exposingtherhats Latest Report (Not A Blog)

[calscot 0]

i assume you are talking here before John Brown gave that speech on the steps of Ibrox urging the fans to starve them out in summer 2012?

 

He's a case in point, he was right about some things and wrong about others. He had nothing concrete. Also, not many were sure starving the club would have been constructive at that time. Just because you smell a rat doesn't mean you burn down your house...

[calscot 0]

Cal, it ios very easy to go back to the historic blogs of the tarred one. A look into Kerryfail st will show the same. They were going crazy about Whyte being able to buy us. They wanted us dead.

The warnings about King were only based on perceived offences committed in SA.

Sorry mate but rock and hard place doesn't come into it. Whyte was toxic. The warnings were there months before via Ellis.

I'll repeat - our supporters shut their ears and have nobody to blame but ourselves.

 

I find your post contradictory. Like I say, if we believed, took to heart and acted on every negative thing we hear from them and the press and other detractors, and sometimes even our own board, then we could not possibly be Rangers supporters. We would have to believe the club is toxic, evil and now dead. We'd shun it like a pariah.

 

Slagging Rangers fans for not falling for every bit of criticism, accusation or warning or whatever, really is a bit of an oxymoron.

 

Like I said, the main problem is the signal to noise ratio.

[calscot 0]

Just to explain the contradictory part is that the warnings were from THEM. They are generally a combination of hate, idiocy, lying and twisted propaganda. They could tell me it's Tuesday and while they would be right, it would not make any bearing on my perception of what day it is, or even convince me they usually know what day it is. Whenever they are right about something, as far as I'm concerned, it's merely a coincidence, or if I give them some credit for intelligence, a nefarious double bluff.

 

Whenever they come out with their shit, yes I go selectively deaf. When Rangers fans come out with similar stuff, yes, my ears are already closed and it may be lost in the noise.

 

People giving the warnings from our side, obviously did not understand their audience.

[calscot 0]

I also want to point out that it wasn't all deafness, people listened but who believes those posing as fortune tellers? In this case the problem is possibly a lack of naivety. I know myself and many others believe that to be very successful in business, you can't be squeaky clean. I believe you have to be arrogant, self serving, greedy, ruthless, flexible on morals and ethics, and happy to bend and break the rules if you can get away with it. In business these kind of attributes seem to be actually admired.

 

The point is that ANY successful businessman buying our club has a level of dodginess - including King. Think about so many of our board members going back to when Murray bought the club, obviously including him in spades. Think about Ashley, Diamond, Abramovic and the Glazers.

 

Warning us about a seemingly very rich, businessman is a bit like warning us a top supermodel is a bit of a diva - it's no surprise and it doesn't mean we can't work with them.

 

Abramovic is probably about as dodgy as you get and yet he has been very good for Chelsea, and it could be argued a catalyst in creating a successfully popular league.

 

You may find a new friend has a dodgy past but that doesn't necessarily mean he's definitely going to do YOU over.

 

Ashley is a terrible person and incredibly dodgy, but Sports Direct have been very successful - businessmen most often make money by running successful businesses, even when they are dodgy.

 

There are those that asset strip to make money, but I think the belief was that no-one would do that in a high profile and passionately followed club like Rangers - they expected anyone who did that to be in fear of their very lives. I think it's maybe a credit to Rangers fans that we're civilised enough that those who raped and abused our club remain physically unscathed.

 

So there was actually a lot of acceptance at certain points that both Whyte and Green were dodgy, but the question was, would that be directly detrimental to club or were they just doing a dodgy deal to buy as low as possible, ride the storm and then sell high while, using normal but dodgy business ethics in giving themselves loads of extra shares etc?

 

Or were they just dodgy characters who wanted a bit of fame, attention and a front of legitimacy?

 

Yes they were dodgy, but you could not 100% predict that they would use their dodginess to harm the club. As I said in Whyte's case, there was the question of whether a guy good at cheating the tax man, was a good person to have in your corner against a huge, dodgy tax case?

 

And that leads to another reason for some of the acceptance, which is "ANY port in a storm", and we were in a pretty big one.

