Good Try Mr. McKenzie

By

Jimbo I think Craig Thomson agreed with you. ? …

Comment on Good Try Mr. McKenzie by Trisidium.

Jimbo
I think Craig Thomson agreed with you. ?

Trisidium Also Commented

Good Try Mr. McKenzie
Smugas
The trouble with any solution, extending loans or increasing equity, is that they are required as the price to be paid to maintain the illusion that time has been suspended and that this is the Rangers of the past.
Consequently, there is almost zero prospect of a return, even at break-even, of any loan or investment.
Austerity is the only possible way out of this, and a distinct possibility, even longer term, that without some game-changing event taking place, pre-eminence will never be achieved.
Getting rid of King may be a step on the road to survival, but not a rung in a ladder to the top.


Good Try Mr. McKenzie
EJ
I think the trigger % requiring the concert party to offer to buy all shares would be more likely to happen in any debt to equity swap. In that event they would certainly be above the 30-odd % event horizon.
King’s shares would not be a bargain at 26p either since his departure would almost certainly see preemption rights disapplied soon after.


Recent Comments by Trisidium

Who Is Conning Whom?
John Clark
If there is nothing untoward about the McInnes situation, he most likely will have lost the opportunity to get the job.


Who Is Conning Whom?
Possibly too early to say if McInnes is off to Ibrox, but if it turns out a ‘done deal’ as reported, we will once again see the integrity of the sport being trashed by a club at Ibrox. Not suggesting that DM would be complicit in securing all six points for Rangers, but the optics are absolutely mingin’
One thing is for sure. At least one party of Rangers, Aberdeen or McInnes could have put this to bed, either by rubbishing the story, or by accelerating the process before McInnes was exposed in that way.

If he turns up at Murray Park next week, allegations of match-fixing, true or not, will abound.

If that was not the intention of the coincidental timing of the matches and appointment, it could, and should have been sorted last week.


Who Is Conning Whom?


Wildwood,
The Jane Lewis thing. I don’t think she is being bullied or a victim of misogyny at all. I don’t know why the subject came up again, but the offered nuance to her Tweet has only arisen because the original conversation is time-hazed.
Like many of her colleagues, her mode of Twitter operation is to pour scorn upon any individuals who take her to task for her part in MSM complicity in the dishonest handling of both Rangers’ affairs; e.g. “you talk about Rangers more than your own club!”
Strange then, that during my two personal experiences of JL, who claims to be a Motherwell fan, she spent all of her time doing the same thing. Very knowledgable too as I remember.

I cannot dispute her claim to be a Motherwell fan. But based on those conversations, that is a circle that remains un-squared for me. Perhaps she became one when Rangers were liquidated?

Whatever, the truth of her allegiances, she managed to use the word ‘cheated’ tonight on Twitter (in reference to Motherwell in the first two games against Celtic). That is a word she and her colleagues have carefully avoided using in the last five years, even when it was wholly and especially appropriate to do so.

View Comment


Who Is Conning Whom?
On the trolling thing, there are two considerations.

Firstly, we are conscious that folk have come on here in the past and played to an audience elsewhere. The end game is usually to provoke a ban which they use as evidence of SFM shutting down their ‘compelling’ arguments. In the absence of direct abuse, we shouldn’t give them an easy journey to that martyrdom.

Secondly, as I said a couple of weeks ago (although it does seem a lot longer ☹️ ), and echoed by others, it is useful to be reminded of the facts via the dialectic interventions of the likes of Ernest.

I agree though, that is tiring. If it continues past the Champions League group stages, we will probably resurrect the Ethereal Bonkers OCNC Thread ?. That way, those who like to take sweeties from the weans can be indulged whilst the rest of us can get back to arguing about penalty awards ?


Enough is enough
Our recently arrived new poster has of course gone over some of the old ground (not nearly as plausibly as some of his predecessors) of the past.
I think that is useful to indulge in this kind of dialectic from time to time, if only to combat the relentless pursuit of misdirection employed by the press. Useful to establish for example that the only practical out come of LNS was that RFC broke the rules, and that all the rest is inconsequential waffle. Useful to establish once again what UEFA rules actually say – as opposed to the cherry-picking sophistry which would have us believe they say something different. Useful to have confirmed the absurdity of the notion that membership of the SFA is the ‘soul’ of the metaphysical club – since most of our clubs (though not TRFC) existed BEFORE the SFA.
Good in other words to remind ourselves from time to time of the ACTUAL truths in place here.

The ‘same club’ myth will survive of course. In the same way as Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Loch Ness Monster do.
I have no issue with those who subscribe to any or all of these, but it would be particularly annoying to have acceptance of any or all of these imposed on me. This in effect is what happens with OC flat-earthers.
OC belief is one thing OC fascism is quite another.


About the author