But will they get that passed while Ashley's vote still counts? I think they need 75%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
But will they get that passed while Ashley's vote still counts? I think they need 75%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like this bit of spin:-
Resolution 11 was intended to afford the Company with protection against a further breach of the Scottish Football Association’s Disciplinary Rule 19 on dual interest whether relating to MASH Holdings Limited and related parties’ interests in the Company and its main operating subsidiary,
So they need protection from breaking the rules, rather than from MA?
:rolleyes:
Even by Level 5 standards that's a humdinger! Apologies if I'm making this up but I thought I read about these decisions 2 or 3 days ago? I agree these are good decisions for us in that the turmoil will continue but Ozy may be correct in that MA's holding may be sufficient to prevent the further dilution of the shares. Personally I'm now not really concerned if MA wins & banishes King etc to the sidelines. I think he's so scunnered with Sevco & their support that I can't really see him suddenly pouring his money in to this vile institution.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's absolute nonsense. The SFA have given Mike Ashley permission to own 10% of Rangers. If they want to act in good faith with Scottish football they could pay the £250k fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So how does diluting Mike Ashley's share make them more acceptable to the SFA when he is not breaking rules already as he doesn't own more than 10%?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
If they said they had gotten rid of Ashley's 2 directors to help confirm with the rules that might have worked, however, the chance for that past long ago. I suspect they will just antagonise MA further.
Shame that. :greengrin
Indeed. And for this dreadful example of rule-breaking, Rangers were fined a total of £5,500 by the SFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32341118
Contesting this resolution will have cost them much more than that.
Should Mr King and his cronies succeed in diluting Ashley's shareholding at the AGM I am absolutely certain that there will be another day in court. As a minority shareholder there are certain protections afforded by the law and you can be sure that Ashley's team will be all over it to make sure that The Rangers have followed the letter of the law. Whether they have or not will be up to the judge but you can bet that their money for legal fees will run out long before Ashley's.
All good from a Hibernian point of view, if you ask me.
That's the big questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Looks like the Rangers Supporters Trust and other little pockets of fan groups, allied to King Park Gilligan etc will get v close to 75%.
Others may have better knowledge than me but I seem to recall some types of resolution will require 75% of the share holding to be passed while others need a simple majority of those present
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...ys-crosshairs/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I see Warburton's odds for the Fulham and QPR jobs have shortened.
Now 6th favorite for Fulham at 12/1, and 7th for the QPR gig.
I can see him leaving sooner rather than later...all this guff about 50000 reasons to stay blah blah blah is just paper talk and if there is no serious investment in January, he'll be back down to London as quick as David Cameron was when visiting during the referendum!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
All they've done is antagonize Ashley further to no real end. His real source of power over them - the idiotic sale of their merchandising rights to him, surely one of the worst commercial decisions in football business history- remains unaltered.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
:agree: Desperation is a strong motivator, and they did a deal with the Devil.
I don't think it was desperation. At the time they still had a bit of cash. Green and Ahmed received healthy bonuses for negotiating that deal. That was the motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rangers First are to offer the club a soft loan. Given that they collect money to buy shares, they probably should be having a vote on this. It would pass but it's a sign of how desperate they are that they are bypassing this small technicality.
They are estimated to have about £500k.
They obviously don't want King to do his over investing this season. [emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You getting that from the Evening Times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It all seems a bit "might " and "could" to me.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Just saw it on Twitter this morning, not had time to look into it yet. I would think there are some legal hurdles they would need to clear before giving away their cash for no return.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
And how long will £ 500k keep the Sevco money eating machine going. A week, 10 days ?
Security ? maybe a guarantee from Mr King.
Money and drains come to mind.
Why would they need to mump such a comparatively small amount off this group when King is overinvesting from his billions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brunswickbill
Love the advert above the story flogging discount headstones - wonder if someone is having another laugh at the deceased teams expense.
The weegie evening rag also has this story.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/...owdown/?ref=ar
Jack Adamson ? will he be a big loss and are we due compensation ?
That's the third or fourth academy player that we have now lost to the timhuns in the last six months, and I think that Viola has been there or thereabouts with them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
There is clearly an issue here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I started a thread about this when story first broke in Ibrox Noise . The consensus seemed to be jack who ? And if memory serves me right his contract hadn't been renewed which allowed them to snap him up for nothing
My point at the time was he was a player that Stubbs had mentioned as being a potential first team player within a few years so presumably would of looked to have kept him .Time will tell if he is one that got away ,but it sounded like he might of been one of the players to bridge that Dissconnect between development squad and first team
So for me it was an indication Rangers know they need to start bringing
through thier own players ,and getting greater value from Murray Park ,but they are taking shortcuts by snapping up the best of youngsters from other clubs .
In 5 years time he'll be playing for Barnsley or still in the Championship with The New New Rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk
Or looking for a club when they go into admin, they lost plenty players they didn't want to / couldn't afford to, pay last time around!Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo_1875
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
They'd be better keeping their money to buy TRFC ltd from the carcass of RIFC when it goes down the pan. BDO might be doing asset sale #2 in a year or so as well. :wink: In the long term some kind of fan owned New New Huns seems the likely end game I think.
Dave King has really pulled a fast one here. Talks about 'over-investment' (he's done nothing of the sort) and makes Mike Ashley the bad guy.
Are the Huns bright enough to work it out?
Right Ozy - at the ready Ashley vs The Rangers just starting now. Tweeting allowed.
And they're off ...
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 44s44 seconds ago
MASH are asking for judicial review of SFA decision to grant Dave King "fit and proper" status and on his fine from SFA