exposingtherhats Latest Report (Not A Blog)

[der Berliner 3,547]

Couldn't have put it any better, calscot.

 

Still, I would rather see us move on than time and again have to do with essentially school-yard stuff of the "but you once said" variety. When it comes to Whyte and Co., quite a few of us have to live with what they thought and said back then - whether they had any influence on the situation or not. And that is probably punishment enough.

 

On another topical sidenote, I am somewhat unwilling to compare our current situation with King (as the "RSA tax-dodger") with Whyte's. King is not our owner, neither de facto nor de jure. He owns a certain percentage of our shares, probably has more money handy than the Three Bears put together, but he ain't the one pulling all shots, is he? Or, to turn this on its head, how wealthy and influential are the Three Bears, Paul Murray et al?

[calscot 0]

I thought the message was pretty straight forward to understand

 

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

 

I think the problem was the message was bit garbled and as some of the specifics (like the title deeds) lacked authenticity, it was easy enough to discredit. I think it showed that Rangers fans were willing to listen and to rally, but they needed more plain evidence and a credible champion.

[Bluedell 5,469]

I thought the message was pretty straight forward to understand

 

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

 

When Brown said that the club didn't own the title deeds and Green said that we did, who did you trust on that?

 

Should we have trusted Brown when he backed a Celtic fan to buy the club in June 2012?

[pete 2,499]

I thought the message was pretty straight forward to understand

 

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

 

Were top people in his consortium not Rangers haters(McKenna?) That didn't help him and also as Dell said the title deeds crap where he looked half pissed.

[Frankie 8,367]

Looking back, perhaps some folk harshly treated Bomber but his attitude and strategy didn't help his case.

 

I remember one open meeting in the Ibrox Suite where he made minimal sense and just kept shouting which only served to annoy those present rather than gain their support.

[calscot 0]

I think there seems to be a conception that Rangers fans could actually choose who runs our club, but even if it were possible, who would choose Murray (who was sinking like the Titanic), and Muir (the enemy within) over an new guy who offers to pay off the debt and provide front loaded investment? Exposing Whyte as dodgy hardly makes him look like a worse choice than the incumbent dodgy duo, the former who put us in the deep doggy doo doo and the latter who certainly did not have Rangers interests on his radar.

 

There was no other choice, and the choice was not made by Rangers fans. Rangers fans' only real weapon is removing the lifeblood of the club they want to thrive - it's not something to do lightly and even if you do a good job of convincing a lot of them of the reasoning, it's been shown it's difficult to convince the majority that this is an action to take - even when there are so many hating the manager and his style of football.

 

Again, when Green took over, what choice was there? We all knew about his time a Sheffield etc, but with all the shenanigans, we couldn't have chosen another group to run the club if we tried. We did perhaps scare off that American investor but from what we've learned since, it's pretty much moot whether that is really the case.

 

There were a few rallies and a bit of a boycott but it's very difficult to mobilise Rangers fans as a unit, as we see again and again in other situations. So I'm not sure what those claiming they warned us, wanted from the fans then, or even now. When some of them themselves, naively ignored explicit warnings that they needed be me more informative and helpful in spelling it out a lot more for the masses (and use a less condescending tone) if they wanted more people to listen, I can't see how they have much moral high ground - if there really is any to be had in the whole sorry affair.

Edited May 11, 2016 by calscot

[Bluedell 5,469]

Looking back, perhaps some folk harshly treated Bomber but his attitude and strategy didn't help his case.

 

I remember one open meeting in the Ibrox Suite where he made minimal sense and just kept shouting which only served to annoy those present rather than gain their support.

 

At the meeting, he failed to accept his own agent's word that he had examined the title deeds and there were no issues with them and also he disrupted things to lessen the time that the fans had to question the Green and the board.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It was obvious green was going to be a disaster from day one.

[Rousseau 10,019]

For me, it was new territory. A lot of the stuff sounded like conspiracy theories, so it was difficult to decide what was true and what wasn't. They say hindsight is 20/20.

[calscot 0]

I recall nobody wanted Green, but nobody could prevent it. As a lifeboat, say, it was an unfortunate offering, but having all others withheld from us, we (or the club) had no choice but to grasp it (or was it unconscious in the sea and dragged on board?). A shit and leaky lifeboat that keeps us alive but a bit sick, is actually better than drowning. It kept us alive just long enough to be transferred to what seems like a reasonably decent boat.

 

We had to live in the hope that Green was here for what he said he was - to buy low, patch us up, make some money on a share issue, and sell high within a few years. That cynical, moneymaking admission was actually somewhat refreshing and made his intentions plausible. He and others could have made a small fortune this way, but unfortunately the greed and lack of ethics ran much deeper and darker.