Darthter 542 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 There is a limit to the detail provided in audited accounts. What you desribe given circumstances is blind loyalty to a dangerous degree. This comes with precedents that broadly say same people making same mistakes. I say that after pointing that out to many on several occasions (CW, CG etc) and up until this point always being proved correct. I appreciate there will be different opinions but in our case and after recent years and who are still in and around the board (including Easdale proxies), to back those who refuse to give meaningful transparency and engagement is frankly 'strange'. All I know is that I am in no position to provide any detailed, solid argument against certain facts. Folk are stating, as fact, that money is flowing into the pockets of certain shareholders, yet are unable to provide any detail as to how they know this to be fact. If there is no hard evidence it proves the argument as flawed. WRT CW, there was evidence from the start that he wasn't to be trusted, many chose to ignore this and claimed those providing the proof were just sh*t-stirring. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 All I know is that I am in no position to provide any detailed, solid argument against certain facts. Folk are stating, as fact, that money is flowing into the pockets of certain shareholders, yet are unable to provide any detail as to how they know this to be fact. If there is no hard evidence it proves the argument as flawed. WRT CW, there was evidence from the start that he wasn't to be trusted, many chose to ignore this and claimed those providing the proof were just sh*t-stirring. Not sure if I'd agree, waiting for the solid facts tends to mean waiting too long, if our history is anything to go by. I've had enough of watching in horror as solid facts are revealed when I can do nothing about them and am keen not to make the same mistake again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Here's another point...... If money has been going into the pockets of certain shareholders.....what happens if a new board comes in??? The shareholders will still be the same, and they'll be the ones who ultimately appoint a new board. No-one has yet to provide any plans on how to orchestrate a change of shareholders..... DK's trust/fund/account ain't gonna have any influence on the majority of shareholders.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,653 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Look, I've got an exam tomorrow & I'm not spending an hour crawling through the financials of the last two years to get your forensic proof. As for Rab agreeing, he's spent two solid years posting fantasy about Manus Fullerton and now he wants proof? At least when I post my paranoia about being run by Tims I don't expect anyone to challenge me to prove it! FWIW I am extremely suspicious of Fullerton. All I want to know is whether he(as head of LBG's Scottish business banking division at the time) had any input in the ridiculous sale by SDM to CW. Knowing where is football allegiances are did that influence things because CW was a car crash waiting to happen as the then Rangers chairmen AJ stated vociferously at the time. SKY business editor Jeff Randall too. Perhaps the ongoing police investigations & the Insolvency Service investigation will provide us with all we need to know Edited May 6, 2014 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 Not sure if I'd agree, waiting for the solid facts tends to mean waiting too long, if our history is anything to go by. I've had enough of watching in horror as solid facts are revealed when I can do nothing about them and am keen not to make the same mistake again. so you're happy to possibly hound folk out of a job based on a gut feeling??? What happens if a new board comes in & doesn't turn things around in 6 weeks/6 months or what ever your preferred timescale??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,184 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 All I know is that I am in no position to provide any detailed, solid argument against certain facts. Folk are stating, as fact, that money is flowing into the pockets of certain shareholders, yet are unable to provide any detail as to how they know this to be fact. If there is no hard evidence it proves the argument as flawed. Heard it all before and we know where it went. Fool me once,................................shame on you. Fool me twice,...............................shame on me. Fool me yet again........................? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 the product on the park needs to be improved though or people won't turn up to watch. which is why refusing dave kings 50 million is crazy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,653 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 which is why refusing dave kings 50 million is crazy. YAWN..........here we go again............if he really did have this 50million(GBP I presume) the board would be gone in an instant 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 we know certain shareholders received refund from the ipo. a report was made to the serious fraud office about it by a former member of staff. it's subsequently been admitted by board members and former board members. they claim it wasn't illegal. which may or may not be true but we do know money flowed out to certain shareholders for a fact. people can decide where they stand on that but they can not deny it happened. me i know it was illegal regardless of them claiming technicalities and i damn sure know i think it was an abomination. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 we know certain shareholders received refund fro the ipo. a report was made to the serious fraud office about it by a member of staff. agreed....I'm also fairly sure it was mentioned in the Business review summary. Has there been any outcome or progress from the Fraud Office??? 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.