Rangers power battle: Graham Wallace axed...

[Rangersitis 0]

I don't for the life of me see why the sfa are allowing this

 

What does it have to do with the SFA?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What does it have to do with the SFA?

 

I am talking of the wider situation. Just picked one thread to vent. Wallace is nothing to me but we have just plunged ourself into debt. Refused tens of millions of investment and been taken over by Ashley.

 

He's not even pretending to hide it.

[Rangersitis 0]

He may have technically resigned but that would probably be after he had secured the pay-off that his contract entitled him to. It's just cleaner for both parties of they can agree to a resignation but Wallace would still insist on his full pay-off.

 

Oh, I don't doubt it. My post wasn't meant to be entirely serious. Admitting to a couple of sackings would have resulted in all manner of questions being asked. As you say, nice and clean....with a wee confidentiality clause thrown in for good measure.

[Rangersitis 0]

I am talking of the wider situation. Just picked one thread to vent. Wallace is nothing to me but we have just plunged ourself into debt. Refused tens of millions of investment and been taken over by Ashley.

 

He's not even pretending to hide it.

 

To all intents and purposes, he has taken over, but more importantly, technically, he hasn't. There has been no breach of the 10% agreement he has with the SFA.

 

You need to give up on this claim that King offered investment and it was refused. It was the conditions that he was imposing which were refused.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What's the difference

[Rangersitis 0]

What's the difference

 

About the investment? If he offered it up without wanting anything in return, it would have been snapped up. Obviously that example wouldn't have been practical, but I used it just for illustration purposes.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

About the investment? If he offered it up without wanting anything in return, it would have been snapped up. Obviously that example wouldn't have been practical, but I used it just for illustration purposes.

 

ashley has got the same for a loan of 2 million.

 

we have gone from 16 million investment to 2 million debt.

 

i don't have to accept that, i don't intend to and anyone who does is doing us no favour.s

[Frankie 8,674]

ashley has got the same for a loan of 2 million.

 

we have gone from 16 million investment to 2 million debt.

 

i don't have to accept that, i don't intend to and anyone who does is doing us no favour.s

 

The £2m loan will just carry us over to the share issue of which we don't know the terms of - other than it will now be fully controlled by Ashley.

 

That will be the board's reasoning for their decision.

[Rangersitis 0]

ashley has got the same for a loan of 2 million.

 

we have gone from 16 million investment to 2 million debt.

 

i don't have to accept that, i don't intend to and anyone who does is doing us no favour.s

 

You can't just ignore those who controlled enough of the shares to torpedo King's plan. He had to make an offer which persuaded them all to accept. He failed to do so. Now it may be that no offer he made would have been good enough, but that is another matter altogether.

[Hildy 0]

The power of money allied to a ruthless streak - it can certainly get results.

 

It remains to be seen if Ashley will be allowed to buy up a controlling interest or whether he'll have enough allies to carry on as though he is Mr 51%, but this man does things his way and compromises only when he's feeling charitable. Those who worshipped David Murray will adore Mike Ashley and be obedient to his every whim.

 

For others, though, this will be the last stop on a Rangers journey that turned into a mystery tour.