the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 no it wasn't. the ****s were never going to allow them to win. anyone in their right mind knows that. remember stockbridge won and wilson lost. a rather tragic result for rangers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 It is always interesting to note how people see the same statements and facts from very certain angles and make an opinion of that. On a sidenote, Sandy Easdale is not on the board, so Wallace is quite right to say that he does not speak for the board, but as a shareholder. Easdale's assumption that a greater loss of ST income this summer may result in fragile finances is not that hard to understand ... and would probably hold true for most clubs living of ST income. Whether it comes to pass remains to be seen. Quite..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 All shareholders can give interviews on board matters or comment on board actions, if they want to. Sandy Easdale is contact-wise (due to his brother) obviously far closer to the board than other shareholders, but also in terms of geography. These are just general remarks, BTW. Likewise: I am not sure whether other "major" shareholders were invited to join the board at the AGM and declined or were unable to appear. Do you? As I've said a few times, it is not just black & white out there and it would suit the debate if people would on occasion try to leave their trenches. Some stuff that is being writting is sure lacking a certain degree of objectivity and you would at least expect it from some, non-involved journos. Your first three sentences don't actually say anything or deal with the points raised, so it's hard to respond. As to your fourth, you're right. I don't for a fact know that other shareholders weren't invited. However, nor do I know for a fact whether the Consul General of Japan was invited but couldn't attend. In both cases, the likelihood is about the same. The fact is that S Easedale has an undue and unjustifiable influence on the board and this is an indictment on the way the board is being run. Quite why you are refusing to acknowledge the undeniable is beyond me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTinMan99 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 "We (the Requisitioners) said we would serve on the board for nothing. "Our purpose was not personal gain or self-aggrandisement. We were all prepared to work together for the good of the club." This is the polar opposite of what we have had for 2 seasons, and for the foreseeable. It's tragic how we have good men prepared to work their arses off for nothing, and some of us call them every name under the sun. When people like Mr Wilson, and Mr King speak, it's abundantly clear how much they care for the club. Future generations won't forgive us for not giving them 100% backing. It's sad how the term "Rangers man", has somehow become synonymous with wanting to harm us. It really is a shite state of affairs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 In the interests of balance i thought James Easdale didn't take a salary? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Trumpeter 50 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 In the interests of balance i thought James Easdale didn't take a salary? Billy Paterson will tell you shortly........ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Billy Paterson will tell you shortly........ I look forward to it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Billy Paterson will tell you shortly........ Billy did try to tell them on RM earlier today, but he was hounded off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott12003 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 As far as I'm concerned the institutional investors and shareholders who voted with the existing board members at the agm deserve to lose a substantial part of their investment.they took a punt buying shares, voting in again those who had already raised concerns with their actions and now share price is pish poor the club has no money and the fans their biggest cash cow are finally seeing through the charade.All because of the way they voted at the AGM.they should cut their losses and fuck right off. Unless of course there has always been some other endgame they are pursuing..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 As far as I'm concerned the institutional investors and shareholders who voted with the existing board members at the agm deserve to lose a substantial part of their investment.they took a punt buying shares, voting in again those who had already raised concerns with their actions and now share price is pish poor the club has no money and the fans their biggest cash cow are finally seeing through the charade.All because of the way they voted at the AGM.they should cut their losses and fuck right off.Unless of course there has always been some other endgame they are pursuing..... How should they have voted at the AGM? 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.