chilledbear 16 Posted August 31, 2013 Author Share Posted August 31, 2013 We may have serious reservations over their background but should the Easdales be included amongst the chancers? I think among the Easdales problems is that they never seemed to have any interest in Rangers until Green brought them in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 The Easdales are just a front for a Mr Big, rumored to called McGill. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 Unlike the rest of the chancers, our largest shareholder Sandy Easdale is actually a convicted fraudster that was sentenced to over 2 years in prison. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 We may have serious reservations over their background but should the Easdales be included amongst the chancers? People will inevitably have very varied opinions on this, but for me, from what we've seen so far, then yes, absolutely. Complete and utter chancers and I can give specific reasoning for thinking that way. The shares they bought in the IPO amounted to a very small investment in the club (under £300k), but for some bizarre reason it propelled them into a position of power with a Directorship and a seat on the board despite having no qualifications to suggest they would be beneficial to the Club's board. The other shares they've purchased and/or agreed to purchase aren't putting a penny into the club and indeed it would look as though most of the other shares they acquire will have come from people who paid virtually nothing for them, like Charles Green. That means that at no point in time have the 'purchase' of those shares been of benefit to the club. The smoke signals they're sending out would suggest that they want to be the largest shareholders and essentially run the club eventually, but they seem to be acting in a manner which suggests they think they already DO own and run the club. Sandy Easdale is saying he'll be the largest shareholder when he completes the deal to buy Green's shares, but in the same breath says he's relying on shares bought by other family members and the shares of 'supporting investors' to back up his claim. They supposedly hired the services of Media House spin doctor Jack Irvine, but are they actually paying for his services out of their own pockets or do his services fall under the umbrella of his much opposed (by fans) recent new contract with the Club? Was Irvine doing PR for Green & Ahmad out of club funds and those services have simply been transferred over to the Easdales? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,680 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 People will inevitably have very varied opinions on this, but for me, from what we've seen so far, then yes, absolutely. Complete and utter chancers and I can give specific reasoning for thinking that way. The shares they bought in the IPO amounted to a very small investment in the club (under £300k), but for some bizarre reason it propelled them into a position of power with a Directorship and a seat on the board despite having no qualifications to suggest they would be beneficial to the Club's board. The other shares they've purchased and/or agreed to purchase aren't putting a penny into the club and indeed it would look as though most of the other shares they acquire will have come from people who paid virtually nothing for them, like Charles Green. That means that at no point in time have the 'purchase' of those shares been of benefit to the club. The smoke signals they're sending out would suggest that they want to be the largest shareholders and essentially run the club eventually, but they seem to be acting in a manner which suggests they think they already DO own and run the club. Sandy Easdale is saying he'll be the largest shareholder when he completes the deal to buy Green's shares, but in the same breath says he's relying on shares bought by other family members and the shares of 'supporting investors' to back up his claim. They supposedly hired the services of Media House spin doctor Jack Irvine, but are they actually paying for his services out of their own pockets or do his services fall under the umbrella of his much opposed (by fans) recent new contract with the Club? Was Irvine doing PR for Green & Ahmad out of club funds and those services have simply been transferred over to the Easdales? once the 'dave king show' comes to town all bets will be off. I don't think the Easdales are anywhere near control. That 10% will be diluted once there's a second share issue underwritten by King 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I want to give the Easdales a chance really, not backing them or anything. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 i just don't think their is anything the easdales could do that would overcome the embarrassment of having them involved. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 It would be pretty insincere of me to claim embarassment when I'd never even heard of them before they got involved with us. 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.