Jump to content

 

 

buster.

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    14,154

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

 Content Type 

Everything posted by buster.

  1. buster.
    If you recall the AGM of 2013 and what followed........"Investment" is obviously sp.ivspeak for 'secured credit facility'. Somers knows exactly what he saying though, unlike Easdale who might trip himself up because he's simply not very articulate. If he had used future tense or said "looking forward to getting....." ok, but he didn't. He's trying to mislead and create a more favourable impression of the MA involvement by misrepresenting the facts as they stand. It's consistant with the general message that is coming from Ibrox and their spin machine.
  2. buster.
    You know you are getting a good deal when your 49% (Sports Direct) trumps the 51% (Rangers) in any votes on financial matters. Green and Ashely have set that up as,....... as you'd imagine them to have. Rangers continue to be a scud book being passed round the vultures.
  3. buster.
    It's all very muddy. The credit facility gives MA the chance for two directors on both TRFC and RIFC boards. Leach is already on the Rangers Retail board representing Sports Direct, would it be allowed for him to sit on the board of TRFC/RIFC aswell. If SD were to buy-out the Rangers 51% of the Retail operation things may change.
  4. buster.
    But given who is involved, their advisors, their track record, you know that such engagement will not be sincere.
  5. buster.
    Would you call a SugarDaddy, someone that has his men in Rangers Retail retain money due to the club at times of critical financial hardship ? And then takes advantage to grab power for buttons, that he'll want back. ?
  6. buster.
    He's also a director of Rangers Retail Ltd (RR) and has been since the outset (August 2012). He's one of the directors that have decided not to declare a dividend and release monies (profit) from the retail operation to the 51% that Rangers have in RR. Thus making it easier for Ashely to grab power in return for....not a lot.
  7. buster.
    In 2011, MM didn't have any direct connection with Rangers / CW. There are many people who don't go public with their thoughts because their knowledge is limited (pieces of a large jigsaw), is often without hard evidence and as you know very well....you must tread warily. First thing that comes to mind is that Ashely wouldn't have anything to do with guys like CW. But then you think SDM/CW and MA/CGreen and the pursuit of 'deals'. Not forgetting that CW at that time was owner of Rangers, a retail brand that Ashely would be getting control of 8 months later.
  8. buster.
    From link in OP. Circumstancial, could be coincidental but still curious. - Has Mike Ashely a connection with this charity ? - Does MA often come up to Scotland ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to add. In the Sevco 5088/CW 'letter before the claim' from 2012 that still indirectly occupies a place in our accounts regards 'contingent liability' there was the following line. 7 (e). [i]“Introduced Jim Park as a consultant in order to introduce Mike Ashley, owner of Newcastle United, as both a key investor and developer of the RFC retail arm”[/i]....................There were widespread allegations of a commission being paid by Rangers to Jim Park but I don't have any proof. Jim Park was a "lifelong friend" of Craig Whyte's Dad. The Daily Record ran the following story "Craig Whyte's pal hired by Charles Green to find investors for Rangers" http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/twice-bankrupt-jim-park-has-been-taken-1220783 Anyone got anything to add ?
  9. buster.
    Just to add......... - Think about a business model that didn't work previously - add a spi.v tax (onerous contracts) - consider little or no retail money - consider relatively little broadcast revenue - consider the money needed to be spent on Ibrox - consider the money needed spent on infrastructure to football operation Now tell me how realistic the line about Ashely looking for "CL exposure" for SD ?
  10. buster.
    It's always been set-up with emotional blackmail in mind. You want to fund the club, you have to pay the onerous contracts aswell. Effectively a sp.iv tax on club revenue. Each individual can make his own decision.
  11. buster.
    I think that may be a conservative number.
  12. buster.
    Given your logic in recent posts is from about 3 decades ago, are you not being a bit.... 'heid the ba'.......
  13. buster.
    I'm not defending him, just saying what the reason behind it (probably) is. The point I take from it, or an opinion that is re-inforced, is that our corporate goverance is very questionable, a mess that they try and cover up.
  14. buster.
    He has to at least be seen keeping a distance because he isn't on RIFC board. That is presuming Llambias is 'applying' for a position with RIFC, rather than TRFC. Although he might end up on both. This business about 'applying' may have something to do with the "necessary regulatory approvals being successfully completed for such persons nominated by MASH"...and would indicate Llambias is looking at the RIFC board to begin with. Further backed up by Easdale looking to put distance between any such process and himself.
