buster. 5,257 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 How often do you attend games buster? Have you been reading the Jimmy Sanderson handbook on how to handle 'awkward callers' ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Because i'd like to get out of this without admin actually needing to happen, there's still a chance for that if King comes in offering them a way out king will not do that, he has said so from day one. rangers need his cash not the ****s. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 So now you want King to come in and reward your wee band for siphoning off millions of pounds? Not only do you worship at the feet of Charlie, you are even using his patter now. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pitiful. Do you actually bother reading anything anyone says? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 king will not do that, he has said so from day one. rangers need his cash not the ****s. He can't acquire the club for free can he? I was insinuating he'll get a cut price deal with things looking so bleak 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 here is my plan. we boycott, those with season books demand refunds (they won't get them but the demand will be noted). no one attends matches. instead we form peacful pickett lines outside. no one uses mcgills buses or sports direct, no one buys anything from any sponsor. we demand an independent board of people who we know will act in rangers best interests. john bennet, george letham, walter smith, etc. we agree that once that's in place and in control we will flood back on a game by game basis. this could all be over pre hibs at the end of the month. we also make it clear that the boycott continues post a pre pack admin. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Do you actually bother reading anything anyone says? Absolutely. That is the reason I have you bang to rights. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 He can't acquire the club for free can he? I was insinuating he'll get a cut price deal with things looking so bleak he will put cash into rangers and in effect gain control. right now 4 million quid in would get you 25%. 14 million in will take you over 50% 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I doubt it either - however, it is possible and it's one of few alternatives to a boycott. In fact doing it alongside a boycott would strengthen our argument no end. Perpetuating old wounds will only weaken it. Agree with all points other than an 'understanding' looking possible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,257 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 here is my plan. we boycott, those with season books demand refunds (they won't get them but the demand will be noted). no one attends matches. instead we form peacful pickett lines outside. no one uses mcgills buses or sports direct, no one buys anything from any sponsor. we demand an independent board of people who we know will act in rangers best interests. john bennet, george letham, walter smith, etc. we agree that once that's in place and in control we will flood back on a game by game basis. this could all be over pre hibs at the end of the month. we also make it clear that the boycott continues post a pre pack admin. I agree with most of that although the make-up of the board would have to represent the shareholdings to a large degree. This would perhaps mean an ongoing split. It should mean that the support get someone on the board. I think the initial priority is to gain executive control. This would in essence be similar to the struggle prior to the AGM of 2013.....trying to convince some of the institutions to side with the good guys. I'm no expert so those who are, feel free to rip my post to shreds. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I agree with most of that although the make-up of the board would have to represent the shareholdings to a large degree.This would perhaps mean an ongoing split. It should mean that the support get someone on the board. I think the initial priority is to gain executive control. This would in essence be similar to the struggle prior to the AGM of 2013.....trying to convince some of the institutions to side with the good guys. I'm no expert so those who are, feel free to rip my post to shreds. forget the shareholders. they are the problem. if they want value in their shares they need 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.