Thinker 887 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 No, I am more than happy that I/we still have a club to support with little thanks to "real Rangers" men and more than a little to Charles Green, if Green and his men are making money and we continue to get back on the right footing it is a price worth paying and no different to any other business that was rescued from the straits we were in. Surely there must be a point when you would consider the profits being made too high though. What do you think is an acceptable figure, and what would the absolute upper limit be? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted July 9, 2013 Author Share Posted July 9, 2013 We have no choice but to watch, too many divisions in the Support. I'm not sure the majority of the Support are bothered one way or the other to be truthful, as long as they can watch Rangers play football. My opinion is that anyone who is happy with Easdale on board, hasn't the good of Rangers at heart. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,665 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Charles preparing his return with more power than before, or perhaps he has always had the power, wonder what Cenkos and mcgobblegiver will make of this subordination. Again, apart from one or two people's assumptions, what sort of power does a majority shareholder with no place on the board (?) wield? Is he still a director? Will he actually go and challenge Smith for power, in the full knowledge that the support would sure not welcome this? Who says that Murray and Cartmell did not want to go anyway? (Yeah, some "people in the know" there in the background will shake their heads at such "naivety" ... and keep to themselves.) I know that some will see a grand conspiracy behind it all, with Green to suqeeze the club dry and whatnot. Those not inclined to follow that line of thought would like to have reasonable explanations rather than bewildering and ominous predictions that rarely get any back-up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 The real Rangers men that you are so dismissive of, did offer for the Club, Zeus consortium offered a little more, though it is arguable that when you take into account all the different factors in the deal, there wasn't a lot in it. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be pulling all the money out of the club that Green and his associates are. Perhaps Green's greatest (only?) victory is in the field of propaganda - he has been able to damage the reputation of the rival bidders. We also now know that no one else but Green was going to get the Club, if a CVA had been successful Whyte was not going to deal with anyone else but Green and his group. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 The real Rangers men that you are so dismissive of, did offer for the Club, Zeus consortium offered a little more, though it is arguable that when you take into account all the different factors in the deal, there wasn't a lot in it. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be pulling all the money out of the club that Green and his associates are. Perhaps Green's greatest (only?) victory is in the field of propaganda - he has been able to damage the reputation of the rival bidders. We also now know that no one else but Green was going to get the Club, if a CVA had been successful Whyte was not going to deal with anyone else but Green and his group. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Surely there must be a point when you would consider the profits being made too high though. What do you think is an acceptable figure, and what would the absolute upper limit be? I have no idea about acceptable limits boards are paid to make those decisions and regulatory bodies to oversee sharp practice and take action on any such profiteering, far to many people are looking to their own agendas which involve "real Rangers" men as they see it, me I will roll with it as it is. After all this story was widely reported a month ago why the sudden dramatisation of events, boards change every day in business for a multitude of reasons not all good not all bad. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 The real Rangers men that you are so dismissive of, did offer for the Club, Zeus consortium offered a little more, though it is arguable that when you take into account all the different factors in the deal, there wasn't a lot in it. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be pulling all the money out of the club that Green and his associates are. Perhaps Green's greatest (only?) victory is in the field of propaganda - he has been able to damage the reputation of the rival bidders. We also now know that no one else but Green was going to get the Club, if a CVA had been successful Whyte was not going to deal with anyone else but Green and his group. Maybe you posted twice just to ensure you got the party line across, "real Rangers" men my arse. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted July 9, 2013 Author Share Posted July 9, 2013 Maybe you posted twice just to ensure you got the party line across, "real Rangers" men my arse. No wonder there are divisions, calm down it's no a Cup Final. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,665 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 On a sidenote, what stops the Blue Knights, Kennedy, King or McColl from buying into the 49%* of "unclaimed" shares? At the current rate, it would cost them 25m to get these, still "peanuts" for our club. They could have bought him for much less, of course, but apparently neither of them was willing to invest more than Green and Co., and I for one do still assume that had any of them made reasonable offers pre-CVA and that binding agreement, our ownership would be quite different. What is King actually doing these days? He seems to to happen by every now and then, gives a broadside in person or via the papers and vanishes into the mists again. *I simply do not expect that they are all bought up by minority shareholders, as they are traded on a daily basis at the stockmarket. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 No wonder there are divisions, calm down it's no a Cup Final. Rangers men will do for me not some imaginary rich dude with pockets sewn up and deeper than the Mariana trench. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.