Trump Turnberry now sponsoring Rangers

[plgsarmy 111]

To be honest I just see Turnberry rather than Trump.

[Rick Roberts 246]

16 minutes ago, plgsarmy said:

To be honest I just see Turnberry rather than Trump.

I see a board happy to sort out jollies to fancy golf courses rather than deal with some real issues just now. 

 

Also, I take it the club wont make any real money out of this? 

[Bluedell 5,627]

48 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

In any normal dispute of this kind, each side will use the courts to dilute the contents of contracts until both sides get to the stage where they settle.  I feel that we are at that stage now and both sides are likely to settle if there's a sensible first offer to work with.  I'll be really surprised if this is still ongoing after the end of this year.  If it is, I'd expect the shareholders to be asking serious questions of their respective boards because it's a complete waste of money.

 

Maybe our board can invite the SD reps up for a game of golf, afterall its a great place to do deals.  Maybe a wee visit from the US president can help sweeten the deal.  Maybe that is what Farage was doing over there. ?

I think that you're ignoring the fact that it's Mike Ashley, so it's not a normal dispute. 

 

We've already seen that SD have put pressure on Elite not to pay us, and they have no wish to make it finish any time soon. Remember that SD opposed our claim against Elite when it was really nothing to do with them.

 

Ashley and King dislike each other and each one wants to win for their egos, Ashley in particular.

 

I genuinely believe that it's not about money for SD and they are just going to make it as difficult as they can for Rangers and therefore it will run for many years yet.

[craig 5,199]

4 hours ago, Uilleam said:

Try that line at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

 

Exposure of witness testimony under oath to public view is hardly pointless. In fact it may be argued that it a major point of any trial, including an impeachment. 

 

As for the Trump outcome, it is not satisfactory to him personally, as the verdict was nothing other than  a partisan judgement; I should say it offers him less than a Scottish 'Not Proven', where the jury is offered, generally, all the evidence.

It is not satisfactory for the Republican Party, as it is exposed as an organisation which puts Party interests above the rule of law.

Of course, it is also unsatisfactory for the Democrats, who ballsed the whole thing up, and now look incompetent, and, themselves, perhaps, vindictively partisan.

 

From what I have read, Trump appears to have use his position wrongly, to coerce a foreign power for the benefit of his own electoral interests. Whether this represents 'high crime and misdemeanour' is one for American Constitutional lawyers. 

 

As I said, mistrial or not, the reality is that the verdict was never in doubt.  Never.  

 

As for Trump do you honestly think he cares that it is less than a "not proven" ?  Do you honestly think he cares that it was a partisan judgement ?  If anything it gives his ego even more scope because, supposing he was actually guilty, he has been acquitted and all because he knows that any impeachment proceeding is likely to be met with acquittal.  

 

Why isn't it satisfactory for the Republican Party ?  They still hold the majority in the House, they still have the sitting President - they don't care - and if anyone complains about putting "party before law" they will just point right back across the aisle at the Democrats and say they did the exact same thing for Clinton - this is politics, it's a finger-pointing game whether you or I like it or not.

 

The Democrats, as you say, are unsatisfied for more than just the reason you state.  Not only did they screw it up but they almost guaranteed Trump another 4 years - that impeachment plus the petulance of Nancy Pelosi ripping up the State of the Union speech certainly didn't help their cause either.

 

Trump will survive the impeachment.

 

I agree that it has been a farce.  The Democrats didn't play the long game well.  Sure, they could pretty much ensure impeachment proceedings and the impeachment was almost certain to happen - where they didn't play the long game was in getting a conviction - it was never going to happen - the Republicans were never going to vote in enough numbers against their sitting President.  Just wasn't going to happen.

 

Trump is made of Teflon, the Democrats should have recognized that.

[Frankie 8,570]

Please stay on topic or the thread gets closed!

[Gonzo79 15,294]

58 minutes ago, Rick Roberts said:

I see a board happy to sort out jollies to fancy golf courses rather than deal with some real issues just now. 

Sadly, I suspect you may have highlighted the real reason behind the partnership. 

[Bill 13,717]

4 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Sadly, I suspect you may have highlighted the real reason behind the partnership. 

I'd like to believe the next chairman will bring stronger leadership ...... but I very much doubt it. If someone like King, who clearly has emotional skin in the game, is unwilling to address this growing mess then on what basis is a new chairman going to do so?

 

If this goes on we should fully expect Gerrard to leave well in advance of his contract ending.

[Bill 13,717]

33 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Please stay on topic or the thread gets closed!

[MacK1950 2,378]

15 minutes ago, Bill said:

Sorry Bill smacking is BANNED in Scotland?

[Bill 13,717]

5 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

Sorry Bill smacking is BANNED in Scotland?

Only if you get caught.. Unless you're a Govt minister with perversions..