Making Murray Seem Better and Better..

[Beattie 0]

Just a point I've been thinking of over the past couple of days with this whole Newcastle situation and to a lesser extent, the situation at West Ham.

 

Kevin Keegan resigned this evening after basically revealing that the players brought in this summer (a couple at least) where not choices of his, and that more worryingly, he didn't sanction the sale of James Milner to Aston Villa.

 

Now I know there's still elements of doubt over who was the catalyst behind the sales of Hutton and more recently Cuellar, but it's always been my opinion that both were good business.

 

�£9m for a right back is good money in anyone's book and �£8m for someone who didn't want to be there can't be baulked at.

 

Only yesterday, Curbishley walked out of West Ham after revealing he was told Anton Ferdinand would be the last player he would have to sell, only to see George McCartney sold on deadline day.

 

Point I'm trying to make is, this is happening more and more often. Yes, these uber-rich and mainly foreign owners who come into clubs these days may have the funds, but especially considering they never seem to last, is a bit of money really worth sacrificing the dignity of a Club?

 

Some may not like Murray, but there's never been a hint of him interfering in team business and he never would.

 

I've got my negative opinions on certain things concerning Mr. Chairman but to be completely honest, the more I see what goes on elsewhere, he's looking better and better to me every day.

 

Say what you like about him but the question is.. if we were taken over by some foreigner who was splashing cash on players the manager didn't want, seeing managers come and go under his reign and turning the club to turmoil.. which option seems better?

[maineflyer 0]

The basis of this viewpoint appears to be that having to have your leg amputated for gangrene really isn't so bad after all when you consider that you might have been diagnosed with terminal lung cancer.

 

In fact, this is the age old condition of the afflicted and it's called phobic inertia. No matter how bad things get, we always seem to be able to convince ourselves that it could be worse, always to the exclusion of making it better.

 

Welcome to the land of the consolation prize.

[pete 2,499]

I have to agree with Mainflyer on this one. You can't run your business on the assumption it might go wrong

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

I see the point you are making Beattie, but I agree with the other posters on this thread.

 

Just because someone else is worse off does not mean you are doing well.

[calscot 0]

But it does scotch the idea that "anyone is better". It suggest we have to be careful about who the club is handed over to, and "running Murray out of town" will definitely not achieve that. If he get's forced out, then he'll sell to the first buyer.

 

If he's given some leeway, he may actually try to keep the future of the club in safe hands.

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

And if a Billionaire comes in, he wont give a toss and take his money and run.

 

It is easy for Murray to say he will only deal with people with Rangers best interests at heart, when nobody is wanting to buy it at all.

 

The proof will be in the purchase/sale.

[maineflyer 0]

But it does scotch the idea that "anyone is better". It suggest we have to be careful about who the club is handed over to, and "running Murray out of town" will definitely not achieve that. If he get's forced out, then he'll sell to the first buyer.

 

If he's given some leeway, he may actually try to keep the future of the club in safe hands.

"We have to be careful"???

 

Why? Murray's the only one with enough shares to need to be careful who he sells to. It won't make any difference how careful you are. You seem to think the choice of next owner is something to do with the supporters - it's not and never will be.

 

The only thing the support can decide is whether we would like Murray to go or not. That, I'm afraid is as far as it goes. We certainly can't force him to go. All we can ever do is point out his periodic fits of dishonesty when they emerge and put pressure on his reputation when he nods off and lets the other mob pick up three titles without getting out of second gear.

[Guest sharpayrbear]

I don't think there is anyone even on the horizon who is more suitable, more able and rich enough to take over Rangers. That to me sums up the whole argument. SDM is our only option, so what is the debate about?

Anyway, I remember a few months ago FIFA or UEFA talking about banning teams with large debts from the Champions League. Some very big teams would have been banned (Madrid, MU, etc among others if I remember). Our debt is now �£16M and decreasing, which would see us meeting any criteria placed on clubs by authorities.

In addition, I do not believe that someone who wanted to asset-strip and had no interest in the club being successful, would have authorised the spending post-Kaunus. I believe he really does want success for Rangers within the realms of a REASONABLE, SUSTAINABLE BUDGET, money was always there, and Kaunas was a terrible miscalculation by WS who wanted to get players in as cheaply as possible to maximise his budget. He believed he had enough at his disposal to beat Kaunas (and Aalborg for that matter) and it all came as a great shock when we failed. Came as a great shock to us all, but I believe SDM has again released funds to bring us up to a level whereby we can achieve our true potential.

The EPL is a monstrosity. It is not about football any more. We cannot compete, but all that is going to implode sooner or later (sooner I hope) because it is destroying football. We don't want to go there.

[craig 5,199]

sharpraybear,

 

Are you sure that even with 16 mill of debt we would meet any criteria placed on us ?

 

The debt would, one would assume, be tied to the level of income - so say our income is 60 mill and we have debt of 16 mill then a company with 600 mill of income could have 160 mill of debt and be in a similar position in %age terms. I would like to see the criteria before we determine if we meet such criteria.

 

Another thing to consider is...... do you honestly think that UEFA will ban the "big boys" ? UEFA make far too much money thanks to the big boys to exclude them.

 

Clubs like Real, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal would ALL likely be banned under such criteria - so I doubt that UEFA would even follow through with it !

[maineflyer 0]

I don't think there is anyone even on the horizon who is more suitable, more able and rich enough to take over Rangers. That to me sums up the whole argument. SDM is our only option, so what is the debate about?

 

Our option. I love the naivity in this notion that there actually is an option to be exercised by the fans. As if all that had to happen is that we finally reach a collective conclusion one day that Murray is or isn't the man for the job - and then WE choose for him to stay or go. The idea that the outcome will be determined by us, that these debates on Murray's suitability can have any tangible outcome one way or the other, is interesting but inevitably pointless.

 

There is no option. We don't have a choice to make. Not even that favourite choice of doing nothing. Our actions and opinions are completely dislocated from the reality of what Murray does with his shares or who he might sell to. We've never been consulted by Murray on anything of any importance in twenty years so the idea that we will have any role to play in the future is laughable. We simply are not part of that particular equation.

 

Again, all that is available to us as supporters is to choose to like or dislike what the man does in his roles as chairman and owner, and how we might show those feelings. There is a small chance we might influence what he does while he remains but not whether he stays or goes or who he chooses to sell to. We can try to be a conscience for the club but we can be the arbiters of nothing.