The 2nd Part of the Murray Interview >>

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ceefax cat 2

Guest
one point about BM's post has not been considered. He has clearly now gone on record saying he has not had a serious offer to invest/take over the club.

for those who seem to believe there has been and this is 'murray shite' surely now would be the time to call his bluff and tell the press that they had made an approach.

Or perhaps he is telling the truth?
 
My Boy Harry said:
Some achievement that eh? It begs the question of who got us into the financial shite in the first place.

I noted in his interview that he implied that he didnt interfere with the managers targets, who plays etc. which is fair enough. however that sounded to me a bit like blaming Reid for the debacle we ended up in.

No one is asking Murray to choose who we buy or pick the team. what people like me clearly are asking is for the bloke to ask some pertinent questions when these players are bought...including making sure we can afford them.
Reid was probably the most responsible, but so was sheer bad luck - he spent just as football finances and player values started to collapse.
 

Weremuthe

Striker
Wheatley Hill East Durham said:
His three biggest achievements are the stadium, academy and avoiding the fate of other relegated clubs - :):)

how many relegations?
how much debt?
how many broken promises?
Agreed but

I think his biggest achievement was getting us out of the third and stopping us returning there by appointing Peter Reid but it was his incompetence that put us there in the first place. Similarly Roker Park was in a state of neglect under BM's stewardship but he wanted the SOL in Washington.
 
C

ceefax cat 2

Guest
My Boy Harry said:
Yes, you did miss the point, presumably because you had no credible answer to my point.
No - we just have a different view. You miss surely understand the difference between objective facts - safc are bottom of the league.

Whereas you think someone who may do better or worse should take over now (person unknown or undefined) is worth a try - that is a subjective view.

Your beliefs are low held and possible genuine but they have not yet reached the status of an objective fact.
 

My Boy Harry

Striker
Hetzkes Ballet Teacher said:
Reid was probably the most responsible, but so was sheer bad luck - he spent just as football finances and player values started to collapse.
HBT the irony of this of course hasnt bene lost on a lot of us.


some of us distinctly remember Murray indicating that the arse was about to drop out of football...he didnt take his own advice...and allowed the arse to drop out of SAFC. :confused:
 

The Exile

Striker
ceefax cat 2 said:
one point about BM's post has not been considered. He has clearly now gone on record saying he has not had a serious offer to invest/take over the club.

for those who seem to believe there has been and this is 'murray shite' surely now would be the time to call his bluff and tell the press that they had made an approach.

Or perhaps he is telling the truth?
It all depends on what he classes as a 'serious offer'. Surely these things start off as enquiries, then there's a bit of manouvering, and then a serious offer comes in. Refusing an enquiry means it doesn't get to the serious offer stage.
Plus he's got the get out of jail clause of only accepting offers that are in his judgement right for the club. How good has his judgement proved to be over the past two decades?
 
C

ceefax cat 2

Guest
My Boy Harry said:
HBT the irony of this of course hasnt bene lost on a lot of us.

some of us distinctly remember Murray indicating that the arse was about to drop out of football...he didnt take his own advice...and allowed the arse to drop out of SAFC. :confused:
Agreed - he bizarrely about turned and followed the line of many on this board - throw money at players and it will be allright. How many people on this board are still advocating all mm needs is another 5m - having just spunked the last 5m on davis, stead and grey
 

My Boy Harry

Striker
ceefax cat 2 said:
No - we just have a different view. You miss surely understand the difference between objective facts - safc are bottom of the league.
ceefax cat 2 said:

Whereas you think someone who may do better or worse should take over now (person unknown or undefined) is worth a try - that is a subjective view.

Your beliefs are low held and possible genuine but they have not yet reached the status of an objective fact.
what does this mean?

The oibjective facts are that:

1. murray has presided over 5 relegations as a director/chairman.
2. He has presided over a £35m to £40m debt.
3. He has failed to make the club, in 20 years, a stable top flight club.
4. He has presided over the worst team to grace the premiership and the second worst in the history of English league football (as judged by consecutive defeats).

these are objective facts. I could of course go on but there is only so much bandwidth on here.
 
C

ceefax cat 2

Guest
The Exile said:
It all depends on what he classes as a 'serious offer'. Surely these things start off as enquiries, then there's a bit of manouvering, and then a serious offer comes in. Refusing an enquiry means it doesn't get to the serious offer stage.
Plus he's got the get out of jail clause of only accepting offers that are in his judgement right for the club. How good has his judgement proved to be over the past two decades?
First thing you do with any offer/enquiry for a business is establish proof of funds. otherwise RBM could have meetings with ever paper tiger of this board
 

stubber

Striker
ceefax cat 2 said:
not quite true stubber. the banks could reduce the latitude they give us - resulting in less cah. They have the flexibility to do so particularly in the area of our overdraft (70% of our debt is a loan and unless we breech our covenents and cannot be called in) - the overdraft can be called tomorrow if the bank says so.

not saying the bank would call the overdraft -merely to say it is not necessarily true to say we will have no less cash if he left

ps the names john
Providing the new incumbent is still warm and upright the bank will applythe same conditions. He brings nothing to the table. Just years of abject failure.
 

My Boy Harry

Striker
ceefax cat 2 said:
Agreed - he bizarrely about turned and followed the line of many on this board - throw money at players and it will be allright. How many people on this board are still advocating all mm needs is another 5m - having just spunked the last 5m on davis, stead and grey
What else would you have us advocate...that we just plough on with a team that just doesnt look up to it and hope for the best.


