Darthter
-
Posts
5,245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by Darthter
-
all depends on the nature of the conversation really.....something we obviously don't know. Regardless of the specifics of CG's contact, the mere thought of it is enough to send many fans into orbit.
-
The say he contacted one shareholder.....whether he has contacted more or not is unknown, based on current info.
-
Are you in a position to summarize the answers???
-
The "Green could still be involved" card is a very powerful weapon for the requisitioner's.....all they need to do is introduce a shadow of doubt into the shareholders minds that he could still be involved somehow & it strengthens their case - there is no need to prove whether or not CG is still involved since they a merely hinting that he could. It is then up to the current board to try & prove that he's not. I agree that there does appear to be a tendency recently to simply dismiss everything that comes out of the club without a 2nd though. It is my impression that the club are currently on the defensive, with McCollco on the attack. As I've said else where...McCollco are very much "we are good, they are bad...so vote for us". Folk need to keep an open mind and not simply fall for an spin or smoke & mirror acts from either side.
-
Ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte begins appeal against Ticketus ruling
Darthter replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
I think they waived their creditor rights in order to pursue his personal guarantees.... -
Fans meeting analysis – Between a rock and a hard place
Darthter replied to Frankie's topic in Rangers Chat
honest & well balance....thanks -
I actually think the statement makes some valid points, albeit in a rather crude manner.... If the requisitioner's have proof of wrong doing then they need to provide the proof either directly to the fans or by evidence of some official investigation etc, other than that it's nothing more than mud-slinging IMHO. Why would the requisitioner's choose not to include some kind of Bio/communication of their plans etc within the official AGM pack??? IMHO, they view the media as a better weapon. Again a valid point. M Murray was chairman of the board, but is now complaining about the actions of the very board he was chair of.... This ties back to the point about the requisition's claims......The board should publish some kind of evidence to support this claim. If they did, I feel it would go a long way to helping their cause. There are a lot of claims & counter-claims flying back & forth between both parties. This makes it very difficult to actually get to the truth. I think some of the tactics being employed by the requisitioner's are just as dirty (in some cases possibly more so) than the current Board. Please don't get me wrong, I am no supporter of either side particularly - I do think that Stockbridge should realise that his time is up though. The main argument I am hearing from the requisitioner's is that "they're bad, we're good, so vote for us", but I'm yet to be convinced of WHY they are the better option. I think Somers & Wallace should be give time. Give me 2 sec while I dig out my tin hat & flack vest.....
-
So Jack Irvine has been involved with the club for the past 7 years....of which time both Murrays (Paul & Malcom) have been in a position to rectify the situation, yet neither have...WHY???
-
I think I am right in the following: Pre-IPO shares were sold to investors @ £1 per share For the IPO, shares were priced @ £0.70 per share. Initial investors were then given a "return" of £0.30 per share purchased. This was included as an IPO cost. Could this have been done as a way to bring in extra revenue/increase the coffers/provide extra working capital before the main share issue???? Is this a common practice in investments/share purchases etc??? Was it contractual???
-
Totally unbelievable statement from both Ceptic & the green brigade.... Taking Ceptic first - They say they will immediately ban those responsible for the banners....how many were banned for the "blood stained Poppies" banner??? Who is responsible for checking these banners prior to entering the ground??? How are the green brigade (GB initials...ironic eh??) actually getting these banners into the ground in the 1st place - they are far too big to stuff up yer jumper!!!! If the club are serious about stopping these banners (no laughing up the back), it is within their power to do so. As for the ghirls brigade, they are openly admitting to breaking the rules/laws placed in front of them. They know the "roll of honour" is not allowed, yet continue to sing it & openly admit to doing it in a public statement. In order to describe a convicted terrorist as a martyr, you have to full support the cause for which they died - in this case terrorism against the UK. Therefore since the statement is from a collective group, every paid up member of that group should be challenged as supporting terrorism. If they don't like it in this country (The UK), I believe there are many good deals to be had on ferry crossings back to the "Motherland/ship"....
-
Before anyone goes off the deep end against Mr Somers, its worth noting that this isn't a "statement" form Mr Somers......it has obviously been written, possible on the back of an interview, with only one quote from Mr Somers: Also, note that there is not mention of what question was asked prior to the above quote..... I think it is vital that the requisitioner's make it clear before the AGM, EXACTLY what they will bring to the Board (possibly what Mr Somers is getting at), rather than simply maintaining the "they're the bad guys....we're the good guys" stance. Also, note from the article that the requisitioner's appear to rubbish Somer's claims that they haven't even filed the correct paperwork, then go on to confirm that this is indeed the case (at the moment).
