SoS:- What easdale really got in return for his £500k loan

[buster. 4,974]

I think pete's entitled to have his doubts about CH's intentions when it comes to publishing books and setting up youth teams on the back of being a protest figurehead and subsequent private meetings with folks such as Sandy Easdale. As long as the criticism is fairly worded that's fine.

 

However, I think it's only fair to point out the excellent work CH has done over the last few years also. Off-the-record discussions were always going to be part of any campaign for change and while I'd be critical of CH's judgement on occasion when it comes to the releasing of such info, we're pretty naive if we think everything is done in an open, minuted way.

 

In my own opinion, I think Craig Houston has been inspirational in the way he took the concerns many thousands of us had and actually did something about it. The lad isn't perfect and we don't need to like him (or buy his book) but we should acknowledge and respect the work he has done. I protested alongside him many times and can only take my hat off to the hard work he put in - work which cost him financially and personally over the years. Let's remember this website has faced litigation more than once but that's a drop in the ocean compared to what Craig has faced publicly (and privately I'm sure).

 

In that sense, I'm very interested in what he has to say in his book and respect his right to tell the story. If he can make a few pounds back from the money he's spent along the way, so be it.

 

After all there was and still is nothing stopping any one of us doing the same.

 

But the grounds he puts forward are without real base and don't correspond to the weight of unspecified suspicion he seems to put forward.

 

Fine if he doesn't want to buy the book or if he doesn't like CH and/or the things he does.......... but the dark finger of baseless, energetic, unspecified and general suspicion from a site 'super moderator' towards CH is out of order in my book (haven't yet written mine).

[pete 2,499]

I think pete's entitled to have his doubts about CH's intentions when it comes to publishing books and setting up youth teams on the back of being a protest figurehead and subsequent private meetings with folks such as Sandy Easdale. As long as the criticism is fairly worded that's fine.

 

However, I think it's only fair to point out the excellent work CH has done over the last few years also. Off-the-record discussions were always going to be part of any campaign for change and while I'd be critical of CH's judgement on occasion when it comes to the releasing of such info, we're pretty naive if we think everything is done in an open, minuted way.

 

In my own opinion, I think Craig Houston has been inspirational in the way he took the concerns many thousands of us had and actually did something about it. The lad isn't perfect and we don't need to like him (or buy his book) but we should acknowledge and respect the work he has done. I protested alongside him many times and can only take my hat off to the hard work he put in - work which cost him financially and personally over the years. Let's remember this website has faced litigation more than once but that's a drop in the ocean compared to what Craig has faced publicly (and privately I'm sure).

 

In that sense, I'm very interested in what he has to say in his book and respect his right to tell the story. If he can make a few pounds back from the money he's spent along the way, so be it.

 

After all there was and still is nothing stopping any one of us doing the same.

 

J have stated that I respect what he has done and been through Frankie, but turning it into a commercial interest at this point and admitting to having secret deals gives me a bad flavour in my mouth. What did these secrets bring up that he is not allowed to tell?

As far as I know the Easdales still have there shares so he is keeping an agreement for no gain in that field. Isn't it transparency we were all shouting about.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Seemingly he has changed his mind to the rewards he wants.

 

You know the book proceeds are going to youth football right?

[BEARGER 1,829]

This antipathy towards a Bear who actually got of his arise and did something is typical of some fans. It's David Edgar all over again.

[Frankie 8,371]

J have stated that I respect what he has done and been through Frankie, but turning it into a commercial interest at this point and admitting to having secret deals gives me a bad flavour in my mouth. What did these secrets bring up that he is not allowed to tell?

As far as I know the Easdales still have there shares so he is keeping an agreement for no gain in that field. Isn't it transparency we were all shouting about.

 

It's not really a commercial interest per se though. The lad may make a few hundred quid from the book for his academy - hardly the kind huge bounty which points to the concealment of info to make a buck or two. He's telling his story because he thinks people will find it interesting. I'm happy with that, especially when we consider the dearth of books on the subject as it stands.

 

Let's keep it simple - he met with SE to put his (our) point of view across and agreed to some private off-the-record discussion as part of that. I've done the same in my time on the board of the RST and while I can understand why some folk may find that lack of complete transparency frustrating, it's a necessary way of doing business and happens every single day.

