Super Cooper 0 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 How dare he try and protect the assets of Rangers from a bunch of unscrupulous c*&ts! You know what i mean, there was never any way on Gods earth the board were going to go for stuff like that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Looks to me like Dave King, Paul Murray and various other parties including Kennedy are deeply concerned about the Club's assets. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 You know what i mean, there was never any way on Gods earth the board were going to go for stuff like that. If they were acting in the interests of all shareholders as they are legally obliged to do then why not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 If they were acting in the interests of all shareholders as they are legally obliged to do then why not? Well because they are not mate! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 If they were acting in the interests of all shareholders as they are legally obliged to do then why not? Is there a mechanism whereby the shareholders, other than the institutional shareholders, can meaningfully display their displeasure with the board's actions here? Other than calling for a vote to replace them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Is there a mechanism whereby the shareholders, other than the institutional shareholders, can meaningfully display their displeasure with the board's actions here?Other than calling for a vote to replace them. Yes an AGM, but it won't make a blind bit of difference if over 50% of the shareholders are acting in concert. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrox Street Boy 0 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 If they were acting in the interests of all shareholders as they are legally obliged to do then why not? 3% interest compared to 0% perhaps? I think that's in the shareholders best interest 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Terrible shame that never went through for rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 3% interest compared to 0% perhaps? I think that's in the shareholders best interest £45k in interest over six months as opposed to the cost of paying off Graham Wallace, which option do you think's the cheapest and in the best interests of all shareholders? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 3% interest compared to 0% perhaps? I think that's in the shareholders best interest how do you know that? I haven't seen any details of Ashley's loan. 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.