bennett Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Aye Tedi .... we are all happy, it's good news all round. I just don't see how someone accused of having influence over 3 Scottish clubs (two of which are definitely in the same league) and of concealing his interest have any bearing on MA. MA does not have a controlling share in a Scottish club therefore there is no conflict of interest. The SFA will not remove THE Ragers licence .... they might even not get the chance. Oh well when Lunnys replacement asks Ashley and llambias to explain themselves they'll just say " it's awright densboy said there is no conflict of interest here". -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) My blue tinted specs are affecting my vision? Go on then show me one other source apart from forever diamond fae P & B that even hints that the 'takeover panel' could stop either T3B or DK from a takeover. Or is it as I suspect purely one of your inventions. You certainly don't read to well Tedi, did I not say not too underestimate the takeover panel if and when they get involved. There is one story doing the rounds just now of a major shareholder having contacted them..but seeing as DK and the Bears have not made any offers as such to fully buyout I would say that either the rumour is false or the panel are actually waiting until they do. Not my place to make the call on what happens,but I know i don't speak alone is saying that the timing of the share purchases from both parties at the shares lowest price looks a bit suspicious, especially after DK earlier in the season called for season ticket boycotts etc....this will all be taken into account though I presume. Could all be pure coincidence as I also said,but we shall see....if they do actually get involved that is Edited January 9, 2015 by Forever Diamond 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So just your invention then...glad we cleared that up. Nope,not mine...sorry,can't take credit for someone elses work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Not sure, cannot say I really care to be honest. 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 thought you lot would be glad about this. Tedi! Can you please, please, please stop killing the English language. we all know you are a Glasgownian and you talk like a c*nt but the verb is RUN not RAN. Maybe you think this makes you a badass but, in fact, it makes you look like an uneducated prat. No point asking you what school you went to as, apparently, you missed out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 He waited till the board refused yet another offer of investment before buying shares in an effort to get control. look it does not matter if you think DK has done something wrong or not, none of what you have said would stop him from buying 100% of Rangers if he could find shareholders willing to sell, the 'takeover panel' would not and could not prevent this. Other than the fact that all the shares you're talking about are shares in The rangers International Football Club, and as we all know... Rangers International Football Club plc (Rangers), formerly The Rangers Football Club Limited, is a holding company for the Scottish football club Rangers Football Club (the Club). So, not the club, then. Makes you wonder what all the fuss is about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 But nobody else apart from you has mentioned this. Oh come on, the takeover panel has been brought up before...as soon as it went on a bbc webpage that they had been contacted by a major shareholder about a possibility of it being hostile it was brought up here. So as I said I can't take credit...just did a bit of digging into TOP to see what they can and can't do. Stick by if they think this is a hostile attempt to influence a business before pushing for a takeover they will stop it. Also someone else earlier in the thread pointed out that DK has been guilty of this way of doing things before also. So wasn't just me that mentioned it after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WILLIEA Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Tedi! Can you please, please, please stop killing the English language. we all know you are a Glasgownian and you talk like a c*nt but the verb is RUN not RAN. Maybe you think this makes you a badass but, in fact, it makes you look like an uneducated prat. No point asking you what school you went to as, apparently, you missed out. Nah! He's a self confessed bumpkin from Perthshire #backwater 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 There was some talk of the takeover panel being contacted with regards to concert part rules, they could have insisted that a mandatory offer for the rest of the shares at the highest price either party has paid in the preceding 12 months be made. They suggested that if anything would come of this then it would have happened early this week. Has anything happened? It does not mention anything about 'if the Takeover panel intervenes and prevents King and the Bears getting control' This was purely your invention...you made it up. That is correct,it was talk about the takeover panel being contacted...as of yet no one knows as no further bid has been made by them. DK and the Bears if they had purchased all shares together would have had no choice but to make an offer for the remaining shares, but seeing as they did it as 2 seperate purchasers hasn't forced this. They either haven't due to not being able to afford to buy the remaining shares,or another plan which as of yet has not come to light. (If they have been contacted) Takeover panel won't intervene until a bid is made though,and THIS is when we will see if they feel DK has broken the rules with his actions in the last year to allow his group to purchase shares at a reduced price. If they feel he has they will stop him.... There Tedi,plain and simple for you. Can we move along now. Purely invention by me, I think not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) So says the jakey from Abbeyview Headwell, actually. Your lot would love it. Victoria Terrace, Victoria Street, Arthur Street, David Street, Edward Street, Alexandra Street. All named after members of the Royal Family. Edited January 9, 2015 by WeeHectorPar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 You could actually try reading what he wrote instead of making a chunt out of yourself for the 100th time today 'bbc webpage that they had been contacted by a major shareholder about a possibility of it being hostile it was brought up here' Why else would a shareholder have contacted the panel if he didn't think it was hostile...again,don't quote me, I don't believe everything the BBC say,but it is quoted on at least one Celtic forum that I have been made aware of also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Honestly Tedi ..unplug the laptop its beyond embarrassing now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 We can move along if you wish, does not stop the fact you just invented this though. Whatever makes you happy Tedi, I will just have to get a patent out on it now as I invented it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Where did I post that Doncaster works for the SFA .. ? Edit: Corrected .. complete slip, Thanks for pointing it out . I have also posted he works for SPFL numerous times ... do you have anything to say or debate on any of the important aspects or issues ...? I suspect not ... He's employed by them though, in view of the state of their finances and lack of sponsorship, he doesn't seem to do mucjh work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Another of Tedi's exploding links ... Wonder how they are going view Dave King and explain how a convicted criminal passes the fit and proper person test. Will they be summoning the Glib and Shameless One to the halls of power ... Cant someone contact one of his carers to come get him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 In the post you edited at 19:44, problem is a few other people have already quoted you. http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/167655-big-rangers-administrationliquidation-thread-all-chat-here/?p=9110586 I can't believe that he went back to edit that and then tried to deny that he even posted it, especially when it had been quoted and laughed at.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 You could actually try reading what he wrote instead of making a chunt out of yourself for the 100th time today 'bbc webpage that they had been contacted by a major shareholder about a possibility of it being hostile it was brought up here' Ooooohhh! Bypassing the swerry filter again - Little Grass is getting stressed... Any luck finding that definition of "previous" yet, or other posters' username history? No? Well, colour me surprised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Fanny Aye, I'm not Dhen's greatest champion, but implying that owning up to a genuine mistake is the act of a fanny sits right up there with your assertion that you were being polite to me while dishing out the usual personal insults. Keep playing the man, not the ball, Pelucía. It appears to be the the rangers way nowadays, anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I can't believe that he went back to edit that and then tried to deny that he even posted it, especially when it had been quoted and laughed at.... Again, without wishing to defend Dhen, I can't see where he's denied posting it. So lucky you, Vicky. You don't have to believe it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Wait Are you suggesting that Mike will claim that (1) A ceo who apart from being a long time associate of his and who used to run Newcastle for him and (2) A director of SD are not there to do his bidding? Really? He didn't appoint them, the board did, so it seems he still has two directors to appoint. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Perhaps you have missed the fact that he has been dishing out insults post after post? Kindly piss off with your double standards WKR. The pair of you have been sniping at each other for a while, as is your wont. Obviously you've become emboldened since your mate has come up from the cellar, but that's par for the course. The fact remains that you called him a "fanny" for admitting an error. Notice, "admitting", not trying to pass it off as a typo or deleting the post outright. But then, nobody would ever stoop that low, would they, Tedi? 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.