Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

"Interesting" to see how various non-Rangers people view a return to top tier and CL footie in a much shorter space of time than quite a few Bears. Perhaps they assume that Ashley could invest 5 to 10m, i.e. "peanuts", to get us a squad that could compete for the top tier title next season and in Europe thereafter. It's not that the Yahoos or any other Premiership team is unconquerable these days ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of comments from FF on these articles ...

 

I speak regularly to a Toon fan and his take on it is: Newcastle are in a very healthy financial position as a business. The reason they don't like Ashley and want rid of him is he invests nothing into the squad to make them compete. That's the priority we fans want. A winning team.

I know nothing about the guy but it seems as a business man he piddles all over anything we currently have.

 

Yes, I think this is probably the big selling point for someone like Ashley.

Assuming that we get into the top league next season, £10m, spent astutely (ahem ...), could imo buy the players that would win the league.

Along with a few loanees from NUFC perhaps.

Ashley does come in for a heck of a lot of criticism, but down here (near Newcastle) even the Toon fans that dislike him think that Rangers could do a lot worse than have a business-like billionaire running us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they wouldn't. Even super majority votes need 75% to pass. So with 20% holding King could STILL have little say in how the Club is run if he couldn't gain a further 5% voting support. That 5% becomes 30% for regular shareholder votes

 

So if the reqs had got,say, 55 percent of the votes at the AGM and the board got the remaining 45 percent the reqs would still be unable to get places on the board?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading the Daily Mail the other day and Simon Heffer described Obama as 'long on analysis,short on action'.

A perfect analysis of Dave King too I thought

 

He can obviously rectify all this next week or the like, if he puts money on the table or does what is required to save the club. The point is that the this "if" and the name "King" can be found in next to any sentence about his involvement for years now. And that is not exactly "anti-King, just adresses his in-/activities and many a people's opinion about him now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading the Daily Mail the other day and Simon Heffer described Obama as 'long on analysis,short on action'.

A perfect analysis of Dave King too I thought

 

Rab, as you have told everyone time after time that King has no money, how is he supposed to take action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.