Venti Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Rangers overspend??? celtic just paid £1.5 million for Boyota ffs Which Celtic can probably afford by being Scottish Champions and CL qualifiers. Your mob got humped by Motherwell and will be playing us next season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I laughed. Some might think that but i couldnt possibly say. Glad you laughed - it was getting far too serious on here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Did the Rangers fans chase this guy or was it Big Mike? Pours cash into..... Then when you read the article it's he promises too.... Big mike? Copying MacGillivans dreadful patter.... It was the previous board who knocked Roberts take over offer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Pours cash into..... Then when you read the article it's he promises too.... Big mike? Copying MacGillivans dreadful patter....It was the previous board who knocked Roberts take over offer.Wrong.The old board had no option but to knock him back because he would not get majority shareholder support. As TEDIs quoted posts show the vast majority of Rangers fans believed the 3Bs lies that he was a patsy so they could get control. How are Rangers fans goin to feel if Sarver pumps millions into another club? ..... 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) which would require the approval of shareholders (at least a 75% majority) at a general meeting," it said. "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." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Good old King says i'm wrong about the old board hunting Robert, then produces a statement showing that the old board did indeed hunt him. As the QC would say " " -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 It was the previous board who knocked Roberts take over offer. Wrong. The old board had no option but to knock him back. Good old King says i'm wrong about the old board hunting Robert, then produces a statement showing that the old board did indeed hunt him. Haven't you understood BossHogg's posts yet? It's impossible for him to give a consistent opinion....and when challenged will change his view. He's as slippery as a baggy up a border burn* * Sir Bill of McLaren 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) I accept that it was the old (Ashley inspired) unpopular board that denied this American guy a foothold. What was the fan consensus though? I don't think that the suggestion that the reception to him was lukewarm while King was in the wings is wildly wide of the mark. I don't actually recall Sarver as that clear cut a choice at the time - it all looked a bit vague and indistinct. With hindsight though dear Rangers fans, he surely looks like he'd have been a better bet than King. No? Edited June 26, 2015 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 With hindsight though dear Rangers fans, he surely looks like he'd have been a better bet than King. No? Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I accept that it was the old (Ashley inspired) unpopular board that denied this American guy a foothold. What was the fan consensus though? I don't think that the suggestion that the reception to him was lukewarm while King was in the wings is wildly wide of the mark. I don't actually recall Sarver as that clear cut a choice at the time - it all looked a bit vague and indistinct. With hindsight though dear Rangers fans, he surely looks like he'd have been a better bet than King. No? i don't see it as King v Sarver, King is working with the '3 bears' group and others, while Sarver was going to be a one man band. Also as far as i'm aware Sarver has only made promises about what he's going to do, my experiences of one man in charge isn't the ebst. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I accept that it was the old (Ashley inspired) unpopular board that denied this American guy a foothold. What was the fan consensus though? I don't think that the suggestion that the reception to him was lukewarm while King was in the wings is wildly wide of the mark. I don't actually recall Sarver as that clear cut a choice at the time - it all looked a bit vague and indistinct. With hindsight though dear Rangers fans, he surely looks like he'd have been a better bet than King. No? Funny timing with Sarver's bid not long after Ashley got a rap from the SFA for dual interests. Just before King and his cronies bought their shares. Ashley has business dealings with Sarver iirc and might have been to push up the share price forcing King & Co to pay as much for their shares. I never did take the Sarver interest seriously even if he has now bought a Spanish club. The Rangers were a financial basket case even at that point and not a particularly good business venture from an investors point of view. Was Sarver willing to buy up shares from current shareholders or buy the shares not sold in the initial IPO and wee share issue ? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 i don't see it as King v Sarver, King is working with the '3 bears' group and others, while Sarver was going to be a one man band. Also as far as i'm aware Sarver has only made promises about what he's going to do, my experiences of one man in charge isn't the ebst. You spelled ebt's wrong there, ben. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You spelled ebt's wrong there, ben. So have you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 i don't see it as King v Sarver, King is working with the '3 bears' group and others, while Sarver was going to be a one man band. Also as far as i'm aware Sarver has only made promises about what he's going to do, my experiences of one man in charge isn't the ebst. So close to writing EBTs! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The Rangers then and you know the rest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The Rangers then and you know the rest. Yes Bennett, but something changed and you know it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) And there, my dear bears et al, is the evidence, all the evidence needed, to put an end to the debate.The club and company were always the same thing. Legally. That would explain why the club itself was not mentioned in the bill of sale. The legal paperwork, ie share certificates and certificate of incorporation, are quite specific. See what I mean about allowing yourself an open mind in this dynamic world? Edited June 27, 2015 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 ....and that's why Companies House show them as 2 years old. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history...that and Sarver , a sports tycoon the the 3bs chased away now ready to bankroll another team, deary me . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The Rangers then and you know the rest...The Rangers international football club formed in 2012 now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 ....and that's why Companies House show them as 2 years old. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history ...that and Sarver , a sports tycoon the the 3bs chased away now ready to bankroll another team, deary me . I wonder would this suffice forever_blue in his quest for legal documents or does he want the death certificate too? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I think Stoney will be writing more letters. 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.