pete 2,499 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 As far as I know they never sold any shares it was Rangers first that hinted in a press release that if they wanted to sell then RF was very interested in buying. I also don't believe they will need to sell to buy Morton as you can own shares in different companies but can't be the owner of two teams. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,368 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 There must be a huge question mark over their ability to take over Morton under the SFA FPP test. The carnage they oversaw at Rangers under their watch & controlling interest SHOULD prevent them from ever getting involved in football again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 You would expect that there is likely to come a time when being a bit part at Rangers with no say on the board and little influence, while the value of your shares drops, is going to get very uninteresting for someone with no real love for the club. I'm hoping that once the share issue waters down their shareholding, and those they proxy, along with the cancellation of rights of some of the latter, they will get bored and sell up. I can only think that MA has something to do with them not having done so already. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Just a bad memory now, 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,453 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 There must be a huge question mark over their ability to take over Morton under the SFA FPP test. The carnage they oversaw at Rangers under their watch & controlling interest SHOULD prevent them from ever getting involved in football again. Why? they've never been charged with any criminal offence have they? What laws did they break? I'd be more concerned whom they'd sell their shareholding to and maybe that of those whose shareholding they represented(assuming they're still representing them) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Why? they've never been charged with any criminal offence have they? What laws did they break?I'd be more concerned whom they'd sell their shareholding to and maybe that of those whose shareholding they represented(assuming they're still representing them) one of them's done time 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,453 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 one of them's done time Very true. Didn't stop him becoming a Rangers director though did it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Very true. Didn't stop him becoming a Rangers director though did it? I thought only the one that had no record was named a director. The other Sandy was obviously the boss but I don't think he was a named director. I may be wrong though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,923 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I thought only the one that had no record was named a director. The other Sandy was obviously the boss but I don't think he was a named director. I may be wrong though. James was a non-exec director of the plc board. Sandy was the Chairman of the football club board, a subsidiary of the plc. 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.