[Frankie 8,371]

But the grounds he puts forward are without real base and don't correspond to the weight of unspecified suspicion he seems to put forward.

 

Fine if he doesn't want to buy the book or if he doesn't like CH and/or the things he does.......... but the dark finger of baseless, energetic, unspecified and general suspicion from a site 'super moderator' towards CH is out of order in my book (haven't yet written mine).

 

Pete's position as a site moderator isn't really relevant if you ask me. He's just giving his opinion.

 

You and I may disagree with his suspicions but there will be some fans that do share them. Unfortunately when money is being made (however little) alongside apparent personal gain (even if the opposite may be true) arising from private meetings then suspicion will always naturally occur. I'm sure CH is big and ugly enough to deal with such stuff - he's suffered from far worse.

[buster. 4,974]

This antipathy towards a Bear who actually got of his arise and did something is typical of some fans. It's David Edgar all over again.

 

There does seem to be a strange tendency for many amongst our support to want to harry, attack, suspect or whatever....any individual who becomes a known face, fan group leader and develops a media persona.

 

I think many see CH as desiring and reveling in the 'limelight'.

Some see him as a 'profiteer' (wrt social media: something started by agitators on RM who use the 'divisionary tactics).

 

The 'limelight' comes with the territory and in my book, if individuals want to embrace that limelight and use it for furthering their Rangers related activities, their charitable or youth academy activities or indeed any commercial venture that might be of interest to many and might aid them in any previously mentioned ventures or help fill coffers that services rendered towards the interests of Rangers had emptied....then that is fine in my book.

 

Frankie makes a lot of good points about CH and how he and his group were instrumental to focusing opposition to toxic regimes.

Our memories are short and our analyitical prowess is often poor and easily manipulated.

[buster. 4,974]

Pete's position as a site moderator isn't really relevant if you ask me. He's just giving his opinion.

 

You and I may disagree with his suspicions but there will be some fans that do share them. Unfortunately when money is being made (however little) alongside apparent personal gain (even if the opposite may be true) arising from private meetings then suspicion will always naturally occur. I'm sure CH is big and ugly enough to deal with such stuff - he's suffered from far worse.

 

I mentioned that he was a moderator because for anyone reading, it gives more apparent weight to 'dark unspecified suspicions' than an ordinary poster, ie. "a poster on gersnet was saying............." against "a moderator on Gersnet was saying.............".

 

I just think there should be a higher threshold for having grounds when pointing a 'dark suspicious finger' at someone.

Especially when Pete didn't seem to be able to properly interpret what CH had said in his facebook post.

[Frankie 8,371]

I mentioned that he was a moderator because for anyone reading, it gives more apparent weight to 'dark unspecified suspicions' than an ordinary poster, ie. "a poster on gersnet was saying............." against "a moderator on Gersnet was saying.............".

 

I just think there should be a higher threshold for having grounds when pointing a 'dark suspicious finger' at someone.

Especially when Pete didn't seem to be able to properly interpret what CH had said in his facebook post.

 

Well, with all due respect, if Pete is to be criticised for his post interpretation skills, then so are the people who want to generalise about the supposed credibility of an opinion just because of someone's hierarchical position on a website.

 

It's like saying Kenny Miller must be a good player just because a site admin thinks he's better than what you proles think...

[buster. 4,974]

Well, with all due respect, if Pete is to be criticised for his post interpretation skills, then so are the people who want to generalise about the supposed credibility of an opinion just because of someone's hierarchical position on a website.

 

It's like saying Kenny Miller must be a good player just because a site admin thinks he's better than what you proles think...

 

I only criticise Pete's post interpretation skills because they are the base to his pointing 'finger of suspicion', which is the real issue.

I note you have done similar, but in your own style.

 

Talking about Kenny Miller or any footballing matter is very different to pointing fingers of suspicion at fans group leaders.

 

 

Let's draw a line under this.

Criticism is ok but IMO groundless and dark unspecified suspicion shouldn't be.

Edited November 30, 2015 by buster.