Jump to content

 

 

Anchorman

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,407

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Anchorman

  1. Anchorman
    I'm not sure they do have to settle for a draw. Why would you if you felt strongly that you could win? After tonight's statement it doesn't look like the current board is all that confident of a win, hence the first show of compromise. We are not party to the detail they have but I reckon McColl is in this one to the finish, especially after being told he would be "embarrassed" when the shares were counted at an EGM.
  2. Anchorman
    What do you mean? McColl?
  3. Anchorman
    What will McColl have gained from that? Blin could find himself in constant conflict with the the current incumbents\clique, and outnumbered. McColl knows this is his chance or never. If Blin is given a hard ride by the present crew McColl won't go through this whole scenario again and try to garner support among investors for another EGM. I'm no corporate Guru but with my limited knowledge that's the way I see it.
  4. Anchorman
    Dave King is not going to be under the radar forever, but he may well go off the radar completely if a half baked compromise is reached. He wants to invest serious money but not when there is even the remotest chance of anyone taking their slice of it. He trusts the McColl team. He doesn't trust the current board. McColl knows investment is absolutely crucial moving forward. Why let your biggest investor (by far potentially) walk away just to avoid the conflict of an EGM? Doesn't add up to me.
  5. Anchorman
    IMHO Frank Blin and McColl will only split if McColl thinks having Blin on the current board satisfies his requirements, which I don't think it will. They won't be divided as they've come too far together on this. I think Frank Blin is only one corner of Jim McColl's canvass, albeit a very important one. And Blin is nobody's patsy.
  6. Anchorman
    I'm assuming the one caveat he will put in is "and it has to be someone I want to sell to i.e. not necessarily the highest bidder".
  7. Anchorman
    I would think Green's statement of "I will sell my shares.........." is hollow to say the least if it is open ended. There is a big difference between (1) "I will sell my shares....... if someone wants to give me £15m for them", which is basically just a repeat of what he has said previously to McColl, and (2) "I will sell my shares....... at the best price I am offered by a closing date of...." Somehow I think it is highly unlikely to be (2) unless I've missed something in the statement.
  8. Anchorman
    OK mate - cheers!
  9. Anchorman
    Prepare to be shocked. Employers can't run rough shod over European legislation just because they fancy finding out a bit more about their staff. Ask Charles Green about his attempts at complying with TUPE (a European legislation that he got badly wrong).
  10. Anchorman
    You are missing what I'm saying. If a 'tech savvy' Dhim is behind it then that is the 'Rhat' that 54andcounting is referring to. If Black has bet against us then he is a Rat. Who would you be most angry with? Rat or Rhat?
  11. Anchorman
    No they wouldn't. They can check previous convictions etc (and maybe bad debts) etc, but what you are asking is way too much an invasion of privacy as an employer. I wouldn't work for anyone who wanted to know if I had a bookies account.
  12. Anchorman
    I know what you are saying, but if (IF!) he has bet against us as a player who will you be most angry with? The Rat or the Rhat?
  13. Anchorman
    Nonsense and a bit too dramatic. If he is betting on his own team to win and his bets are obviously within reason i.e. he is not paying off an opposition player then where is the cheating? He gives it his all for the Club and his bet. Yes it is not allowed, but ban him for life? Calm down. If he has bet against his club? Different story.
  14. Anchorman
    Thanks mate. Maybe I was being a bit of a pedant. I've got family down there, and I was enjoying your comments until that.
  15. Anchorman
    IMHO - (1) If he bet on football matches (and he is not supposed to as a registered player) - give it a break SFA - loads of them do! (2) If he has bet on a Rangers win - fine with me. No cheating there surely if the value of the bets is within reason and he is not likely to be giving the opposition goalie a brown envelope. (3) If he has bet against his own club then get him to feck out of the game in this country. He is not my cup of tea as an individual. (He is the only player in all my years of following this Club that I've truly felt that about) or as a player really, but he is innocent of (3) above until proven guilty. We would do well to remember that. I remember only too well a recent story about a major football club and their 'illegal' use of EBTs. The evidence against them was overwhelming...................
  16. Anchorman
    Why was that needed? Plain stupid.
  17. Anchorman
