RANGERRAB

I'm not buying shares and let's be honest someone will buy these. So better the good guys.

I'm buying more shares.......

if we show them that we will not fund theft and mediocrity they will have no option but to deliver success or leave.

Theft? Who?

Mike ashley

thats simply not true. but regardless we can force them to sell.

How can you force them to sell? Have you a buyer?

which is why this lot have to go.

Someone needs to buy them out first

Doesn't matter who the board is or who the owner is, no one would be able to run a club with the operating costs of ours and the lack of income we have suffered in the last year. It's the same calculation no matter who calls the shots. It's a loss.

Agree but would you get three promotions in a row back to the top division with a bunch of kids earning peanuts?

I'm not saying for one minute that I agree with this but I really do wish King would come out with a statement or something and tell us his plans if he has any

I think you have to presume he has no interest in taking over Rangers.

Mike Ashley - no thanks.

 

For once we can thank the SFA....

Great idea - lets just go out of business........

We need to look to other Scottish clubs for examples of any kind of precedent, but even if we were to look at the Romanov/Hearts/Kaunas situation, it's clear that the SFA and SPFL have been changing very specific sections of their rules & regs over the past couple of years, particularly sections in relation to insolvency & ownership.

 

At the end of the day, any final decision would be completely at the SFA's discretion and they could essentially do whatever pleases them.

not if RANGERS appealed to UEFA or CAS on the basis of one set of rules in one country being different from another. I'd have thought cross border ownership rules would have been a UEFA ruling.

Hasn't Roman Abramovitch owned both Chelsea & CSKA Moscow simultaneously?

Doesn't the Italian who owns UDINESE also own Watford & Grenada?

Looks like we could be heading for more hostlities with Rhegan's SFA if Ashley tries to buy Rangers. Can't wait

We're years away from break even point and will need subsidised for years yet,

 

And where will we get that subsidy from then ?

An admin event WOULD remove onerous contracts, more than likely. An admin event, as we have seen, results in "all bets are off" scenarios. Administrators have the obligation to protect the assets of the Club.

 

No, it isn't madness. Sometimes, in this cruel world, an amputation is needed to save the remainder. That is the position I see ourselves in. Very, very unpalatable to have a second admin event but if it was to rid us of the incompetent buffoons we have in the Boardroom then I am all for it.

 

Tell me dB, out of interest, if we cannot rid ourselves of this Board, how do you see the future shaping up for Rangers - just try to look a mere 5 or 10 years into the future - what does that future hold for us when there is zero strategy, a signing policy that is scatter-gun in approach, no development of infrastructure, no transparency (despite lauding being transparent), a lack of Corporate governance despite the Chairman saying it would be high priority on the agenda, a lack of sound financial management of the Club despite having a bunch of qualified accountants on the Board ?

 

Whether you like it or not, there will be many fans who see a 2nd admin event as at least an opportunity to clear the decks of all the deadwood (and there is much of it from the very top of the pile.... the Chairman... all the way through the organization), have a proper, bona fide bidding process which allows the BEST bid to be accepted rather than the previous incumbents preferred bid, and maybe, just maybe, have a chance at long-term survival and, dare I say it, success.

 

Short-term pain (again) for long term gain.....

Another administration would be catastrophic. You might want to go to the bottomtier of Scottish football again I don't.

Sorry, but how can you blame the management for poorly taken free kicks and not clearing the first defender ? Are you seriously trying to suggest that the management team should be working on a 28 yr old's technique to clear the first defender ? If you haven't mastered that by the time you are 14 you should probably just give it up.

 

The management can be blamed for many things but under no circumstance can they be blamed for a player not being able to beat the first defender at set pieces (unless, of course, the management are telling them to hit the first defender or to hit the front post... and whilst many of us believe our management team are fools.... even they couldn't be that foolish).

or how about getting someone else to take the freekicks & corners who CAN clear the first defender ? very simple. It's called organisation.

I would imagine its not in Ashleys interests to let us go bust.

 

I really think that in time we will see Ashley take over.

There are hurdles preventing him doing so at present but hopefully that will be the positive outcome in all of this. We urgently need investment and Ashley can provide that. The current financial structure with multi-ownership set up by CG simply doesnt work. We can see that.We need a single owner able to call the shots. It is the only feasible way forward

does anyone genuinely believe Ibrox will be renamed THE SPORTS DIRECT ARENA for £1 ? Is it not exclusivity that Mike Ashley got ?

When I watch Rangers I continue to see free kicks and corners which don't clear the first defender, needlessly giving away possession under no pressure, consistent lack of a gameplan and tactics almost every week, lack of progress in first team particularly young players from MP, players played out of position not performing to a standard we might expect......I could go on and on.

We may differ about who runs Rangers but all of these stem from a very poor football management which badly needs addressed.

He may very well not be able to.

If he was genuinely interested in taking over Rangers he would have some sort of shareholding by now instead of coming up with excuses.The fact he hasn't along with what he told our incumbent board about being the 'last resort' as it was his kids inheritance tells you all you need to know. He ain't coming. Get over it.

why would you buy shares "piecemeal" - i.e. without gaining control in a failed business?

So how will he get control then?

The low attendances are doing the job. The new owners could be the same owners as we have now if they have it planned that way. It would be up to the support to ensure that wasn't an option for them.

So you really just want to replace the incumbent board with another board of your choice. But shareholders remain same?

Would that be the likes of Paul Murray & Malcolm Murray ? Dave King?

Isnt that what the likes of the SoS & UoF have wanted all along?

What makes you think they'd do a better job? Malcolm Murray for example was chairman when we were blowing millions in SFL3.

My opinion is that they will eventually do what you say no matter what the support does now or in the future. That being the case, a quick end to their reign will be less costly and with no lingering pain.

and how do you propose to bring about 'a quick end to their reign' as you say?

another administration would be catastrophic IMO.

And who would your new owners be ?

Once again you seem to want to blame external factors for the board's inability to attract/keep supporters, attract/keep investors and run a prudent business.

 

The board knew a long time ago this moment would come but they've done next to nothing to address it.

 

That's not DK or anyone else's fault - it merely just proves their point that the incumbents are unsuitable.

if they're unsuitable(and I'm not saying they're not) then get shot off them. How to do that without destroying the clubfor many years to come is the key question.

30 million will buy a lot of 20p shares when they are made available.

he would not need to spend anywhere near £30m to get control of Rangers

It will be time for a serious escalation in fan action if they start selling the family silver.

As the Board have a legal obligation to maintain the business as a viable concern they may have no alternative. I genuinely hope we do not see that day

That's nonsense even duff and duffer admit they knocked back other bids in favor of the green-whyte bid.

which bids were these ? can you name them?

Exactly.

 

The administrators were only interested in making their money and completing the task they were hired for by Whyte which was to hand over the Club to Green & co.

 

When Green & co got control they were only interested in maintaining the 'everything's ok' facade and buying the fans with a few signings plus bucket loads of moonbeams and lies. All so that they could float their new holding company asap, get rich quick and exit stage left.

 

As Frankie rightly said, it's been a monumental opportunity lost, but that's because it was a monumental con from the outset by people who didn't give a toss about our Club, only in making money.

 

Had the administrators sold the Club to people who were more interested in the future of the Club than lining their own pockets, it would (or at least should) have been a completely different story.

At the end of the administration there was only one viable bid on the table. Why didnt McColl Co bid earlier?