kildog Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Is the proof on the back of a fag packet or an even more reliable plastic source than that? Not that I'd be surprised if he had indeed relined his pockets - but wouldn't mind the proof of that being more solid than the certainty of Rangers having our titles stripped. You'll remember how that panned out. I remember how liquidation panned out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 In all seriousness, can someone please tell me definitively who is on the two boards of rangers? The football club's board, and the, ahem, holding company's board. You know, the first holding company they've ever had. All the statements released these days seem to use club and company interchangeably. I know that was the case for the deceased club, but it's confusing around the new one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Can I just clarify, how many ex directors want on the new club's board? I make it five 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehoss Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 From the Scottish Express - Paul Murray wants Craig Mather and Brian Stockbridge out PAUL MURRAY last night called for Rangers chief executive Craig Mather and finance director Brian Stockbridge to quit the board. By: Iain MacfarlanePublished: Mon, October 14, 2013 Paul Murray has criticised Craig Mather and Brian Stockbridge Former oldco Ibrox director Murray yesterday claimed a stunning victory in the Court of Session which he claims leaves the positions of Stockbridge and Mather as untenable. Murray, right, and his allies – Malcolm Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson – had applied to have their names added to a list of director nominees ahead of an AGM on October 24. But Mather, Stockbridge and other directors claimed the paperwork was flawed and not delivered on time. Yesterday, Lord Tyre came down on the side of Murray – dealing a potentially crushing blow to the current Ibrox directors. The AGM papers will have to be reissued with the names of the “requisitioners” added. The Murrays, Murdoch and Wilson will now compete against the current board for shareholder votes when the AGM takes place on a new date at least 21 days from now and before December 30. Murray said: “These have been shown to be perfectly valid legal notices and the club chose to ignore them. “Craig and Brian have to seriously consider their positions because I think they are untenable.” You ever get the feeling that legal hearings will keep taking place just to delay the AGM longer?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehoss Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Bears having a breakdown I hate to say this but this forum has nothing on the one on RM. It's well more entertaining. Lots of infighting between rangers fans. I am surprised at how many people on that forum as willing to give Dave King a chance, I thought they would be more wary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 You ever get the feeling that legal hearings will keep taking place just to delay the AGM longer?! Right, they can put these four on the "List" of nominees. But, have they got the voting power to actually get on the board? Who is going to vote for them? Or Can't the major investors just f*ck them off by saying "Thanks. But no thanks. We don't need you." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I hate to say this but this forum has nothing on the one on RM. It's well more entertaining. Lots of infighting between rangers fans. I am surprised at how many people on that forum as willing to give Dave King a chance, I thought they would be more wary. Seriously? I can't recall much wariness at any point, and I'm 35. As a support, they've always been willing to take all kinds of outrageous gambles on any number of dodgy businessmen and risky financial outlays, provided there's a chance to win and get it right up everyone else. Not so good at dealing with the consequences of failure but then, serial debtors and binge blowout enthusiasts rarely are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I hate to say this but this forum has nothing on the one on RM. It's well more entertaining. Lots of infighting between rangers fans. I am surprised at how many people on that forum as willing to give Dave King a chance, I thought they would be more wary. Agreed. It's better than anything written by Galton and Simpson. Some of the posts are just straight out of cloud cuckoo land. Look at this one talking about how magnanimous the Easdales are: "The rise of the Easdale's (sic) was due to them PUTTING THEIR MONEY INTO THE CLUB. Perhaps the rebels should try it!" Has the club seen a single pound of the Easdales' money? Nope. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehoss Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Seriously? I can't recall much wariness at any point, and I'm 35. As a support, they've always been willing to take all kinds of outrageous gambles on any number of dodgy businessmen and risky financial outlays, provided there's a chance to win and get it right up everyone else. Not so good at dealing with the consequences of failure but then, serial debtors and binge blowout enthusiasts rarely are. Yeah but you would think after nearly losing their club to bad businessmen or strangers they would be more wary of Dave king, I doubt they know as much of his background similar to how much they knew of whytes, but yet because he once put cash in before it must mean he's a solid chap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehoss Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Agreed. It's better than anything written by Galton and Simpson. Some of the posts are just straight out of cloud cuckoo land. Look at this one talking about how magnanimous the Easdales are: "The rise of the Easdale's (sic) was due to them PUTTING THEIR MONEY INTO THE CLUB. Perhaps the rebels should try it!" Has the club seen a single pound of the Easdales' money? Nope. I like the short blunt "get tae" answers or the wee emoticons of the violin player. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Yeah but you would think after nearly losing their club to bad businessmen or strangers they would be more wary of Dave king I think had it not been shown that the the IPO money had been pissed away then they might have questioned it, as it is they need further investment and King is a 'devil they know' ! (did I really type that they might have questioned it ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) Yeah but you would think after nearly losing their club to bad businessmen or strangers they would be more wary of Dave king, I doubt they know as much of his background similar to how much they knew of whytes, but yet because he once put cash in before it must mean he's a solid chap. But you're applying mature logic based on human beings' capacities to learn from experience. As the rodent says, none of this applies here. The type who post on RM don't want a healthy, sustainable club - they want a winning one. The desire to win and lord it over others trumps any other concerns normal people might have. Edited October 15, 2013 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehoss Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 But you're applying mature logic based on human beings' capacities to learn from experience. As the rodent says, none of this applies here. The type who post on RM don't want a healthy, sustainable club - they want a winning one. The desire to win and lord it over others trumps any other concerns normal people might have. Damn I hate being logical on Internet forums it's really not the done thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 What is the current corporate structure at Ibrox? Is it simply The Rangers International Football Club (holding company who lost £14.4m in the recent accounts) owns Rangers Football Club (formerly Sevco Scotland and the new company that "operates" the football club). I still can't get my head around the thought that the club and company are separate entities but it seems to be the SFA's way of dealing with things. Of the two companies above: What board are they all fighting to be on? What company owns Ibrox and all the property? Are there any other subsidiaries to Rangers International Football club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 Can I just clarify, how many ex directors want on the new club's board? They could become The Board. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 But you're applying mature logic based on human beings' capacities to learn from experience. As the rodent says, none of this applies here. The type who post on RM don't want a healthy, sustainable club - they want a winning one. The desire to win and lord it over others trumps any other concerns normal people might have. 3-0......get it right up ye!!!!1111!!!!1111 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 3-0......get it right up ye!!!!1111!!!!1111 Aw bless. He's learnt to count his name, even if it is just in ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 (edited) Anyone notice clues in the accounts regarding this ... or did he abandon that plan? I'm fairly sure the 'Group' is made up of the holding company, the 100% owned 'football' company (the 'club'), a 100% owned security company, and 50% of a merchandising joint venture. ETA: I was close: The holding company owns the football company and a dormant company 'Rangers Media Ltd'. The football company in turn owns the security company (100%) and 51% of Rangers Retail Ltd. It is all in note 13 of the accounts, p.38. Edited October 15, 2013 by Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Jack D Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 I'm fairly sure the 'Group' is made up of the holding company, the 100% owned 'football' company (the 'club'), a 100% owned security company, and 50% of a merchandising joint venture. Is this the reason for 300 security guards at the AGM? A decent way of syphoning money I suppose! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted October 15, 2013 Share Posted October 15, 2013 somewhat charmingly, still wish to bill it as a triumph! Top work Chum. A triumph? It was a fucking huge, profoundly important event. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.