dave.j Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 He says there will be a new share issue and he will lead the drive for investment. Sorted. Maybe I'm seeing some severely edited version of the Scotsman article, but following the link, the online article I'm reading doesn't mention any of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BossHogg Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Any chance of a whole day on the BRALT without mentioning fucking dots or Tedi? Tedious in the extreme. Tedis gonna dot you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 The rangers are beginning to resemble the creature from the movie the thing. No matter if you kill 1 version a clone keeps reappearing. But at the end it's still the thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Any chance of a whole day on the BRALT without mentioning fucking dots or Tedi? Tedious in the extreme. You started it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Sorry if linked already but the glib and shameless liar reckons another share issues is inevitable. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2545045/Ex-Rangers-director-Dave-King-says-new-share-issue-inevitable-club-prepare-cuts.html Surely the bus boys and co wouldn't be too happy about that? Edited January 24, 2014 by AberdeenBud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 That's not true, though, MT, is it? I called you a c**t for something else altogether - there was no mention of Shiels in our discussion. Perfectly true. On the East Fife match thread, you chimed in, in support of one of the 'new' posters accusing me of trolling. When I pointed out that all I'd done was enter the Shiels discussion in good faith, you resorted to calling me a c**t. You might well not have mentioned Shiels, but I did. Indeed, I had not said much else at that point. You called me a c**t for ruining a thread I very clearly had not. Stick with 'bewildered'. You'll look less of a c**t. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Sorry if linked already but the glib and shameless liar reckons another share issues is inevitable. Surely the bus boys and co wouldn't be too happy about that? When I'm back at laptop I'll try and search for it, but wasn't the IPO only to fund the first couple of years and was stated that another issue was needed before they got their debut season in the top flight? Positive this was discussed at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Perfectly true. On the East Fife match thread, you chimed in, in support of one of the 'new' posters accusing me of trolling. When I pointed out that all I'd done was enter the Shiels discussion in good faith, you resorted to calling me a c**t. You might well not have mentioned Shiels, but I did. Indeed, I had not said much else at that point. You called me a c**t for ruining a thread I very clearly had not. Stick with 'bewildered'. You'll look less of a c**t. Telt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 When I'm back at laptop I'll try and search for it, but wasn't the IPO only to fund the first couple of years and was stated that another issue was needed before they got their debut season in the top flight? Positive this was discussed at the time. But any new share issue would by definition weaken the holding of those already on the board/ at the trough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Pipe Dreams It's incredible. King in his musings had said that they couldn't have a situation where Rangers would lose to Aberdeen or Hibs by 3-1 and accept it. McCoist chimes in here with his wish for his team to be competitive in the top flight. Of course, he doesn't mean competitive at all - he means dominant. They are stupid spoilt children who have no concept whatever of the essence of sport. Utterly pathetic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 But any new share issue would by definition weaken the holding of those already on the board/ at the trough. Yes, but as I'm sure it had been stated at the time, that was the deal for any investors. I'm sure it was up front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Blaming the past incumbents does not answer the question .. nor does stating the board should take a cut since they are entitled to their wages the same as the payers .... The only trumpet is you .. answer the question ... you wanted a adult conversation , yet you're still deflecting and giving abuse as you always do. Try giving an answer to the question ... too difficult for you ?? I believe what started this was these two posts, 1 from me and one from some other poster which i replied to. Don't know if this has been discussed, but the Sun's Twitter feed is saying that Jon Daly has said "the reason" behind the rejection of the pay cut will not leave the dressing room. So there is another reason apart from them being money grabbing, unambitious footballers? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The whole pay cut thing imo was media house trying to set the players up as the bad guys and divert attention away from where it should be. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You clearly have a swrew loose .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 It's incredible. King in his musings had said that they couldn't have a situation where Rangers would lose to Aberdeen or Hibs by 3-1 and accept it. McCoist chimes in here with his wish for his team to be competitive in the top flight. Of course, he doesn't mean competitive at all - he means dominant. They are stupid spoilt children who have no concept whatever of the essence of sport. Utterly pathetic. Ok then they should come out and say that they want to get scudded every week then. Would that make you happy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Ok then they should come out and say that they want to get scudded every week then. Would that make you happy? Come on Benny. They could out and say they were happy just to have a club playing football after all that has happened That results would be secondary to achieving a sustainable, prudent and well run football club. This misguided and misplaced triumphalism is completely laughable and actually enables the spivs to fill their boots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Ok then they should come out and say that they want to get scudded every week then. Would that make you happy? What AberdeenBud said. There's no humility and the word 'competitive' is being completely misused. For King to speak of sides like Hibs and Aberdeen that way is utterly contemptuous. It really does seem that Rangers must be dominant, or they simply cannot be. I know which I'd prefer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Come on Benny. They could out and say they were happy just to have a club playing football after all that has happened That results would be secondary to achieving a sustainable, prudent and well run football club. This misguided and misplaced triumphalism is completely laughable and actually enables the spivs to fill their boots. Then we would get pelters for lacking ambition. Everyone wants the best possible team if it's prudent to do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 For anyone with a Swamp login, the destruction of Ally currently on the go is pretty damn good reading. And thats afore the ''King - new IPO'' thread even gets looked at 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Then we would get pelters for lacking ambition. Everyone wants the best possible team if it's prudent to do so. And losing to Hibs or Aberdeen should never be considered acceptable? The version of football you follow is very different from mine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Then we would get pelters for lacking ambition. Everyone wants the best possible team if it's prudent to do so. That's entirety my point. "Rangers" one and only ambition at the moment should be to spend less than they are taking in. Everything else should be secondary given their recent history. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 The old lacking ambition chestnut. As my friend Benny would say, lol. 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.