I fail too see why supporters should hoy ambition out of the window just because we are given a sob story by SAFc.

If they aint up to it they go.
 
C

ceefax cat 2

Guest
My Boy Harry said:
what does this mean?

The oibjective facts are that:

1. murray has presided over 5 relegations as a director/chairman.
2. He has presided over a £35m to £40m debt.
3. He has failed to make the club, in 20 years, a stable top flight club.
4. He has presided over the worst team to grace the premiership and the second worst in the history of English league football (as judged by consecutive defeats).

these are objective facts. I could of course go on but there is only so much bandwidth on here.

apologies for the type error. fuck knows what i was thinking - the word was genuinely
 
My Boy Harry said:
HBT the irony of this of course hasnt bene lost on a lot of us.

some of us distinctly remember Murray indicating that the arse was about to drop out of football...he didnt take his own advice...and allowed the arse to drop out of SAFC. :confused:
What you casually sidestep is that the board had always been willing to spend according to Reid's needs, it was *REID* who left it too late and then got it expensively wrong.

Putting it another way, if Reid hadnt bought Flo, etc, we'd have been relegated anyway and then you (etc) would have been attacking Murray for *not* allowing the spending.
 

---Nemo---

Striker
ceefax cat 2 said:
one point about BM's post has not been considered. He has clearly now gone on record saying he has not had a serious offer to invest/take over the club.

for those who seem to believe there has been and this is 'murray shite' surely now would be the time to call his bluff and tell the press that they had made an approach.

Or perhaps he is telling the truth?
Are you Bob himself? You play around with words as much as he does :lol:

He hasn't mentioned a "take over" in either a positive or a negative sense, if he has could you please provide a link.

If you don't believe he's had an offer and would love someone to take over why do you think he's nimbly skipping around the words "Take Over" or "Buy Out" or for that matter "Step Down" or "Leave the Club" To me this implies that he may well have knocked folk back or at the very least he's not inviting anyone to come in and take it off his hands. IMO he blows his cover by continually using phrases such as "invest in" or "get involved".
 
C

ceefax cat 2

Guest
My Boy Harry said:
what does this mean?

The oibjective facts are that:

1. murray has presided over 5 relegations as a director/chairman.
2. He has presided over a £35m to £40m debt.
3. He has failed to make the club, in 20 years, a stable top flight club.
4. He has presided over the worst team to grace the premiership and the second worst in the history of English league football (as judged by consecutive defeats).

these are objective facts. I could of course go on but there is only so much bandwidth on here.
disagree to a point with 2. in the last 11 seasons we have been in the top 23 in england. this plus two 7th finishes is by some distance our best run since 1958 - the true pivotal moment in safc history
 

My Boy Harry

Striker
Hetzkes Ballet Teacher said:
What you casually sidestep is that the board had always been willing to spend according to Reid's needs, it was *REID* who left it too late and then got it expensively wrong.
Hetzkes Ballet Teacher said:

Putting it another way, if Reid hadnt bought Flo, etc, we'd have been relegated anyway and then you (etc) would have been attacking Murray for *not* allowing the spending.
Youre probably right. I would have. However that still doesnt excuse Murray allowing Reid to stay on and make the fuckup that we became.
 

My Boy Harry

Striker
ceefax cat 2 said:
disagree to a point with 2. in the last 11 seasons we have been in the top 23 in england. this plus two 7th finishes is by some distance our best run since 1958 - the true pivotal moment in safc history
Murray has still failed to give the fans their first demand...a team consistenly playing in the top flight of English football.


Thats all that counts...on the pitch and in the top league. Everything else is failure in my book.

Winning the "second division" is no yardstick of success now IMHO. Great and novel when you win promnotion once or even twice...but 5 times? Boring now, especially when you can guess at "what comes next".
 

The Exile

Striker
Hetzkes Ballet Teacher said:
What you casually sidestep is that the board had always been willing to spend according to Reid's needs, it was *REID* who left it too late and then got it expensively wrong.

Putting it another way, if Reid hadnt bought Flo, etc, we'd have been relegated anyway and then you (etc) would have been attacking Murray for *not* allowing the spending.
Or in yet another way, If Bob had sacked Reid at the end of the season we finished 17th and all the alarm bells were well and truly ringing, a fresh approach and the money spent by someone who hadn't lost the plot may have kept us up. But he allowed himself to have the piss taken with the Heath/Saxton switch, after the famous 'investigation'. That's where the difference between a good chairman and a poor one is.
 

My Boy Harry

Striker
---Nemo--- said:
Are you Bob himself? You play around with words as much as he does :lol:
---Nemo--- said:

He hasn't mentioned a "take over" in either a positive or a negative sense, if he has could you please provide a link.

If you don't believe he's had an offer and would love someone to take over why do you think he's nimbly skipping around the words "Take Over" or "Buy Out" or for that matter "Step Down" or "Leave the Club" To me this implies that he may well have knocked folk back or at the very least he's not inviting anyone to come in and take it off his hands. IMO he blows his cover by continually using phrases such as "invest in" or "get involved".
Nemo, I'm pleased you are giving the lad a grilling over this point.

At no point has Murray, IMHO, implied that he will walk.

It is my opinion that he wants someone to give him a shed load of money, Murray stays and even remains as the majority shareholder. A plainly naive stance IMHO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top