-
What difference is it going to make - NONE..... Are you going to present the petition @ the AGM, and suddenly all those in favour of Stockbridge/easdales change their minds coz 556 folk signed a petition telling them to vote one way or another.... At the end of the day it is down to each individual shareholder who they do or do not vote for. If you want to sway peoples vote, provide them with clear, factual & unbiased information & let them decide for themselves.
-
Does this possibly show the Boards confidence for the AGM, in light of Laxey's recent acquisition & comments???
-
from what I can see there is no connection to "them across the city". Celtic Asset management are based in Warsaw.
-
I don't want to see any club go to the wall - that results in good honest folk loosing their jobs. I would find it VERY interesting if the Hearts CVA failed, and someone stepped up to buy the assets etc. Would be still get the ongoing/never ending debate about old club/new club??? I think not. If they were to liquidate & close the doors, would it REALLY be good for the overall game in this country??? We would have lost one of the biggest clubs, and I can't the any of the Hearts fans starting to show up @ Easter rd on a Saturday afternoon. There would most likely be 1000's of fans lost to the professional game, and therefore reducing income throughout. On the plus side, Gorgy would get a nice new retail park.....
-
It certainly sounds like Laxey are supporting the new board members. Folk need to keep in mind that the vote @ the AGM is not for the board as a whole, but for each individual candidate. So, while Somers, Wallace & Crighton may be a cert to get voted back on the board, Stockbridge & Easdale are another matter. The guy from Laxley does make a good point in the the Stockbridge & Easdale have appointed a couple of very good men to the board (on paper at least), which put it in a pretty strong position moving forward. With Graham Wallace specifically, they have brought in a guy with an excellent track record in finance/business, and also experience of working with one of the top side in the English Premiership - who out of the McCollco clan can compete with that kind of experience??? What can the requisitioner's candidates specifically add to the new look board??? They claim that they are the men to take the club forward, yet are reluctant to divulge any of their plans/strategy's. How does Graham Wallace's CV stack up against McCollco's candidate of Christian Purslow???? (Man City v Liverpool) How does David Somer's CV stack up against Malcom Murray's??? I do feel that confidence has been lost in Brian Stockbridge as FD, and I think that his coat is definitely on a shoogly peg. Easdale is a tricky one since we really don't know ANYTHING about what he's doing or planning on doing - and may well get voted out for that very reason. As for the general ownership structure.....18/24 months ago, folk were crying out for an end to the Dictator/single person ownership that the club was under. They wanted the ownership spread across multiple factions/people/groups - No one personal shall own this club again. Now that we have that, folk aren't happy and want a single owner again. Which is it to be??? As it stands, the only way our shareholders/investors will make ANY money or return will be to either increase the share price above what they initially paid, or by getting the club to return a profit & receiving a dividend. As folk have said previously, running a football club in general, at a profit is no easy feat. Therefore any profit is likely to the relatively small and as such and dividend payments even smaller. The only realistic way for any of these investors to regain their initial investment is via the share price - run the company well & the share price increases. If ANY of the current or proposed members jeopardise that, then the shareholders will get them out!!!
-
Dec point in wrong place....works out about £33k....
-
Where did the shares come from??? From the Rangers Int. web page today: From AIM notification on 13th Nov:
-
Exactly, Laxley will make any profit from the trading of shared. They bought the latest lot @ 41p, which is a pretty damned good price - a 1p rise will give them approx £350k return on their investment.
-
Looks like they bought.....now owning 11%
-
The big question is....Was the SPL liquidated along with the SFL, and a completely new company (SPFL) setup, or was the SPL company retained & just given a new name???
-
They are in a similar situation to us....If their creditors don't agree to the CVA, they are facing certain liquidation - unless someone buys the assets etc. The main problem for Hearts is that their biggest creditor is Bankrupt & no-one knows whether they will accept any CVA/reduced payment terms. Add to that they don't appear to have any potential buyers lined up....
-
or it could be that the SPFL are skint!!! They are still without a main sponsor & I'm sure I read something in the paper about the Harry Hood court case (£1.7m I think) and their appeal being rejected...
-
It's not long for doing or completing much on a practical level, however if he goes about things in the right manner & sets his stall out correctly for the shareholders, he has plenty of time to sway opinion.....Plenty of time to formulate a clear, concise & workable roadmap for the club.
-
I would like to think that whoever drew up the contract(s) would have the savvy to put in some kind of clause stating that IF voted out at the AGM, they wouldn't receive a full years wage payout.