    This is the kind of detail I was hoping would emerge from the original question i.e. the ones you could predict with a degree of confidence. If we can confidently predict the support (proxy or otherwise) will make approx 12% and Laxey with 6.5%, who are the others on the McColl side and what is their current %?
  18. Anchorman
    "A former friend and colleague of mine fell out with me at the start of the year when I wrote that today’s Rangers lacked class on and off the pitch. I take it back. With Green around, they do not lack class. Rather, they are utterly devoid of it." http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-charles-greens-rangers-2154075 I couldn't remember what it was, just that it was a dig at JT. Looking back it's not as personal as I remembered but enough to irk JT into a response possibly.
  19. Anchorman
    Regardless of whether JT is good at what he does or not he has a pretty big ego that doesn't like being attacked. Keith Jackson had a pretty big pop at 'an ex Record' colleague in midweek. Is JT''s 'enlightened' inner self able to fight off his ego when faced with such a pop?
  20. Anchorman
    This is total guess work but with reasoning behind it (I think). (1) Dave King is in there somewhere. I'm very confident of that. He has made it 100% clear he will only put his (potentially substantial) money in when he knows it will go to The Club and not to pay off chancers looking to make a fast buck on his money. (2) McColl has announced no major investors that we are aware of. He has stated he won't invest. (3) King has been actively trying to gain 'fit and proper person' status from the SFA (or whatever they are called now) which he readily admits, but he knows he still has his doubters after his dealings with SARS. (4) Here is where my lack of corporate knowledge comes in. When McColl goes to existing investors to gain support at the expense of Green does he move into pole position if he can say "I have a man (Dave King?) on board who is willing to invest heavily in this Club if we get your support. Where does any major investment come from otherwise? Once The Club are back in the top league, without that investment, - no Europe , no profit, no return on your investment. Our main rivals over in Breezeblock Boulevard are banking money by the week awaiting our return"? Wishful thinking? Maybe. Far fetched? I'm not so sure.
  21. Anchorman
    One thing that is different this time is McColl not running for the hills when he is outed as being the driving force behind change (time yet though). He has a bit more staying power this time it seems - with good reason?
  22. Anchorman
    I did think that might be the case, but I just wondered if there was a figure of 'pretty much guaranteed' on each side, and how big the 'unknown proportion is.
  23. Anchorman
    I know this is probably the 6 million dollar question, but I confess to be constantly left behind when it comes to knowledge of the more low level corporate wheeling and dealing of shares (and I'm sure I'm not alone). Can anyone give an overview at a high level of roughly how the split in shares stands at the moment, and what the likelihood is of it falling on the side of McColl at final count e.g. Current - Approx - 29% McColl, 36% Green, 35% unknown, but xxx looks like getting most of the unknowns? (purely fictional figures as an example). I'm finding that I'm pretty much in the dark who is buying shares, and for whom, and what the current 'known' split is. Am I being optimistic asking this? Are we all as much in the dark as each other as to the state of play?
  24. Anchorman
    I completely agree that we would all (pretty much) have McColl driving change in an ideal world. However at the moment we are being fed so much spin on all sides we are looking for someone to trust completely. We want to trust McColl and all we are looking to get fully behind him, but we need something back from him. The reason we need that is his history of reluctance to truly commit to a cause that he claims to be so passionate about. It doesn't stir the masses when the man we want to lift the flag of our cause constantly runs for cover, and plays the passive card. Passive is the last thing we need at the moment. We need a level of commitment and passion. I'm not necessarily talking cash. I just want someone who is not going to dive for cover this time when (a) he gets too much publicity, (b) the going gets tough in general. We need him to show that he is here for the fight this time otherwise how can we get behind him?
  25. Anchorman
    I once made the mistake of calling big Hateley a dud when he couldn't hit a barn door, and what a mistake that turned out. I said I wouldn't do that again. The big man will hit over 20 goals this year - easy. Just let him bag a couple and watch his confidence grow. Just hope the punters don't get on his back meantime. I like the big fella's attitude.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.