RANGERRAB 3,757 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 £2,134,567.58p Letham and park? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 so sandy easdale plans to block this investment in the club then. bad move from sandy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Letham and park? and others i can't name at present. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Is King & co a single entity or several entities? If it were several surely existing shares could be bought by one or more for say 50p per share. Not enough is known about king & co IMO. That's the way it is, Rab. This is how the game is played at Rangers and it's how you want it to be. If Dermot Desmond's second cousin three times removed bought Rangers tomorrow, you'd have to deal with it and live with it. There's no point complaining if an owner doesn't meet with your approval when you have been holding the door open for everyone and anyone to stroll right through it. If Dave King buys Rangers and decides to run it on a shoestring budget, he'll be perfectly entitled to do just that. No-one needs to prove anything to buy Rangers - just agree a deal with the seller(s), and that's it. I'm not a fan of Dave King, but if he succeeds in buying Rangers, he'll be a far better owner than we deserve even if the team labours and struggles for years. You want the ownership of Rangers trusted to luck. If King gets the gig, we'll have landed lucky - this time . . . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Owners of Rangers will always be hostage to the fans. We won't fund mediocrity 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Is the bit about DK being possibly be barred from being a Rangers director by AIM true or not presumably following his SA tax issues ? Or the SFA too? Well the South African authorities with whom he had his dispute don't have a problem do they? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Owners of Rangers will always be hostage to the fans. We won't fund mediocrity We have often done so over the last 45 years, not least for the last few seasons,. More importantly we have funded a succession of thieves and charlatans far less footballing mediocrity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Questions Still Hang Over King’s Bid For Power Despite media reports that Dave King would be jetting into Glasgow today, I believe we are still waiting for the messiah’s umpteenth coming to take place. I am not sure what the South African based businessman can do to press any claims he has made to the crown at Ibrox as too many questions remain unanswered by him and his supporters. These supporters have been attempting to quell any suggestion that King would be bombed out as a fit and proper person by the SFA in terms of of a directorial role at Ibrox but even if this were the case, the AIM would be a much tougher nut to crack. If, as seems a stick-on certainty, King is deemed unacceptable director material by the AIM, it would then lead to the sticky situation of any Dave King appointed director being seen to be just a place man. This in itself is not necessarily the worst thing but the fact that it would leave King open to the charges of functioning as a shadow director has potentially very bad ramifications for the club and PLC. The Stock Exchange frowns on such things and punitive measures could be imposed. These measures include the club’s listing being pulled so it is not a minor infraction. Which all poses the question: Will Dave King be happy to have a hands-off role in the club, given that control is seemingly so vital to him and integral to his plans? On top of this, there is the little matter of proof of funds. From what I am told, Rangers CEO Graham Wallace has not performed due diligence on this matter and no proof of funds has been shown to the board. A stupefying omission given the nature of talks and the perceived seriousness of the situation. Furthermore, the board still lacks any information on the identity and viability of King’s other mystery backers. So much for transparency, eh? Of course, even if Dave King ticked all these empty boxes, there is the most important matter of all for him to address and that is the willingness of the shareholders to go along with his plans. For King to accomplish his objectives he simply must get more shareholder backing. Since Sandy Easdale himself controls 26% of the shares, this makes it virtually impossible for King to get special resolutions passed. King has a piss poor hand in a game where he is one call away from being wiped out. His only ace is the backing of a lunatic fringe of boycotters and red card display organisers. That has been seen to be effective in hampering progress but incapable of delivering a mortal blow to the present regime. All the while Mike Ashley is waiting and plotting. Some think he has already shown he can play Dave King like an old fiddle with the moves he has made so far but it may be a great mistake to write King off at this stage. The man from South Africa still has a long way to go if he wants to be the power at Ibrox. The hurdles to be overcome may just be too much for him, no matter how determined he is. If there are any issues with shadow directors at Rangers, then they involve people other than King. As for the "stick on certainty" that the AIM will block his involvement, I think King might just have checked that out in advance, don't you Bill? I don't know who he thinks he's influencing with this drivel, but at least it's good for a giggle. Jack, on the other hand, is really losing his touch. Time to retire wee man. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,757 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 and others i can't name at present. As I said earlier, there's still too much unknown about King & co to make proper judgements about them 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,757 Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Well the South African authorities with whom he had his dispute don't have a problem do they? It's not the SA authorities he has to worry about though is it? 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.