andy steel 0 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 From what little I can gather, the statement about the new, plus-size board has come from the present board and been pooh-poohed by McColl's lot, so claims that he is OK with the likes of the Easdales may be a bit premature. Every statement which confuses the issue comes from the board. Very occasionally we get a clarification from McColl's lot. I think that tells its own story, in all honesty. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Apologies for being repetitive. I remain puzzled at McColl's apparent ambivalence to the Easdale situation. Jim McColl is bound to have respected business associates and it is likely to have crossed their minds that it is surprising that Mr McColl would see it as a good thing that both, never mind one, of the Easdale brothers are on the board of Glasgow Rangers and would be raising this with him. I may be just a bit dim but I wish someone could assist me in explaining McColl's thinking on this one. My take on this is that the only people who want Sandy Easdale on our board are Sandy Easdale and his supporters, but I could be wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Apologies for being repetitive. I remain puzzled at McColl's apparent ambivalence to the Easdale situation. Jim McColl is bound to have respected business associates and it is likely to have crossed their minds that it is surprising that Mr McColl would see it as a good thing that both, never mind one, of the Easdale brothers are on the board of Glasgow Rangers and would be raising this with him. I may be just a bit dim but I wish someone could assist me in explaining McColl's thinking on this one. Try him on Monaco 77203. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Apologies for being repetitive. I remain puzzled at McColl's apparent ambivalence to the Easdale situation. Jim McColl is bound to have respected business associates and it is likely to have crossed their minds that it is surprising that Mr McColl would see it as a good thing that both, never mind one, of the Easdale brothers are on the board of Glasgow Rangers and would be raising this with him. I may be just a bit dim but I wish someone could assist me in explaining McColl's thinking on this one. it is possible that the easdales have offered mccoll their support. not ideal but perhaps a necessary evil for now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) it is possible that the easdales have offered mccoll their support. not ideal but perhaps a necessary evil for now. I am tempted to compare them to a famous pair of twins but frankly I don't have the nerve. Edited September 4, 2013 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,664 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 my take on all of this is that by allowing Murray, Blin & McClelland into the boardroom Mather, Stockbridge & co have more or less invited the foxes into the hen house. These 2 groups have widely differing views. They cannot possIbly work together. There's no doubt in my mind there will be some sort of boardroom coup but I simply cannot fathom out what McColl's role is in this i.e. won't invest and doesn't want control 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 my best guess is he is helping out walter as a favor. 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.