Podlie Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Both have to be paid back at some point, it is just that one has two repayment options True but just wondering which one your board would class as in best interests given their previous shenanigans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Funny aint it, King Ashley is breaking SFA rules, What rules is he breaking? DK hoovered up shares at market value Ashley hoovered up shares at market value T3B hoovered up shares at market value None of them have broken any rules in this regard. Because the SFA and Mike came to an agreement? an agreement which is in the public domain However what it does show is that the SFA are willing to act, Ashley is obviously sticking two fingers up at them just now, nothing the SFA have done thus far tells me they are going to allow this continue, I fully expect them to demand that MA removes his influence from the board at Rangers, visibly stops trying to have anything to do with how the club is being ran and makes a commitment not to increase his shareholding while he still owns Newcastle....or face expulsion. I am hearing he is negotiating his exit.Really? Edited January 16, 2015 by dave.j 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Am just imaging that the SFA have him up on a charge for rule breaches then? Ah, sorry, my mistake, I'm sure I read you saying up above that he is breaking SFA rules. There's still a hearing to take place, no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 What rules is he breaking? Really? http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=14110&newsCategoryID=1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Am just imaging that the SFA have him up on a charge for rule breaches then? Innocent till proven guilty, thought all bears knew that? Edited January 16, 2015 by accietilleyedye 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 You've got some amount of stalkers on here Tedi eh? They seem to follow your every word! Some accolade,keep it going! Follow Follow -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 The SFA believe he has broken rules, why else would he be up on a charge? Is he influencing things at Rangers? Did a stock market announcement confirm that one of the directors was appointed by him? Has he been found guilty of breaking SFA rules? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenlantern Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 If they make it to next season I hope they have to wear Slazenger or Everlast kits. Fucking minks. Would send the fans into hysterical meltdown mode. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Is he influencing things at Rangers? Did a stock market announcement confirm that one of the directors was appointed by him? I don't know if he is influencing things or not and do not know what relevance a stock market announcement has. What I do know ism that the hearing isn't for another week(?) So how is he guilty of breaking the rules? There's no decision been made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 You don't know? really? lol You don't know what relevance a stock market announcement which confirms he has appointed a director at Ibrox means? really? lol Of course he is, he is not allow to influence things at Rangers, yet he appoints a member of the board...guilty, but then you know that and are just playing some daft wee Dave game. Just acknowledge he hasn't been found guilty yet, and I'll stop playing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Dave game it is then...as you were. Good lad, so after accepting your error.... Why do you think the three bears are making an offer they know can't be accepted due to the 35 day exception? Do you think it's to save face with the gullible fans who don't know the offer can't be accepted? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I have not made any error, I think you would have to be pretty mental to suggest Mike is not influencing matters at Rangers. Who said it cannot be accepted? is that 35 day rule up for legal challenge? Erm........No 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Ibrox. A national treasure 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Is payroll day not soon? If so this 35 day rule effectively rules and out any other source of funding for 2 pay days. This looks like a masterstroke by Ashley. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Don Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Lawyer are we? Nope but Companies House isn't on my bookmarks bar for absolutely no reason 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 From the Bears’ Den tonight. The self awareness gene seems not to have developed… “Our shitebag support is embarrassing. Robbie Neilson has had his digs at us, poking fun that we’re not title contenders, etc. When did we go from being feared, to fearing everyone else? Hearts are small, pathetic wee club coming to Ibrox, if they’re not worried about the game, then they should be. Let’s remind them that they are cheats, a club run on the back of money stolen from customers of a Lithunian bank who lost everything, so their gangster owner could spend way over the odds on shite players just to keep them in the division. At least when we went insolvent it was for a phantom debt that HMRC cooked up from thin air.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Nope but Companies House isn't on my bookmarks bar for absolutely no reason Thought it more a requirement of the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012, than company house. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 ` After all this time ... Tedi now finally wants to get to the truth ... utterly brilliant. And Charlotte fake emails as well..you couldnt make it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I like the 3 bears trick, it's an old one that king used before. Basically making an offer they know can never be accepted by the company. Previously king did it requesting security over Ibrox(?) knowing full well the company couldn't accept it as there was a claim in place from Whyte over the ownership of the stadium. Now the three bears want security over Murray Park, knowing the board can't offer it as there's a 35 day lock down in place. It makes for great pantomime and the press love a rangers minded money man to write about, but really their offer has as much clout as me making one. I assume the board had to agree to this claim against Ibrox, otherwise your or I could do the same. If so, what were the board thinking of? Do they get any of the £10M loan before the claim period is up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Heid Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I assume the board had to agree to this claim against Ibrox, otherwise your or I could do the same. If so, what were the board thinking of? Do they get any of the £10M loan before the claim period is up? According to sources the permission from the board was provided via Llambias and Leach (2 required signatories) The Board subsequently made a statement suggesting that no deal had been agreed with anyone - but interestingly failed to contradict the actions of Llambias and Leach. The latter statement is being seized upon both by the 3 Bears and Rangers Supporters Trust as grounds for a legal challenge against the board for misleading the Stock Exchange. 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.