accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Would it not be better keeping the dispute to the thread it originated in rather than clogging up the thread with offensive images? If Rico's making racist posts, which I doubt, report him. That wouldn't fit with his derailment of the Big Thread plan now would it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 In theory, this makes sense. The year of rebuilding with a new regime in the 2nd tier has obviously served Hearts well. However, this is Rangers, for whom despite everything, so much talk has been about getting 'back' to what they were. King cannot resist giving it this stuff, even today, when the focus should surely be on baby steps. Such is the impatience that I don't think the new regime will feel that they can afford delays. Ofcourse we want to get back to where we were but that may take a long time. Making predictions about when we'll do this and that is silly when we don't what state the club is actually in. King said today that we may well not get promoted and as i said another year down here to rebuild and starting to get things right wouldn't be that bad. Scouting and coaching should be a priority. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 There's no way King should pass a fit and proper test, but I'm sure he will. I don't get why he has to be the front man when there's seemingly credible business figures involved who a) Were not involved with Old Rangers when they went down the shitter, and b) Don't have recent criminal convictions for fraud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Rightful place... Lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 There's no way King should pass a fit and proper test, but I'm sure he will. I don't get why he has to be the front man when there's seemingly credible business figures involved who a) Were not involved with Old Rangers when they went down the shitter, and b) Don't have recent criminal convictions for fraud. The Rangers fans don't want credible people , they need fantasists like themselves, who were born into it , but like you say the SFA will pander to that to the detriment to all else because sadly a portion of them were born into it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 There's no way King should pass a fit and proper test, but I'm sure he will. I don't get why he has to be the front man when there's seemingly credible business figures involved who a) Were not involved with Old Rangers when they went down the shitter, and b) Don't have recent criminal convictions for fraud. If this was someone else other than King with his history trying to get onto the board, Sevco fans would be furious if such a character passed the fit and proper test 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 There's no way King should pass a fit and proper test, but I'm sure he will. If it were simply down to the SFA then obviously he'd already have passed. The London Stock Exchange might be a bit more difficult to call. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I have very little interest in what celtic do or don't do, right now it looks Rangers needs a lot of time and alot of work to put things right. I'm sure this was exactly the position back before a ball was kicked in the old Third Division, a few years ago. Back to square one it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'm sure this was exactly the position back before a ball was kicked in the old Third Division, a few years ago. Back to square one it is. More or less, only without Charles and pals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 More or less, only without Charles and pals. With more debt and less money ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 May I join the you say potato I say potato debate. Nominate can mean to appoint someone to an office, duty, role or position. Now I must admit I thought it was a substance over form argument, but in fact looking at the stock exchange release, it says this; "SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility, any such nomination will be subject to regulatory consent pursuant to the AIM Rules and other regulatory bodies." Therefore I surmise that the definition of nominate was in this case as defined above. The reason I come to that conclusion is that the clumpany (stop laughing at the back) don't seem to have any rights to deny the nomination (as it were). Yours aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 More or less, only without Charles and pals. Quite. Now that you've got rid of that bunch of proven crooks with their track record of failure and financial jiggery-pokery both inside and outside of Ibrox, the future must look very bright under the new crooks, what with their very similar track record. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) May I join the you say potato I say potato debate.Nominate can mean to appoint someone to an office, duty, role or position.Now I must admit I thought it was a substance over form argument, but in fact looking at the stock exchange release, it says this; "SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility, any such nomination will be subject to regulatory consent pursuant to the AIM Rules and other regulatory bodies."Therefore I surmise that the definition of nominate was in this case as defined above. The reason I come to that conclusion is that the clumpany (stop laughing at the back) don't seem to have any rights to deny the nomination (as it were).YoursaDONisEven when King says....(King: I've had discussions with Ashley's allies over who Sports Direct's representatives on Rangers board will be) They're still saying ..aye but he's only nominating them?! Can't wait till Ashley's (rats) are put on the board to hear TEDIs back peddling excuses. Edited March 6, 2015 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 May I join the you say potato I say potato debate. Nominate can mean to appoint someone to an office, duty, role or position. Now I must admit I thought it was a substance over form argument, but in fact looking at the stock exchange release, it says this; "SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility, any such nomination will be subject to regulatory consent pursuant to the AIM Rules and other regulatory bodies." Therefore I surmise that the definition of nominate was in this case as defined above. The reason I come to that conclusion is that the clumpany (stop laughing at the back) don't seem to have any rights to deny the nomination (as it were). Yours aDONis In principle I agree with you, my thinking was they do have the right to reject a nomination but not refuse that the seat be filled by someone who they agree should fill the nomination. Otherwise what happens if you start nominating convicted tax evaders, your NOMAD would get nervous and leave and where doe that get you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dublinarab Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Bennet making a lot of sense today. I can understand - if giggle at - the GIRFUY's from the other Sevco fans but given the position that Ashley appears to have established for himself it looks like the new board will have to dig very deep, or suck up to him and come to a long term agreement where they will 'manage' Rangers with his backing. I think if king passes the fit and proper test with the SFA it's a farce, given how clear their rules are but the noises are that he will. I think he ll have no problems with AIM as he's still a wealthy, connected guy and allowed to act on boards, and hold directors positions in the jurisdiction he was convicted in. I think it's wrong given the magnitude of his crimes against the citizens of his poverty stricken and unequal country but capitalism - of which AIM is at the Wild West end of things - is more forgiving. The other guys now involved will probably be able to do a better job than the shower of the last 3 years - if Ashley allows them and the Bears lower their expectations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You saved it at the end? Deflection? You do not half speak some shite. Yes I believe that when an announcement to the stock exchange says nominate it means nominate. Oh you do seem to understand English, thanks for the clarification that nominate means nominate in your head , I was beginning to have my doubts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Are they, how do you know..link with proof or this is just another guess. Not proof but King says here he wont sign the check to fast track the process, so if they go quickly, it should be reasonable to assume they reached a favorable agreement , or no 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 There's no way King should pass a fit and proper test, but I'm sure he will. I don't get why he has to be the front man when there's seemingly credible business figures involved who a) Were not involved with Old Rangers when they went down the shitter, and b) Don't have recent criminal convictions for fraud. It's a con. The SFA/SPFL have obviously told him he'll be allowed in if he pretends to take a step back now and be seen to cooperate with their Mickey Mouse investigations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You saved it at the end? Deflection? You do not half speak some shite. Yes I believe that when an announcement to the stock exchange says nominate it means nominate. Ho Lee Fuk... So Ashley is just going to roll over and have his belly tickled when the RIFC board turns down his nominations? I think not. By the way - what has been happening to the Rangers Clumpany board while all this has been going on? Have any changes been made there? You know - the Clumpany - the thing that's actually playing football? - the thing that all the Fans think they've been buying shares in, when they've just been buying part of a holding company? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Are they, how do you know..link with proof or this is just another guess. Out of interest idiot, what are you going to say when Ashley's new rats go on to the board? 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.