pinch of salt.

 

I had it confirmed to me from a reliable and unbiased source within Ibrox that (as we all realised) Rangers did not do any due diligence on Mr Graham prior to his appointment and were appalled when his FB and Twitter accounts were brought to their attention but by that time the announcement had been made. If they had done due diligence and discovered the accounts he would not have been appointed. Once the offending re-tweet was brought to their attention they moved to remove him asap and the only reason it took two days was so that the respective statements could be agreed. There was no possibility that he would have been allowed to remain in office.

Edited by BrahimHemdani
Changed order of first two paragraphs and wording of second for clarity.
Link to post
Share on other sites

More so when the club secretary was to release an approved statement apologising and that things were to move on before Chris went away for two days on business and king off somewhere else. Secretary rewrote the statement and never cleared it. Hence arms and legs grew and Chris was left with little alternative when he arrived home.

 

Secretary's not looking too sharp after this episode and only further vindicates the anti fan rep people.

 

It was clearly unfortunate that both Mr King and Mr Graham, had to leave town at the vital moment.

 

However, it seems to me that you are pretty much agreeing with the information I posted.

 

You confirm that the reason it took two days was getting the statement(s) agreed.

 

You also confirm by implication that the minute the re-tweet became subject to comment, Mr Graham had no future on the Board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was clearly unfortunate that both Mr King and Mr Graham, had to leave town at the vital moment.

 

However, it seems to me that you are pretty much agreeing with the information I posted.

 

You confirm that the reason it took two days was getting the statement(s) agreed.

 

You also confirm by implication that the minute the re-tweet became subject to comment, Mr Graham had no future on the Board.

 

I will agree with you Bh, there is always two sides to every story. I think you have been given the ' none of your damn business side of the story' Just my opinion of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that I am agreeing with you then you're more delusional than I thought.

 

I think what you posted was pretty clear and more or less confirms my information that the decision to remove him was made last Wednesday and it then took two days to agree or disagree the statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree with you Bh, there is always two sides to every story. I think you have been given the ' none of your damn business side of the story' Just my opinion of course.

 

Thank you although I'm not quite sure how you can agree with SB that I'm "delusional" and at the same time agree with my post. However, in my delusional state I guess I should be thankful for any support I can get. :D

 

There are indeed two sides to every story and if I may say, that's something I have become better placed than many to know in recent years. However, a friend volunteered the information about this matter so I don't think the version I posted comes into the category you suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again, and perhaps your info is from a source that is trying to hide embarrassment. Either way, you're wrong as is your source. Miles wrong. Maybe you can share your source via PM?

 

The Club were most certainly embarrassed, that much we can agree on for sure.

 

Sorry, you'll understand that I won't be sharing my source with you or anyone else for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree with you Bh, there is always two sides to every story. I think you have been given the ' none of your damn business side of the story' Just my opinion of course.

 

I would stop putting out rumours if I was you - did you not learn from the Gough thing? My dad is still waiting on an apology for that btw.

 

The secretary is the Rangers First lad, so I'm not surprised to see you have a go. Cut the petty stuff please and just support the Rangers

Edited by WATP_Greg
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Club were most certainly embarrassed, that much we can agree on for sure.

 

Sorry, you'll understand that I won't be sharing my source with you or anyone else for that matter.

 

Fantasists, err sorry, posters on RangersMedia by any chance ?? :whistle:

Edited by MoodyBlue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again, and perhaps your info is from a source that is trying to hide embarrassment. Either way, you're wrong as is your source. Miles wrong. Maybe you can share your source via PM?

 

If I'm wrong that the decision was made last Wednesday then why was

club secretary (was) to release an approved statement apologising and that things were to move on before Chris went away for two days
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.