haggis pakora Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Caller on the radio "Rangers have one of the biggest fan bases in the world" Hiya mince fc,hiya pal.How's is your old bigot friend Phil getting on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 its not an investment, its a loan to see the club through to the end of the season. Of course its an investment. Why would he loan a basket case like Rangers money if he thought he wasn't getting that money back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So in effect, with the interest Rangers will have to pay Ashley back , Rangers are actually paying Ashley to take the club on. MT you can dress this up any way you want this is by far the worse case scenario for Rangers. There is now literally nothing left at Ibrox. Everything has been sold off to the lowest bidder..the latest case we are paying someone to take over the running of the boardroom and allowing them to sack our CEO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Seriously Bennett, I think you're missing the point here. Ashley can retain his huge stake in Newcastle, while feeding Rangers sufficient crumbs to ensure they're a Scottish force. This of course cannot net him TV fortunes, but he can sell loads of shirts and any other trade mark related stuff he can tie up for himself. This is the point. It's actually shit news for the rest of us. He really can't, the SFA have already stated that his influence must be limited in the boardroom while he owns Newcastle, that should be clear by now. Secondly as things stand right now he won't be selling that many shirts Finally as it also stands right now Rangers have lost millions and will continue to do so for the next 4.5 yrs thanks to many onerous deals. AShley took a gamble on the retail side and will probably wipe his hands soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Border Reiver Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Bennett not taking today's news well. Vicky may I suggest you protest by boycotting hiding the Celtic rags in sports direct, Yes I know it's your only meaningful pursuit but it would sure show Mike Ashley. edited fur shpelling Edited October 25, 2014 by Border Reiver 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Went to do that today in tesco and someone had beaten me to it, happy but also disappointed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanderlei Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Wonder you'll be first to go in the big clear out. Who's on the biggest wage that is expendable. Surely not Alistair? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Bennett not talking today's news well. Vicky may I suggest you protest by boycotting hiding the Celtic rags in sports direct, Yes I know it's your only meaningful pursuit but it would sure show Mike Ashley. Just make sure your scum club take 3pts off that other scum club from ebinburger. Thanks all the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Bennett not talking today's news well. Vicky may I suggest you protest by boycotting hiding the Celtic rags in sports direct, Yes I know it's your only meaningful pursuit but it would sure show Mike Ashley. "talking" ya edinburger spangle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Except he cannot, he can have a shareholding up to 10% however he is not allowed to be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club or have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club, nor can he use an associate in this capacity either. To clarify a club means any club in membership of the Scottish FA and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA. I think appointing two of your own people on the board pretty much breaks these rules. All of the above is true, but is over-ruled by the beginning of Article 13: "Except with the prior written consent of the Board ..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 how do you know he isn't expecting his money back and who says its money he's getting back and not more shares or even assets? Of course he's expecting his money back,why would he "invest" other wise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So in effect, with the interest Rangers will have to pay Ashley back , Rangers are actually paying Ashley to take the club on. MT you can dress this up any way you want this is by far the worse case scenario for Rangers. There is now literally nothing left at Ibrox. Everything has been sold off to the lowest bidder..the latest case we are paying someone to take over the running of the boardroom and allowing them to sack our CEO. I wouldn't describe what I'm doing as "dressing things up", given my preferred outcome. My point however is, what do you want, exactly? I can understand that it's not precisely this, but think back to 2012 and your wish to simply have a club to follow. Hasn't Ashley done more to ensure the likelihood of that than literally anyone? Rangers will probably go up this season. They'll probably be top six next, maybe better with a decent manager. If you just want a club, you're probably now getting a viable one. If you wanted to win tons of trophies again, while accepting the risk of the whole thing collapsing again, I can see why you'd pine for King. Seriously, which is it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haggis pakora Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Dear SFA .. I need to underwrite the upcoming public share issue for Sevco or the shareholders will be forced to liquidate to realise their investment. Therefore the ceiling on my shareholding percentage needs increased Yours sincerelyMA Dear Mike, Whatever you say ,,Shut up you slevering homophobic bigot. Forever gratefulThe Stooges, Dear SFA .. I need to underwrite the upcoming public share issue for Sevco or the shareholders will be forced to liquidate to realise their investment. Therefore the ceiling on my shareholding percentage needs increased Yours sincerelyMA Dear Mike, Whatever you say ,, Forever gratefulThe Stooges, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Prior being the key word, the SFA writing to him for clarification now suggests that this has not been done. True, but he hasn't increased his shareholding. Yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Border Reiver Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Just make sure your scum club take 3pts off that other scum club from ebinburger. Thanks all the same. In two minds always want us to beat the Jams but I've money on my maroon brethren to win the league. "talking" ya edinburger spangle. Mea culpa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) He really can't, the SFA have already stated that his influence must be limited in the boardroom while he owns Newcastle, that should be clear by now. Secondly as things stand right now he won't be selling that many shirts Finally as it also stands right now Rangers have lost millions and will continue to do so for the next 4.5 yrs thanks to many onerous deals. AShley took a gamble on the retail side and will probably wipe his hands soon. I don't accept the argument that says he won't sell many shirts. If Rangers are moderately successful, he'll shift loads and it's not as if the right to cash in on this cost him an awful not. I think that what's overlooked is that loads of the people who buy Rangers merchandise will not be remotely aware of, or interested in, these boardroom machinations. Who exactly profits will interest them less than the ability to purchase a ned uniform. I'm not even meaning this disparagingly - it's simply the case. As I've said, Ashley needs to balance what he needs to spend in order to profit. It's kind of morally disgusting that the sums either way are so trifling for an individual, but that's the reality. Edited October 31, 2014 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Except he cannot, he can have a shareholding up to 10% however he is not allowed to be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club or have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club, nor can he use an associate in this capacity either. To clarify a club means any club in membership of the Scottish FA and any club in membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA. I think appointing two of your own people on the board pretty much breaks these rules. Repeat something enough times and it will eventually become true......in your own mind. There is no way that the SFA will reject the chance of Ashley buying out Rangers. They urgently want the other bum-cheek back in the SPL to sell the TV rights and get a sponsor so don't count on the SFA to prevent Ashley ripping the guts out of the club and running it as a diddy team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 How can someone that rides roughshod over a member club`s association rules be the best bet for the club? without any 'prior' consent he demanded that the CEO and another director step down, this is exercising power over a club`s administration is it not? Of course, he's bullying people due to the power his wealth grants him. Of course this perhaps feels emasculating, or something. However, Murray ran the club into the ground through scandalous spending. Whyte pulled the plug. Green started Newco as a vehicle for people to take money out of the club. Ashley' s interest is reliant on something sustainable and 'successful' developing. You used a lesser of evils argument before, yourself. It makes more sense now than it yet has. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Repeat the SFA rules often enough and they will come true, aye ok. So you think the heads at Hampden would be happy with The The going into admin on Monday. Christ, I hope you are right as that is what we are all waiting for. Goodbye from me and goodbye from him. I thought the bears were supposed to be the ones desperate for their club to survive. If all you can see is disaster then goodbye. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So someone that starts by ignoring the SFA rules on the matter is better for the club than the other guys In this case, yes. What you need to consider is who the 'other guys' are. 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.