[jhunter 0]

He's a case in point, he was right about some things and wrong about others. He had nothing concrete. Also, not many were sure starving the club would have been constructive at that time. Just because you smell a rat doesn't mean you burn down your house...

 

i' sorry but when JB made that speech that was the time for them to be starved out

 

the fact we wasted 2 years is a travesty.

 

why on earth would JB have been saying those things?

[forlanssister 3,092]

I also want to point out that it wasn't all deafness, people listened but who believes those posing as fortune tellers? In this case the problem is possibly a lack of naivety. I know myself and many others believe that to be very successful in business, you can't be squeaky clean. I believe you have to be arrogant, self serving, greedy, ruthless, flexible on morals and ethics, and happy to bend and break the rules if you can get away with it. In business these kind of attributes seem to be actually admired.

 

Those who yelled " the Emperor has no clothes" weren't fortune tellers or even gifted with second sight they were merely stating the obvious.

 

There was a surfeit of naivety not a lack of it.

 

The point is that ANY successful businessman buying our club has a level of dodginess - including King. Think about so many of our board members going back to when Murray bought the club, obviously including him in spades. Think about Ashley, Diamond, Abramovic and the Glazers.

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're tarring Douglas and Graeme Park, George Letham, George Taylor, John Bennet, Barry Scott and Andy Ross with but feel free to furnish me with their particular "level of dodginess" they're at as it seems to have passed me by.

 

Warning us about a seemingly very rich, businessman is a bit like warning us a top supermodel is a bit of a diva - it's no surprise and it doesn't mean we can't work with them.

 

Worked well did it?

 

 

Abramovic is probably about as dodgy as you get and yet he has been very good for Chelsea, and it could be argued a catalyst in creating a successfully popular league.

 

I'd hazard a guess the pay TV billions proved to be a bigger catalyst than Abramovic.

 

You may find a new friend has a dodgy past but that doesn't necessarily mean he's definitely going to do YOU over.

 

The leopard and spots idiom is usually reliable enough a guide.

 

Ashley is a terrible person and incredibly dodgy, but Sports Direct have been very successful - businessmen most often make money by running successful businesses, even when they are dodgy.

 

There are those that asset strip to make money, but I think the belief was that no-one would do that in a high profile and passionately followed club like Rangers - they expected anyone who did that to be in fear of their very lives. I think it's maybe a credit to Rangers fans that we're civilised enough that those who raped and abused our club remain physically unscathed.

 

I can assure you Llambias and Leach were indeed at one point "in fear of their very lives" and it was quite amusing to witness it in an Ealing Comedy kind of way even though the reality was something altogether different.

 

So there was actually a lot of acceptance at certain points that both Whyte and Green were dodgy, but the question was, would that be directly detrimental to club or were they just doing a dodgy deal to buy as low as possible, ride the storm and then sell high while, using normal but dodgy business ethics in giving themselves loads of extra shares etc?

 

Or were they just dodgy characters who wanted a bit of fame, attention and a front of legitimacy?

 

A couple of minutes of Googling was enough to answer that.

 

Yes they were dodgy, but you could not 100% predict that they would use their dodginess to harm the club. As I said in Whyte's case, there was the question of whether a guy good at cheating the tax man, was a good person to have in your corner against a huge, dodgy tax case?

 

"A guy good at cheating the tax man", oh come on, he cheated employees, investors etc and a whole host of creditors of which HMRC was but one. Someone of that ilk is probably the worst possible kind to have in your corner when fighting a dodgy tax case.

 

And that leads to another reason for some of the acceptance, which is "ANY port in a storm", and we were in a pretty big one.

 

When someone claims to be throwing you a lifebelt it's wise to check it actually floats.

 

Spare me the usual pontification and psychoanalysis in the inevitable retort to which I'll no doubt bite in a suitable moment of boredom.

[calscot 0]

Those who yelled " the Emperor has no clothes" weren't fortune tellers or even gifted with second sight they were merely stating the obvious.

 

There was a surfeit of naivety not a lack of it.

 

 

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're tarring Douglas and Graeme Park, George Letham, George Taylor, John Bennet, Barry Scott and Andy Ross with but feel free to furnish me with their particular "level of dodginess" they're at as it seems to have passed me by.

