Monkey Tennis Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Why ? It's all true. Much of it is true, but the strident tone is somewhat embarrassing, as is the use of the "Celtic supporters, faithful through and through line", in a publication designed to be taken seriously. I'd also disagree with the assertion that the OF is no more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Edit. (for your benefit Kinky) did you have to edit your post to find if coterminous was a real word? Why would I have to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tackle Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Fruity King Arena Fruity King Billy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Oh dear ............... http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=278212 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Oh dear ............... http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=278212 The last poster, George McLean, is bound to be called 'Seamus' by the next poster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Oh dear ............... http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=278212 Lol at that guys post count. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Lol at that guys post count. I clicked on the link. The best post-count is on this screen-shot: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 They actually paid money (£1500) for this I actually thought it was a piss poor Follow Follow wind up but this shit is actually for real Absolutely mind meltingly fucked in the head every last one of them. Brilliant all the same 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Fruity King Billy Orange is the only Fruit y King 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The Fruity King Stadium deal has been done for £1.5M Has it? Scotzine suggests it's a lot of horse shit and all this sponsorship talk and stadium renaming is just a marketing campaign by them, and will come to nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 No idea, some sports blogger was suggesting it was on the cards, sounds like a crock of **** to me. Sorry, my mistake, I read your post as stating the deal was done for £1.5m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramour Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 They actually paid money (£1500) for this What an absolute embarrassment. If Rangers fans are typified by their establishment, supremacist delusions, the Celtic support are embodied in this self-righteous, indignant claptrap. As clubs, their entwined fuckwittery ensures that they will perpetually be - or at least until Rangers go bust again - two cheeks of the same arse. Hell mend the pair of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magoo9uk Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Has it? Scotzine suggests it's a lot of horse shit and all this sponsorship talk and stadium renaming is just a marketing campaign by them, and will come to nothing. Scotzine ???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Today's 7am stock exchange announcement - Rangers reject Sarver's second offer because they don't believe it will get 75% approval at an EGM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Scotzine ???? Sorry, you disagree with Scotzine's opinion on this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Today's 7am stock exchange announcement - Rangers reject Sarver's second offer because they don't believe it will get 75% approval at an EGM. 12 January 2015 Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers", "RIFC" or the "Company") Rejection of Possible Offer The Board of Rangers has considered the revised possible offer from Robert Sarver (or a vehicle to be established and controlled by him) ("Mr Sarver") which Mr Sarver announced on 8 January. The revised proposal by Mr Sarver was similar to his first proposal in the respect that it sought a placing of 100 million shares (to be priced at 20p in this proposal) ("Placing") which, would require the approval of shareholders (at least a 75% majority) at a general meeting. The Board of Rangers rejected the first proposal from Mr Sarver on 6 January on the basis that the Board felt it unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming. Following receipt of the revised proposal from Mr Sarver, the Board has sought the views of a number of major shareholders on this revised proposal and has reached the same conclusion, namely that the resolution to approve the placing is unlikely to achieve the 75% majority required. Accordingly, once again, the Directors do not intend to hold the General Meeting which would be necessary to implement the revised proposal. Ends For further information please contact: Rangers International Football Club plc Tel: 0141 580 8647 David Somers WH Ireland Limited Tel: 020 7220 1666 Adrian Hadden / Paul Shackleton Newgate Threadneedle Tel: 020 7148 6143 Roddy Watt / Ed Treadwell 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 So why reject because they think the vote won't be approved, rather than just go ahead and see anyway? Self preservation? Cost of setting up and holding the vote? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 So why reject because they think the vote won't be approved, rather than just go ahead and see anyway? Self preservation? Cost of setting up and holding the vote? I'm of the opinion that Sarver is working with Ashley and the bid was designed to be rejected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 So why reject because they think the vote won't be approved, rather than just go ahead and see anyway? Self preservation? Cost of setting up and holding the vote? De j'a vous... Probably best if we all head back to the beginnig of the thread and save ourselves a lot of repetition... I wonder if Chucky Green is rounding up a consortium... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm of the opinion that Sarver is working with Ashley and the bid was designed to be rejected. Fair enough, but to me, it seems like they want the guy to go away. Best way to prove that he's not wanted is to seek the opinion of all the shareholders, and if the 75% approval isn't achieved, that's more likely to kill his interest stone dead. Whereas if he's told "we're not even taking a vote, you're not in" is likely to keep him interested. I think it's the cost thing that's stopping them going the whole hog and taking a vote. 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.