bennett Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 They are trying to deflect by admitting that Rangers are no longer spending daft money on players? They aren't right in the head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 General Mike and his tanks sent packing again. Who was it who said that the fat general would ensure that King would go to jail? Vicky farts... You have to laugh......... A few months ago the BRALT obsessives were telling us all how Fat Mike was in complete control, some of that absolute shite that was being branded about included. Mike will own Ibrox forever.......the 3 bears will never stump up any money......the loan will never be pad off......Mike will destroy DK in all these court cases....DK is going to jail The list goes on an on, a few months later and we can rip all these predictions up... Has the invincible Fat Mike actually won anything? Starting with the EGM, he has been humiliated by Rangers and DK, after lashing out with lawyers and court cases like a spoiled child. Much of this as I said has been lapped up by those pretending not to care about this latest kick in the baws for Mike, do not let it kid you, they are absolutely livid about it, it is plainly obvious. Pelucía farts... And his sports direct empire crumbling all around him. The English press feeding on his bloated carcass. Politicians out for his blood. Now Vicky's turn... In England they see him as the absolute cretin he is, In Scotland they see him as a hero and all round good guy who hamstrung Rangers and who took Rangers and DK to court. And Five Stars again. Fucking pathetic. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 He doesn't have to. He owns Rangers Retail and controls all financial matters of that side of the company So yes he has influence on how the club is run As a shareholder will he be allowed to vote despite the SFA conditions? To an extent he does but only in retail matters , the SFA is OK with this. I'm sure that he's currently banned from voting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 To an extent he does but only in retail matters , the SFA is OK with this. I'm sure that he's currently banned from voting. He isn't banned from voting, that was what the court case was about prior to the last meeting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 He isn't banned from voting, that was what the court case was about prior to the last meeting. I'm glad someone has been paying attention, because I'm completely lost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) To an extent he does but only in retail matters , the SFA is OK with this. I'm sure that he's currently banned from voting. According to the Herald, Ashley gave the SFA "an undertaking not to exercise undue influence on the club's board." Since the SFA's concern is over dual ownership, they could only realistically object if he interfered on some matter where there was a conflict of interest with Newcastle. As a shareholder, nothing else he expressed an opinion on would be "undue". The GASL tried to ban him from voting altogether, which would have been illegal. Not that has ever stopped DCK before. Edited January 22, 2016 by Stag Nation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 According to the Herald, Ashley gave the SFA "an undertaking not to exercise undue influence on the club's board." Since the SFA's concern is over dual ownership, they could only realistically object if he interfered on some matter where there was a conflict of interest with Newcastle. As a shareholder, nothing else he expressed an opinion on would be "undue". The GASL tried to ban him from voting altogether, which would have been illegal. Not that has ever stopped DCK before. From the guardian ". Under Scottish Football Association rules no one is allowed to hold a stake in two clubs without its prior written permission. Ashley received such licence before he bought into Rangers with the stipulation that his holding be restricted to 10% and he did not exercise boardroom influence" I'd forgotten about the interim interdict, that many court cases, still be heard I believe and just a pity we can't get Peter Smith for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 But but but...The Klan told us Ashley "was out! And had no influence at Ibrox"? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 In England they see him as the absolute cretin he is, In Scotland they see him as a hero and all round good guy who hamstrung Rangers and who took Rangers and DK to court. Everybody has their good side Tedi, this was Mike's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 From the guardian ". Under Scottish Football Association rules no one is allowed to hold a stake in two clubs without its prior written permission. Ashley received such licence before he bought into Rangers with the stipulation that his holding be restricted to 10% and he did not exercise boardroom influence" I'd forgotten about the interim interdict, that many court cases, still be heard I believe and just a pity we can't get Peter Smith for it. I thought Ashley had invested in the company, not the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I thought Ashley had invested in the company, not the club? I thought there was no mechanism for investing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 From the guardian ". Under Scottish Football Association rules no one is allowed to hold a stake in two clubs without its prior written permission. Ashley received such licence before he bought into Rangers with the stipulation that his holding be restricted to 10% and he did not exercise boardroom influence" I'd forgotten about the interim interdict, that many court cases, still be heard I believe and just a pity we can't get Peter Smith for it. I am pretty certain that even Smith wouldn't allow this exclusion that is completely at odds with the Companies Act. Now if it was Walter Smith.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 And his sports direct empire crumbling all around him. The English press feeding on his bloated carcass. Politicians out for his blood. Which any right thinking people should be delighted to see. Ashley is a horrid symbol of so much that is wrong in the world. Could the Rangers fans who are doing so, please stop pretending that he's the champion of all us diddies please? It's possible to despise both King and Ashley as the despicable shits that they are, you know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I am pretty certain that even Smith wouldn't allow this exclusion that is completely at odds with the Companies Act. Now if it was Walter Smith.. I'm guessing that Rangers sought legal advice over this, we'll just have to wait and see how it goes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Please stop pretending there are not lots of diddies who have fought Ashley`s corner on this thread. Your are of course correct, despite you have pretended that he would be good for Rangers on many occasions and then admitted he is a spiv, Fat Mike is an absolute c**t of a man, it is a good thing to see him getting his baws kicked over the past few months. Where's the conflict in me thinking he might be good for Rangers whilst also thinking he's a shit? Of course some diddies have championed him. Plenty haven't though. It would be better if you could provide a more accurate picture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Where's the conflict in me thinking he might be good for Rangers whilst also thinking he's a shit?Of course some diddies have championed him. Plenty haven't though. It would be better if you could provide a more accurate picture. Tedi doesn't do accurate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 You think someone you referred to as a Rangers spiv would be good for Rangers? Glad you agree, now stop whining at me for laughing at them. I don't think I ever called him that. I just argued that he might have been a safer bet than King, because it would be in his interests for the club to do well. King still strikes me as volatile and dishonest. My assessment might well have been wrong though - it occasionally is. You should really qualify what you say, by referring to "some diddies" and suchlike. Your willingness to group everyone together as sharing particular views and characteristics, does you little credit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 'What a riposte to Ashley and the other spivs that would be.' that is you admitting he is a spiv. King is only 1 shareholder, who has a lot of say but is part of a board who for the most part have steered Rangers by your own admission to a much better place than they were in when Ashley and his other spivs were defeated in the EGM. Thus far, yes. Time will tell if my earlier assessment was wrong. I still wouldn't trust King at all if I were you though. Qualify your sweeping generalisations in future Ted. It helps with that credibility stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 No I will just generalise and include everyone who wanted Ashley to succeed, I really do not require or crave your approval, in fact it is much more fun when you acting all pretentious like now for instance. Pretentious? Moi? How so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Please stop pretending there are not lots of diddies who have fought Ashley`s corner on this thread. Your are of course correct, despite you have pretended that he would be good for Rangers on many occasions and then admitted he is a spiv, Fat Mike is an absolute c**t of a man, it is a good thing to see him getting his baws kicked over the past few months. MA is pishing all over DK as far as I can see: Wanted his £5m back DK didnt want to pay wanted to negotiate a new deal seeing as this one was so horrendous for the club- outcome, f**k off bent eye and cough up!...and another 7 years of sucking unle Mikes wanger! -1 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.