Arabdownunder Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/307557-rangers-goalkeeper-steve-simonsen-accused-of-betting-on-55-matches/ Hmmmm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVLsviKl9B0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 While it still annoys the f**k out of me that people can't bet on football that doesn't concern them, there's no excuse for doing it with the rules as they are, and 55 cases should see a total clusterfuck of a punishment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 3rd best supported team in England and in the top 15 in Europe, nearly £100m TV money. I would say Newcastle aren't doing as well as they should be, in a football sense. Given that gate receipts account for the square root of f**k all in terms of elite EPL clubs' revenue, your assertion is actually groundless. It certainly is a gutter for fading clubs with delusions of grandeur, that their continued, claimed gullible support is no longer actually worth enough to fund genuine success: Newcastle, Celtic, Sevco alike at their own levels. None of those claims actually stand up to the reality of modern football though, as it isn't actually the 1970s anymore, at least outside of Newcastle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Brilliant Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Hmmmm Can't view but assuming this is the cup game? It's what i was going to post :-) Considering their hot-and-cold and sometimes catastrophic performances i think it's fair to say both players are quite fortunate not to be accused of worse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Given that gate receipts account for the square root of f**k all in terms of elite EPL clubs' revenue, your assertion is actually groundless. It certainly is a gutter for fading clubs with delusions of grandeur, that their continued, claimed gullible support is no longer actually worth enough to fund genuine success: Newcastle, Celtic, Sevco alike at their own levels. None of those claims actually stand up to the reality of modern football though, as it isn't actually the 1970s anymore, at least outside of Newcastle. Given that all 20 of the EPL clubs are in the top 40............. The revenue from TV for the EPL makes the list fairly ridicilous as any old rubbish in the EPL; Crystal Palace, QPR, Southampton, Sunderland are all in top 40 in world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 if he needs legal help then maybe he could ask to use the rfffffffff fighting fund. Seeing as they used it pissing against the wind recently. Still pissing AFIK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Given that all 20 of the EPL clubs are in the top 40............. The revenue from TV for the EPL makes the list fairly ridicilous as any old rubbish in the EPL; Crystal Palace, QPR, Southampton, Sunderland are all in top 40 in world. And which of the teams you mention would you suggest are "smaller" than your "big" team? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Keeping up ......(don't think this was posted up here yesterday. If it was, sorry, but here it is again). It is wonderful game to try to guess how each of these will vote at the EGM. This just lists those holding more than 3%. Share Information THE Company has in August and September 2013 sent requests under section 793 of the Companies Act 2006 to funds and nominee shareholders of the Company, including Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings asking for details of their shareholdings in the Company. These funds and nominees, including Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings, have properly responded to these requests. Grounds for action to be taken against certain shareholders for non compliance with a section 793 request have not been established and there is no basis for the Company to seek to impose restrictions on the shares held by these shareholders, contrary to recent Press Speculation. Accordingly the Company confirms that it respects the rights of all of its shareholders and will not seek to restrict or remove any shareholder rights unless there are legal grounds to do so for a proper purpose. The Company notes recent case law (Eclairs Group Limited and Others -v- JKX Oil and Gas plc and Others [2013] EWHC 2631 (Ch)) which provides that shareholder voting rights can not be removed for the purpose of barring a shareholder from voting at a general meeting or annual general meeting. Rangers has an issued share capital of 81,478,201 ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the capital of the Company ("Ordinary Shares"). Major Shareholding (3% or above): The Company understands that its major shareholders are as follows: Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital New Oasis Asset Limited 11,869,505 14.57% Artemis Investment Management LLP 8,109,223 9.95% George Alexander Taylor 7,575,000 9.30% Mash Holdings Limited 7,265,000 8.92% Alexander Easdale* 5,256,110 6.45% Douglas Park 5,000,000 6.14% River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 4,704,827 5.77% Blue Pitch Holding 4,426,485 5.43% Miton Group 4,060,282 4.98% George Letham 3,299,515 4.05% Margarita Funds Holding Trust* 2,600,000 3.19% * In addition to the 5,256,110 Ordinary Shares held directly by him, Alexander Easdale has voting rights over 16,028,084 Ordinary Shares (representing 19.672% of the issued share capital of the Company) pursuant to the terms of proxy agreements entered into with other shareholders, including Blue Pitch and Margarita, which remain in place until further notice. As a result, including the Ordinary Shares held directly by Mr Easdale, being 5,256,110 Ordinary Shares representing 6.451% of the issued share capital of the Company, Mr Easdale has voting rights over, in aggregate, 21,284,194 Ordinary Shares representing 26.123% of the issued share capital of the Company. While Blue Pitch and Margarita hold directly 4,426,485 Ordinary Shares and 2,600,000 Ordinary Shares respectively, they have disposed of the voting rights over such Ordinary Shares to Alexander Easdale pursuant to the terms of the proxy agreements. Currently, 30.72%+of the Company’s Ordinary Shares are not in public hands. The Ordinary Shares are freely transferable and no Ordinary Shares are held in treasury. + Does not include the 16,028,084 Ordinary Shares (representing 19.672% of the issued share capital of the Company) which Alexander Easdale has voting rights over pursuant to the terms of proxy agreements entered into with