Club Statement- Murdoch MacLennan

[Gaffer 1,665]

I don't care about the other

2 hours ago, Bill said:

You could have God as chairman and the 12 Apostles around the boardroom table. Fans of the other clubs would still ridicule Rangers. It’s what defines many of them. 

That's correct Bill.  Whilst we don't care about what these other clubs' fans think or say, we do need the boardrooms in the other clubs to be discussing these points and supporting us where appropriate.  I'd like to think that SR is working the other SPFL members quietly.  If he is, that's good and it's quite correct that those discussions remain private and confidential.  His ability to do that role effectively will hopefully make be proven when other clubs start to support the request for an enquiry or a resignation.  If no such support is forthcoming, I'd then question SR's influence and in which case his value to us.  Let's give the time to do this because I'd imagine no club can move without discussing and agreeing at their own board meetings first.  I'd hope to hear something within the next couple of weeks though because by then most will have had the opportunity to take this through their own governance.  This is a test for SR, but I think DK has positioned this for him quite nicely.

[Darthter 542]

9 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I don't care about the other

That's correct Bill.  Whilst we don't care about what these other clubs' fans think or say, we do need the boardrooms in the other clubs to be discussing these points and supporting us where appropriate.  I'd like to think that SR is working the other SPFL members quietly.  If he is, that's good and it's quite correct that those discussions remain private and confidential.  His ability to do that role effectively will hopefully make be proven when other clubs start to support the request for an enquiry or a resignation.  If no such support is forthcoming, I'd then question SR's influence and in which case his value to us.  Let's give the time to do this because I'd imagine no club can move without discussing and agreeing at their own board meetings first.  I'd hope to hear something within the next couple of weeks though because by then most will have had the opportunity to take this through their own governance.  This is a test for SR, but I think DK has positioned this for him quite nicely.

Even then, we may not hear anything in the media/publicly....In the grand scheme of things, it makes sense for the other clubs to keep their heads down - prevents probably fan backlash.  Where it is important though is in the SPFL boardroom....That is when they need to make their voice heard via a vote etc.

[Big Jaws 570]

12 hours ago, buster. said:

I may be saying similar to you and Gaffer but try reading it slowly instead of going off on one.

I'll try and make it as simple as possible.

 

.

..

First of all I didn't go off on one and secondly I was never patronizing nor condescending in my reply posts and I certainly don't expect it in return. Other than that there is very little left to say as @Gaffer has now covered all the relevant points, that I felt needed inspection and which I absolutely agree with, highlighting the weakness in your argument in his follow up post to you.

 

Finally for clarity... both the Compliance officer enquiry and the TAB/TOP panel which incidentally has nothing to do with TRFC perse' are minor inconveniences in comparison to the far more important potential corruption, cronyism and nepotism at the heart of the SPFL its chairman and others appointment.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Big Jaws

[craig 5,199]

14 hours ago, buster. said:

I may be saying similar to you and Gaffer but try reading it slowly instead of going off on one.

I'll try and make it as simple as possible.

 

1. I agreed with the counter attack from club to SFA charges at the time it was launched.

2. I was happy to see that extended to MMcL/SPFL and repeatedly posted the Private Eye article on here (first posted by Forlansister). 

3. I have no issue with the statement by itself.

4. I do however think the timing of publication was chosen at least in part to deflect from other matters.

5. I don't want a statement re. SDI. Firstly, we'll see what happens today in court.

 

---------------------------

 

The bottomline for me is that the club is badly run at an executive level and too often instead of building something, we react to events. The reactions often include statements that go down well but end-up achieving very little. Relatively recently, AJ openly 

talked of 'institutional failure' that surrounded the handling of the Pedro Caixinha appointment....something that continues to cost us. Round about the sametime we signed an agreement with SDI which is the subject of todays court proceedings and threatens our kit launch.

 

The Takeover Panel stuff and current SDI issues stem from actions/contracts taken or signed by the present board. 

These IMO are potentially very important because they may effect our financial position/projections in a significant way.

We hear that the TOP can be ignored as it has no effect on the club, that's bullshit.

 

Does there  come a point when Dave King becomes toxic and would there be any 'Rangers friendly' rich folk out there willing and able to buy him out ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can the SDI thing possibly have a negative financial effect when the only way SDI get to invoke their rights is by offering a deal at least as good as JD ?

[pete 2,499]

10 minutes ago, craig said:

How can the SDI thing possibly have a negative financial effect when the only way SDI get to invoke their rights is by offering a deal at least as good as JD ?

We may have to pay one of them off.