the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Because they want 35p 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think the fan minded shareholders would win a vote comfortably if it came to it. They're probably worried about the carnage the current lot could cause in the intervening period though. Better to try and get them to go peaceably if possible IMO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Because they want 35p Let's call that a 10p premium per share. If the good guys bought another 5% holding from one of them on that basis, it's only an additional £400k (£1.4m against the going rate of £1m). £400k is not to be sniffed at, but every half full home game will cost us the same. Of course GreenCo might say it's all or nothing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisabeer 409 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 im sick of the silence. we deserve to know whats going on. Imo they should have called an egm from the offset. lets face it, thats exactly where we're going to end up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 4,132 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Maybe the RFFF should step in here and make up for the difference ... or do we keep that money dry till the SPFL and SFA do something silly with regards to our license? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Maybe the RFFF should step in here and make up for the difference ... or do we keep that money dry till the SPFL and SFA do something silly with regards to our license? I suspect it will be nearly impossible to get agreement on what to spend it on. Sprucing up Ibrox once ownership is finally sorted out is the only thing I can think of that all parties might agree to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Not sure I understand this. 'Both the factions vying for control need a long hard look at themselves, I can't believe they've rejected sarver in favour of finding who throws the best crisis loan at us. Fucking sickening.' Why 'both factions' ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfc52 0 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Not sure I understand this. 'Both the factions vying for control need a long hard look at themselves, I can't believe they've rejected sarver in favour of finding who throws the best crisis loan at us. Fucking sickening.' Why 'both factions' ? Because I'd imagine both Easdales block and ashley and king/T3B will have rejected sarvers proposal. Therefor both factions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 bring back sarver. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Because I'd imagine both Easdales block and ashley and king/T3B will have rejected sarvers proposal. Therefor both factions. You imagine, aye ok. Who did Sarver blame ? 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.