other shareholders. Director shareholdings are as follows: Shareholder No of Ordinary Shares held % of issued share capital David Somers 61,186 0.08% James Easdale 572,749 0.70% Page last updated on: 22/01/2015 26% is a good number.. Edited January 23, 2015 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 The SFA & SPFL. Given all the conjecture in the build up to the EGM we have Dave King stirring up the masses, while the keyboard warriors are of a view that the authorities will stand by and let a convicted tax cheat and a proven incompetent director of the failed Rangers take over the club. Through all this we have the more serious press showing surprise and disgust at what might happen. Tom English and Alex Thomson to name two. Even the Daily Record laughs at Rangers/SFA and Scottish football governance. Rather than wait until they are forced into a corner why does the SFA not make a statement of policy to explain to the wider public what would be the basis of any decision they have to make? All they have to do it point people at the relevant parts of their articles. In particular the fit and proper test. This would of course would need to include their run in with Mike Ashley which they instigated. Just explain what the issue is, what they want to see happen and why. Otherwise some see it as keeping someone who is too powerful for them coming in to upset their nice comfortable arrogance. By explaining all this now, which would merely be the basis of their decisions it would minimise the flack when they do make a decision. And they will have to make decisions that will get some people annoyed. So come on guys. Just explain now and make live easier for yourself. Otherwise those of us who like conspiracy theories will assume that Campbell Ogilvie will be up to his neck in ensuring Rangers men get control. Worst case scenario is where King gets SFA approval but knocked back by the Stock Market. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 And which of the teams you mention would you suggest are "smaller" than your "big" team? LoL And the relevance of that response to reality is................ A typical nonsense answer as your question fails to address any point I raised and provides a fatuous and irrelevant statement. Are you running as a candidate for the General Election in May? Seem to have the qualities of a politician. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 LoL And the relevance of that response to reality is................ A typical nonsense answer as your question fails to address any point I raised and provides a fatuous and irrelevant statement. Are you running as a candidate for the General Election in May? Seem to have the qualities of a politician. So, no answer then? Fair enough, given that not only do they all play in the top tier of a much higher quality league, most of them have won national trophies - even Palace have won a second tier title. You'll have to explain, as well, how my question provides a statement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So, no answer then? Fair enough, given that not only do they all play in the top tier of a much higher quality league, most of them have won national trophies - even Palace have won a second tier title. You'll have to explain, as well, how my question provides a statement. 0/ 10 Try again Statement - the irrelevant comparison made. And if you cannot see the point of my statement that 20 of the 40 current richest clubs in the world are the 20 current teams in the EPL, therefore their place is due mainly to the TV rights there then I pity you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 0/ 10 Try again Statement - the irrelevant comparison made. And if you cannot see the point of my statement that 20 of the 40 current richest clubs in the world are the 20 current teams in the EPL, therefore their place is due mainly to the TV rights there then I pity you. Dear me, you're a wee bit presumptuous, aren't you? My point was you referring to those teams not as small - a slightly more respectful term, I thought - but as "any old rubbish". Typical of your sort, mind, so fück knows why I'm in the slightest surprised. After all, didn't Charlie dismiss European Cup winners Villa as " useless ", or something equally insightful? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Man City that would be No8 's big team Tickets purchased for City v Hull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Dear me, you're a wee bit presumptuous, aren't you? My point was you referring to those teams not as small - a slightly more respectful term, I thought - but as "any old rubbish". Typical of your sort, mind, so fück knows why I'm in the slightest surprised. After all, didn't Charlie dismiss European Cup winners Villa as " useless ", or something equally insightful? LoL My type -- ??? Please also note I have been a Villa fan since 1979 That why they ain't any old rubbish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 I presume that Simonsen's flirtation with the bookies will see him banned from the cup semi against 'them'? McCoist misses it through gardening leave, McDowall joins him in the potting shed, the goalie is a naughty boy and Lewis McLeod got a transfer. Hmm. Anyone else engineer a departure before getting pumped from.... Them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 LoL My type -- ??? Please also note I have been a Villa fan since 1979 That why they ain't any old rubbish. No, your sort. Hell, if you can't even read, it not only makes it a waste of time explaining simple concepts, it simply reinforces the stereotype. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I presume that Simonsen's flirtation with the bookies will see him banned from the cup semi against 'them'? McCoist misses it through gardening leave, McDowall joins him in the potting shed, the goalie is a naughty boy and Lewis McLeod got a transfer.Hmm. Anyone else engineer a departure before getting pumped from.... Them. No, it won't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 No, your sort. Hell, if you can't even read, it not only makes it a waste of time explaining simple concepts, it simply reinforces the stereotype. Type / Sort OK My sort ???? Please explain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Only for Manchester City does it account for the square root of f**k all. You're talking crap mate. What about Chelsea? Small stadium in comparison to other "big" clubs 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.