  15. buster.
    Sir Duped won both ways. 1. He (or other on his behalf) feeds journalist 'inside story' (Murray control on 'news') 2. Journalist gives SDM favourable slant. (Murray control on 'news')
  16. buster.
    No regulatory annoucement as yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The last consultant appointment that merited an annoucement to the markets was Charles Green in August 2013. Green left 18 days later. Regards his consultancy role, Phillip Nash wasn't announced in such a way until he was given a directorship.
  17. buster.
    Wasn't the only time Tom English did Sir Duped a favour. (SDM about to sell club in London hotel room but at last minute.......) And if it wasn't a favour then Tom was duped and was a very silly and thick journalist.
  18. buster.
    There was a poster on FF called 'Cyclops' who was thought to have been Martin Bain or someone acting for him. More recently, there was 'Applepine' who IMO was Mr.Toxic or someone very close to him. In recent years there are many others who have been in and around FF agitating (in different ways) on behalf of others. It's almost a 'sport' picking them and either calling them out or keeping an eye on them.
  19. buster.
    That would more apply to back in the 'old days' when football was more sport than business. It might also apply if the board of directors main motivation was the longterm interests of the football club. Whilst every individual may view issues differently, it doesn't generally apply to our situation today.
  20. buster.
    The unreleased money that corresponds to Rangers Retail Ltd that is sitting there will go somewhere one day. I'd guess and say that the part that corresponds to Sports Direct may be used in part as payment to Rangers so as SD acquire the RIFC 51% and own the retail operation outright.
  21. buster.
    Maybe James Easdale is unpleasent company or has BO but the pattern has been that he remains on the board of directors as the rest drop. Last year it was reduced to Stockbridge and James Easdale. Now we have Somers, Crighton and James Easdale. Easdale joined the board on the back of an agreement that came from a 'letter of requisition' from Blue Pitch. Within the same agreement, they took a hit with Chris Morgan not joining. However Charles Green stayed close.
  22. buster.
    BH, what was the hold-up ? Did the amendments you suggested have to do with issues pertaining to 'away games' ?
  23. buster.
    It appears MASH Holdings loan us 2M, secured on our assets and gaining influence in the boardrooms of TRFC and RIFC, whilst Rangers Retail (under Sports Direct financial control) are not releasing similar sums of money supposedly due to us. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Within the companies house document SH01 (Return of Allotment of Shares) dated 27/11/12, it states: "the company may, by unanimous consent of the directors declare dividends on A shares and B shares" * So back at the end of June this year: - you have Rangers scrambling around looking for money with Graham Wallace and Philip Nash at the forefront. - you had a balance of 2,720,000 sitting in the accounts but unreleased that related to Rangers Retail Ltd. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12067610.html - Rangers hold 51% of the Rangers Retail joint venture, Sports Direct 49% * - Graham Wallace and Phillip Nash represented Rangers on the Rangers Retail board of directors. So you have GW and PN, directors of the retail operation unable to source funds from joint venture that would correspond with our 51% stakeholding. Suggests that other Rangers Retail Limited director(s) (from Sports Direct) didn't want to release it. You could take it back to Feburary with nearly the same situation when we needed to take out a short term loan financed against assets. Only that Nash wasn't yet on the Rangers Retail board and the total figure sitting in the accounts but unreleased was around 1,850,000 pounds. * Rangers Retail Ltd SD have 49% in 'A' class shares which count double in any votes regarding financial matters. RIFC have 51%, in 'B' class shares Effectively SD control the joint venture.
  24. buster.
    The problem we have at Rangers is like most things, the motivations and priorities of who are in charge at the club are different from that of the support. They look for self profit whilst we look for a decent football team. This then influences the whole approach to how a club is run, more especially if it's a regime who have an MO similar to what we have suffered for the last few years. I think in general they have used it more via 3rd parties in a destructive way to better divide/influence the support rather in the positive. But in a normal and well run club, yes, the messageboards are an obvious port of call for market research, that would be used in a positive way for the club and not individuals.
  25. buster.
    Keeping an eye on what exactly ?
×
×
  • 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.