Jump to content

 

 

Rangersitis

  • Posts

    3,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rangersitis

  1. First you say they were watching on, then when pulled up on it, you say that they weren't watching on. Bizarre behaviour, and not for the first time.
  2. You can't just ignore those who controlled enough of the shares to torpedo King's plan. He had to make an offer which persuaded them all to accept. He failed to do so. Now it may be that no offer he made would have been good enough, but that is another matter altogether.
  3. About the investment? If he offered it up without wanting anything in return, it would have been snapped up. Obviously that example wouldn't have been practical, but I used it just for illustration purposes.
  4. To all intents and purposes, he has taken over, but more importantly, technically, he hasn't. There has been no breach of the 10% agreement he has with the SFA. You need to give up on this claim that King offered investment and it was refused. It was the conditions that he was imposing which were refused.
  5. Oh, I don't doubt it. My post wasn't meant to be entirely serious. Admitting to a couple of sackings would have resulted in all manner of questions being asked. As you say, nice and clean....with a wee confidentiality clause thrown in for good measure.
  6. Paul Murray has been involved at every stage of this saga. He may have been unsuccessful, but he certainly wasn't watching on. What is your problem with dealing in fact?
  7. McCoist was in the same camp as Wallace and Nash, so there may be something in it.
  8. Perfectly calm, thanks, in the circumstances. My post wasn't in reply to one word from you. There has been a concerted campaign recently to paint Wallace as some sort of good guy because of his association with King. There is only one choice which should be acceptable. For me, neither Wallace nor the brothers fall in to that category.
  9. What was reputable about Wallace when he was misleading shareholders at the AGM?....or taking three months to publish a week's worth of work, followed by another three months where he failed to deliver on much of the content?.....or when he was trying to blame those not coughing up their ST money for credit facilities being withdrawn?.....or when he was taking part in a sham online Q&A session?.....or when he was refusing to discuss his own onerous contract and bonus?..... Yet another shark who took the dirty money on offer, until that is he saw that he was for the off, and jumped ship to try and save his own skin and lucrative salary. This rewriting of history is sickening.
  10. Perhaps that is Ashley's plan, with the subsequent financing packages having increasingly stringent conditions put upon them. Slowly, slowly, catchy monkey.
  11. I have gone back and read a few of English's articles that discusses King and I don't see them as being particularly anti. He argues that King's difficulties with the SA tax authorities should preclude him from getting a place on the board, but also states that he should invest as he has the best interest of the club at heart. He also touches upon the number of times where he could have stepped in to safeguard the club from the nefarious characters that we have seen, but, for a variety of reasons, has been unwilling or unable to do so. Seems a fair assessment given what we have witnessed in the last few years. He was critical of the King blueprint that would involve spending millions to instantly match/overcome Celtic at the first time of asking. He described it as a return to the old guard ways of Murray and Smith. Again, I totally agree with him. Rangers need long-term sustainability and not more boom and bust. If he wishes to pump in millions, great, but it should be invested in a proper youth set-up and in beefing up the scouting department. Areas which, if done correctly, will see a future where the need for daft spending will be eradicated. In amongst all of that he has attacked Green for his bombast and bullshit; been highly critical of the Easdales and pitied anyone who has to deal with them and stated quite categorically that Ashley is taking an interest in Rangers purely to fill his own pockets. I don't listen to Sportsound or follow him on Twitter, so can't comment on what has been said there, but if it broadly follows his Scotsman and BBC stuff, I can see little wrong with it.
  12. The Sun are saying that Scot Gardiner is the one being lined up as the next CEO.....again. He turned it down previously because he didn't get the assurances that he would be allowed to run the boardroom how he saw fit, including hiring and firing. I can't see that being any different now, and Hearts appear to be in far better shape.
  13. Fair enough. I take very little notice of the inane shite that goes on between fans and hacks on social media.
  14. I had no idea that English has a preference as to who is in control at Rangers. Does he have history with King? If he has made the comment based solely on what you said, then the message has a different slant to it. King's plan(s) didn't make financial sense to those that he ultimately had to persuade.
  15. Probably more than one still to go. This thing has a bit to run yet, I believe. It's sickening.
×
×
  • 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.