At the time, the reporters in court thought about two weeks but they were not certain.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
View Poll Results: What is your attitude to a new "Rangers" entering at Div1?
- Voters
- 1016. You may not vote on this poll
-
Opposed - and will walk away from Scottish professional football
537 52.85% -
Opposed - but will continue to support the game.
454 44.69% -
In favour.
25 2.46%
Results 31,561 to 31,590 of 45185
-
23-11-2015 11:00 AM #31561
-
23-11-2015 11:08 AM #31562This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I thought it was longer but noticed it was only a week past friday since the hearing
-
23-11-2015 11:09 AM #31563
- Join Date
- May 2012
- Posts
- 3,786
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
For 'Goodness' read 'FFS, we even had the rare sight of Rangers ........' screamed R*tard reporter Ralston as he hammered his keyboard in angst, hoping his fear, anxiety and depression wouldn't show in his report of the match - the thought of another season facing LIDL-Sannies at 'Castle Greyskull' press-briefings weighing heavily on his mind !!
-
23-11-2015 11:24 AM #31564
Here we go again. From the Herald this morning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
23-11-2015 11:30 AM #31565
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Location
- Back in the town
- Age
- 61
- Posts
- 12,313
Might be reading too much into the report but I wonder if this is them hinting that King better bring some dosh with him. Wonder if they will start criticising him if no money appears and Park will be the new succulent lamb provider?
Just a slightly different tone to that article with no mention of the millions or any adoration of King, just add some experience. The headline is the only mention of cash.
-
23-11-2015 11:35 AM #31566
Dave King will be like a kid in a sweetie shop in January, Sevco fans!!
No doubt about it, massive stars on massiver salaries are coming to the massivest club in Scotland.
He and his co-investors promised to make up any shortfall in funding, remember, 'and we've done that'. So all these rumours about cash being tight are a Papist conspiracy!
-
23-11-2015 11:41 AM #31567This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
23-11-2015 01:17 PM #31568
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/som...vco/#more-7080
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
23-11-2015 01:44 PM #31569This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
23-11-2015 01:48 PM #31570This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
23-11-2015 01:52 PM #31571
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 9,485
Latest from JJ https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/...23/agm-season/
I wish he wouldn't try do stories based on numbers - he clearly doesn't understand them.Last edited by grunt; 23-11-2015 at 01:57 PM.
-
23-11-2015 01:58 PM #31572This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sent via the bushes @ EM
-
23-11-2015 01:59 PM #31573This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
23-11-2015 02:01 PM #31574
I'm almost certain he is not Rangers fan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
23-11-2015 02:04 PM #31575This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
I think that's pretty clear. And some of his comparisons in that piece are ridiculous.
-
23-11-2015 02:05 PM #31576This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...4&postcount=63
-
23-11-2015 02:06 PM #31577
Sevco's turnover last year was £16m.
Aberdeen just announced theirs was £13m.
Given Sevco's much higher cost base it's difficult to see them being much of a force when they do get promoted.
BTW, that turnover from Aberdeen is huge and us and the yams have a bit of catching up to do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
23-11-2015 02:25 PM #31578This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The planning application for the Vladfolly is still live.
Its never been withdrawn or refused. Suppose that's what allows them to keep the wooden shack in use.
-
23-11-2015 02:28 PM #31579This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
23-11-2015 02:32 PM #31580This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
More New Hun troubles (failure to get promoted, disputed assets, a New New Huns?) means not only a continuing weak outfit at Ibrox* but an increasingly weak one at Parkhead. Ok, so in the long term whatever manifestation of "Old Firm" ends up in the top league will probably outspend the rest of us, but given a few more years of this there might be the levellest playing field since the 80s in Scottish football.
So much for armageddon. The Old Hun implosion has been to the benefit of all but Celtc and the New Huns thus far.
* or wherever if it ends up a Tescos.
-
23-11-2015 02:32 PM #31581
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 9,485
2-1 to Rangers (from Rangers website)
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/notice-to-shareholders/#.VlMuStITuNY.twitter
Notice to Shareholders in connection with the Annual General Meeting (“AGM”) of Rangers International Football Club PLC (the “Company”)
On the afternoon of Thursday 19th November 2015, the Company received notification of a Petition by MASH Holdings Limited to, inter alia, grant interim interdict obliging the Company to withdraw Resolutions 9, 10 and 11 from consideration at the Company’s AGM.
The Petition was heard at the Court of Session on Friday 20th November 2015 and the Company successfully resisted the Petitioners motion for interim interdict in respect of Resolutions 9 and 10, ensuring that shareholders will be given the opportunity to vote on these Resolutions.
The Petitioners were successful in their application to require the Company to withdraw Resolution 11 from consideration by shareholders at the AGM. Although the decision has been made on an interim basis only until the Petition can be fully considered by the Court, this means the Resolution will not be presented to the meeting and shareholders will not be afforded the opportunity to vote upon it. The Company will now consider how best to proceed.
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, The Rangers Football Club Limited while MASH Holdings Limited is also the ultimate parent company of Newcastle United Limited or any other shareholder who might have such an interest now or in the future. The Company is under an obligation to demonstrate the utmost good faith to the Scottish Football Association (“SFA”) in relation to any possible breaches of disciplinary rule 19. Shareholders will be aware that related parties of MASH Holdings Limited have other contractual relationships with members of the Group of Companies of which the Company is the holding company. The terms of these relationships are confidential and in some cases the subject of the interim injunction granted before June’s General Meeting. Shareholders are therefore reminded that the Board will be restricted at the AGM in answering questions concerning these arrangements.
A dual interest arises where, except with the prior written consent of the SFA’s Board, a member of a football club in membership of a national association which is in membership of FIFA (a “Club”) is involved in the management or administration or has any power to influence the management or administration of a Club and is at the same time directly or indirectly a member of another Club and is involved in or has the power to influence its management or administration.
-
23-11-2015 02:36 PM #31582This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov...=JUU5NIEWR0000
Application status is " pending decision ".
But, its Edinburgh Council, enough said.
-
23-11-2015 02:37 PM #31583This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
23-11-2015 02:39 PM #31584This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
23-11-2015 02:47 PM #31585
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 9,485
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
23-11-2015 02:47 PM #31586This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Hibs certainly had to move with the construction of the East Stand as the previous successful application would have lapsed had construction not started. That would have given opportunities to the residents of the new flats to raise objections if a fresh application was required. I think Hibs amended the application to move from two tiers to a single tier without having to open the application for consultation.
-
23-11-2015 03:05 PM #31587
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Posts
- 4,651
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
reason being, the two that Ashley has lost here are the resolutions that would create millions of new shares (that Ashley is barred from buying iirc) and which king et al can buy at hugely preferential rates compared to the rangers supporters trust and other bald bigot companies (bbc's) who will pay top whack for fairly worthless shares.
so Ashley has his shareholding diluted to around 6% and is further antagonised (increasing the likelihood of him seeing it through with king and the SFA in court). The bbc's and rst will have shelled out most of their money on a venture that only keeps the corpse alive and feeds kings impressive personal wine collection fund, but without getting close to putting rangers on a sound footing. The rst and bbc's don't appear to see the folly.
put the kettle on....
-
23-11-2015 03:16 PM #31588
Hopefully King will make fresh ill-advised comments this week that antagonise Ashley even more.
-
23-11-2015 03:20 PM #31589This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
23-11-2015 03:24 PM #31590
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?
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks