RANGERRAB

The offer was for shares - not to spend £16m in January.

 

Meanwhile Ashley apparently withholds the money you and I spent in the Rangers shop. Happy with that?

He couldn't have got those shares(51% I believe) without shareholder approval granting an EGM. That was never going to happen.

Ashley won't withhold the retail money forever. It will be released in due course

DK's spokesman Chris Graham giving his usual quotes I see.

DK needs to acquire shares if he wishes any credibility.

I don't care about Dave King and I suspect that's the same for many more bears.

 

I want an owner/decision-maker who can put the last few years behind us and lead from the front. So far, Ashley hasn't done that.

 

Blind faith will get us nowhere. The events of 2011/2012 means questioning and being vigilant will now be a necessary part of Rangers traditions for a long time.

Ashley hasn't done that yet. As I've said on here many times our no1 priority must be to get back to the top division. Once that happens I believe things will happen.

No point throwing vast sums of money at this stage which was why I thought King's 'offer' was bogus

There are few groups of fans who have been through what we have over the last few years so it's completely unrealistic not to expect folk to have doubts.

 

Ashley may well be a billionaire and may well bring the stability we need. However, so far his actions, lack of transparency and eagerness to protect onerous contracts mean it's very difficult for folk to gauge his intentions.

 

As such it's inevitable fans remain suspicious, cynical and less than welcoming. Ashley can change that. So far he's chosen not to.

Rangers need financial stability. Ashley can provide that.We should encourage him to invest IMO.

Too many of our supporters are still living in hope(!) Dave King will take over which won't happen.

Rangers must be the only club in the world who have got supporters opposed to being owned/controlled by a genuine billionaire.........

think it's a good thing it's going to an official ruling as that forces them to clarify this issue , hopefully, once and for all..

It's already been clarified several times. Doing it again won't stop the pondlife persisting with the 'new club' nonsense. Only legal action will

Where are the SFA & SPFL here ? there's no debate whatsoever regards the club. 'Sporting continuity' declared the club continued after its corporate identity changed.

If Thompson is still in any doubt someone should show him the Rangers section of the SPFL website. It clearly shows FOUNDED 1872

Green didn't save us, we did, you, i, all of us. The fans saved Rangers.

And much as some may struggle to accept it Green got the finance in place to rebuild Rangers whilst the so-called net worth Rangers men sat back and did nothing comparible(I don't count the TBK)

No man has ever destroyed any football club as thoroughly as green has us.

Rubbish. get a life.

Your arguement falls apart when Whyte gets mentioned

it's a bad day when you can't rape a Scottish institution in peace.

Yawn....much as though I have reservations about the Easdales they don't take a single penny in salary from Rangers.

What has he done in the game as a manager Rab?

 

His salary in Russia was £2.5m per year mate. £50k a week.....out of our league by a million miles.

Didn't know that.....

A

Celtic have a manager that no-one suggested. It may work out or perhaps not, but they have at least tried to find someone in the game to fit what they want their team to be without limiting themselves to a handful of ex-players.

 

I want Rangers to be an adventurous and entertaining team so I'd scour the country and beyond for someone who has a track record of being successful while playing in in a way that is attractive and pleasing.

 

If I was a seasoned watcher of English and European football, I might offer a name or two, but as I'm not, I'm not going to chuck a name in the ring just for the sake of it.

 

The club should be professional enough to have an awareness of managers at home and abroad who might fit the bill. They should certainly avoid McInnes, McCall and Davies. It would be the same old same old with these guys.

 

Rangers needs a new approach and new blood.

I can understand reasons for avoiding McCall and MacInnes but Davies has proved he can manage in a tough league like the CHampionship down south.

My preference would be a foreign manager with scottish coaches. Unlike you I'll offer a name -Dan Petrescu...

Whilst I cannot condone anyone being challenged in the presence of their kids, it cannot be denied that the Easdales continue to attract bad publicity for Rangers in various ways. I genuinely believe it would be better for them and Rangers if they left sooner rather than later. I have no knowledge (or interest) of the Easdales' past business dealings but if these are connected to this sort of incident and others then I'd say their positions as Rangers directors are pretty much untenable

They want to own the club. Increase their shareholding over time.

I don't think they'd have the financial resources to do that

Their continuing presence on the Rangers board seems to me to be extremely unpopular with a large section of our support.

There must come a time when they are seen as a liability and would need to be removed. But how?

He should be ignored, publicity is what he is after.

He will get publicity unfortunately.

Gough once described him as putting out fires before they started..........

Sadly injuries prevented him becoming the player we all hoped he would be for Rangers

I've no doubt that McClean supports them from the east end of our city who will probably wear poppies on their shirts tomorrow when they play Abbahdeen.If he played for them would he still refuse to wear a poppy on his shirt?

Two words sum him up but I'm not sure we can post them on Gersnet nowadays !

I can think of a lot more than two words to describe this vile scumbag

Hypocritical scumbag. If he hates this country so much why is he living and working in it.

It's a valid point and sometimes in the modern game one easy to forget. There's no doubt McGregor gets stuck in and keeps it simple but as his contribution to our second goal on Tuesday showed he can do more.

 

All in all, so far he's been a very good buy. Sure it's early days but if he can steer clear of injury then he looks more than capable of doing the business for a few years.

A very good buy ???? we got him for free on a BOSMAN.

But yes he's done very well. My only concern is jig playing alongside him who has certainly slowed down & McGREGOR will need his pace to compensate for that.

You clearly are missing the simple fact here that as this never got past the Board of Directors then they must have rejected it. If they hadn't then they would have RECOMMENDED it to the shareholders. As the shareholders never took a vote on it means that the Board never recommended it to the shareholders - de facto that means that the Board rejected it.

 

Your semantics simply don't work in this case Rab. You can say the Board could neither accept nor reject it which is half right - they can, quite clearly, reject it. They can't accept it but they CAN recommend it to the shareholders. It is obviously a moot point too because the Board clearly rejected it without putting it to the shareholders.

You fail to appreciate Craig that King by refusing to acquire a shareholding sealed his own fate. When you say 'recommended' you fail to understand it is for the shareholders to vote on. Not the board. Ultimately it is for the shareholders to decide regardless of what the board say.Sadly you have all been strung along by King and his cohorts. He never did want to part with his money so he made an 'offer' which he knew would fail.

King and his gang could have got shares like everyone else. They didn't. End of story

the board could have accepted it no problem and put it to shareholders. stop lying.

Utter nonsense.It needed an AGM or EGM for shareholder approval.

King puuled the wools over your eyes. He never had any intention of parting with his money so he made an impractical offer.

He is history. Get over it

So what you are saying is his offer was rejected .

 

I never specified who rejected it.

His 'offer' was a non-starter. It couldnt be accepted or rejected by the board.

Probably did it to impress his deluded band of followers who still think he is being denied ownership of Rangers. He isnt - unless he's willing to stump up the cash and buy a significant shareholding which he says he's not willing to do.

If it wasn't rejected it must have been accepted?

The board couldnt accept or reject. They weren't in a position to do either. As I said earlier it was/is a shareholders decision