TheWee BlueDevil 0 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 ]That is the most ridiculous thing McMurdo has ever written [/b]and that is saying something. He has lost it entirely. No it's not mate. The guy posts ridiculous propaganda on a regular basis. I'm not even sure how much input he has to "his own blog". Bought and sold months ago. He is a huge embarrassment and a disgrace to all Bears. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Bill has really set a few people on the back foot, after all what has changed except the names on share certs, Laxey via Kingsnorth have all but admitted they were powerless against Ashley, even with 16% shareholding. What will the new share holders be able to enforce against Ashley that the Laxey camp failed to. There will be no share issue it will be a rights issue if any at all, the share issue was voted down by RF and RST amongst others. When Ashley decides good or bad we will know. Haven't seen good buddy RangersRab about, surely not another enforced holiday. This is actually true and why it is utterly futile anyone putting their hand in their pocket to buy shares unless you gain 51% and can effect change. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I don't know or care to know anything about Toxic Jack, Merlin, McMurdo, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all but Rangers are going to require more or less a new team at the end of this season whether we gain promotion or not. Regardless of whether we are in the SPFL next season that team will need to be upgraded gradually over the next two or three seasons at least until hopefully we start to feature regularly in Europe again and can become self-financing. So it is a legitimate question to ask of Ashley, Los Tres Amigos, or any other individual or group of individuals seeking to gain control of the Club, exactly how much and by what means they intend funding the re-establishment of the Club from it's current hand to mouth existence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quattro 0 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 This is actually true and why it is utterly futile anyone putting their hand in their pocket to buy shares unless you gain 51% and can effect change. I note that Mr Houston of SoS concurs with your reservations (you should read his contribution very well thought out), always good to see some approach from the angle of truth rather than wishful thinking, there would be less beeling people in the world 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siam69 0 Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 I note that Mr Houston of SoS concurs with your reservations (you should read his contribution very well thought out), always good to see some approach from the angle of truth rather than wishful thinking, there would be less beeling people in the world Frankie asked you this question not so long ago, but for some reason best known to you, you failed to answer. I might try again, if I might be so bold, now here's what Frankie said to you - Quattro or whatever alias he's using this week on knows this full well. Before I ban him again, maybe he can explain why he continues to hide behind a variety of logins and proxies across the community and does what he does? Because I certainly can't begin to understand him and I doubt David Holmes could either... Any chance of answering this time? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,447 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 This is actually true and why it is utterly futile anyone putting their hand in their pocket to buy shares unless you gain 51% and can effect change. How do they need to get 51 percent themselves? Them and other shareholders who back them may soon have more than Ashley, the Easdales and the Easdale proxies. Its a case of doing the arithmetic 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 This is actually true and why it is utterly futile anyone putting their hand in their pocket to buy shares unless you gain 51% and can effect change. Disagree completely. For example, a 25% holding can block asset sales. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 How do they need to get 51 percent themselves? Them and other shareholders who back them may soon have more than Ashley, the Easdales and the Easdale proxies. Its a case of doing the arithmetic. Aw fuck! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,579 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Bill the ranter talks nonsense 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Bill has really set a few people on the back foot, after all what has changed except the names on share certs, Laxey via Kingsnorth have all but admitted they were powerless against Ashley, even with 16% shareholding. What will the new share holders be able to enforce against Ashley that the Laxey camp failed to. There will be no share issue it will be a rights issue if any at all, the share issue was voted down by RF and RST amongst others. When Ashley decides good or bad we will know. Haven't seen good buddy RangersRab about, surely not another enforced holiday. Really don't understand you lot. 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.