 

 

 

Worked well did it?

 

 

 

 

I'd hazard a guess the pay TV billions proved to be a bigger catalyst than Abramovic.

 

 

 

The leopard and spots idiom is usually reliable enough a guide.

 

 

 

I can assure you Llambias and Leach were indeed at one point "in fear of their very lives" and it was quite amusing to witness it in an Ealing Comedy kind of way even though the reality was something altogether different.

 

 

 

A couple of minutes of Googling was enough to answer that.

 

 

 

"A guy good at cheating the tax man", oh come on, he cheated employees, investors etc and a whole host of creditors of which HMRC was but one. Someone of that ilk is probably the worst possible kind to have in your corner when fighting a dodgy tax case.

 

 

 

When someone claims to be throwing you a lifebelt it's wise to check it actually floats.

 

Spare me the usual pontification and psychoanalysis in the inevitable retort to which I'll no doubt bite in a suitable moment of boredom.

 

Sigh, the trolling begins again. I'd rather you didn't reply to my posts as firstly you don't seem be able to fully understand my points, and your supposed rebuttals are pretty facile, and tediously simple to take appart.

 

Secondly your replies always seem to be angry and hitting out instead of any motive of making a decent point, and so replying just results in insults. The last time seemed to end up in you appearing to have a bit of a wobbly, which is when I thought it sympathetic to not continue to reply.

 

This time you have preemptively put your insults in and so surpassed yourself. As I've said before, if you just want an argument, try room 12a.

 

With regards to the topic, I'm not surprised that you think everyone was stupid and you were so effortlessly clever. If you have a special skill, it's being a plodder who revels in tedious searches through tedious documents with tedious language style.

 

Good for you, there's nothing wrong with that - we really need people like that to save us from that tedium and bring us the salient nuggets. However, you throw that usefulness away when you refuse to reference and explain. Hitting people with snidy innuendo and ludicrously referencing Google is the stuff of trolls. Narrowing it down to some long, tedious business documents written in legalese is no better.

 

You say it was all so obvious - yet you failed to convince people, why is that?

 

I even told you at one time the problem was you "seemed" to have great knowledge but you refused to share it, and instead were using the hint of it to put people down. Who wants to listen to that?

 

You didn't take kindly to the constructive criticism, and it shows. You seem to nurse your wrath to keep it warm.

 

You think the fans failed, but with all your knowledge, didn't you fail the fans, and achieve little? You were certainly no William Wallace. So you now blame the fans for not being persuaded by your effective non disclosure.

 

I remember laughing when someone said that you were accurate in your predictions, and had to point out you were as accurate as Nostradamus, given that your predictions were in riddles. You could have been dead accurate but who knows when it was all so vague?

 

The thing that gets me about this, is that in a time where bookish people, into making sense of business documents, could have really shone and been heroes, instead it seemed to turn into full-on revenge of the nerds, which just didn't help.

 

This will be the last time I reply to your goading. Please take it elsewhere.

[Bluedell 5,471]

i assume you are talking here before John Brown gave that speech on the steps of Ibrox urging the fans to starve them out in summer 2012?

 

The one where he went on about the title deeds, when he gave Green more credibility by spouting off such a lot of crap?

[Bluedell 5,471]

Enough was known at the time about Whyte, his business history and modus operandi.

 

It was there but people couldn't be arsed to look or to listen and exactly the same happened with Green.

 

It's easy to reach a firm conclusion based on that but to many it wasn't enough. I come across many who have similar backgrounds but who are actually really good businessmen and would do great things for the club if they got involved.

 

Successful deals for both parties are done all the time by people that have done dodgy things in the past. In my experience things aren't that black and white.

 

It's just a shame that nobody was able to come out with real evidence of wrong-doing (ie the cash coming from Ticketus) a lot sooner.

[jhunter 0]

The one where he went on about the title deeds, when he gave Green more credibility by spouting off such a lot of crap?

 

I thought the message was pretty straight forward to understand

 

i'd like to know why anyone would trust charles green over john brown