Sutton_blows_goats 5,326 Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 I dont care if Mr Bean and Mr Blobby own the club. But the guys needed to make decisions need to be on it and making good ones ASAP. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franc Ergs 1,641 Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 3 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said: I dont care if Mr Bean and Mr Blobby own the club. But the guys needed to make decisions need to be on it and making good ones ASAP. I think they already do. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic Sharp 40 Posted September 1 Author Share Posted September 1 38 minutes ago, Bluedell said: King and Park deserve credit for the amount of finance that they put in and we're now struggling as it was always said that it was front loaded. However King has caused as many issues as Park with some of his crazy retail deals and the cash it's taken to get out of them. In my opinion, King doesn't want back in. He's basically done his bit (other than to bitch about Park in the press any time we're about to play an OF game) and doesn't have the enthusiasm or cash to get more involved. Let's remember he's 70 next year. Park is pretty much the same, which is why he's stepped away and resigned as a director. He's 74 and not keeping that well, as far as I know. I'm not sure how much influence he has any more. The retail stuff was deals the crooked corrupt old Board entered into Green etc. While those deals were alive investment was hard to come by. Re Parks I'm sure his investment was underwritten* by King. As I recall reading it was easier for King to get money out of South Africa if they were in the form of debts. Capitalism in SA has become bad. Also, the fight between Ashley and King was taken away from Rangers, despite it being a Rangers problem. He did that to encourage further investors as the SA authorities limited him taking cash from the country. King's intention was to cede power to the fans group. Not complete power but the 25% in order to ensure there was no dilution of % shares of others by the printing of new shares - Parks etc did that and I'm still not sure if the fans group Club1872 managed to maintain their % share. All in order that a Murray type figure didn't gain total control again. *I think that meant if Rangers went belly up King would give the money back to Parks etc. As you can see I'm a DK supporter and therefor biased. The nightmare scenario is Parks dying and leaving his idiot son Graeme with his shares.. A real nightmare. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,653 Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 1 hour ago, Bluedell said: He can't sell up if there's nobody to buy his shares, as Dave King has found out. Given all that's being going on at C1872, having someone on the board is problematic. He could easily sell his shares but anyone buying them would want a say in how the club is run. That’s not easy because of how the share ownership is at present. Anyone buying existing shares would need to get around 25 to 30 percent shareholding 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,624 Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 11 hours ago, Chic Sharp said: The retail stuff was deals the crooked corrupt old Board entered into Green etc. While those deals were alive investment was hard to come by. King then created further problems in his crazy deals to try and get it out of that, which cost us a lot of cash. 11 hours ago, Chic Sharp said: Also, the fight between Ashley and King was taken away from Rangers, despite it being a Rangers problem. He did that to encourage further investors as the SA authorities limited him taking cash from the country. King made it personal, which Rangers ended up paying the cost of. The fight wasn't taken away from Rangers but rather iy made it more difficult for Rangers to get away from the deal. 11 hours ago, Chic Sharp said: Re Parks I'm sure his investment was underwritten* by King. As I recall reading it was easier for King to get money out of South Africa if they were in the form of debts. Capitalism in SA has become bad. *I think that meant if Rangers went belly up King would give the money back to Parks etc. I haven't heard that and have no reason to believe it's true. Park wanted to invest in the club and tried to buy it prior to 2011. With all due respect, it dsounds like a crazy internet rumour, but I stand to be corrected. 11 hours ago, Chic Sharp said: King's intention was to cede power to the fans group. Not complete power but the 25% in order to ensure there was no dilution of % shares of others by the printing of new shares - Parks etc did that and I'm still not sure if the fans group Club1872 managed to maintain their % share. All in order that a Murray type figure didn't gain total control again. It's my view that King did it because there was nobody else willing to buy his shares. He was effectively controlling C1872 through their board and the shadow director, and the board of C1872 acted shamefully by agreeing to give him their money rather than invest the money in the club buy buying new shares. 11 hours ago, Chic Sharp said: As you can see I'm a DK supporter and therefor biased. I'd like to think that I'm objective and can see both the good and bad that King and Park have done. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,314 Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 14 hours ago, Bluedell said: Although I don't personally know the OP, I can vouch for him. He has produced the most wonderful spreadsheets..... Are they still posted on the forum somewhere? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,742 Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 On a sidenote, has Gillespie actually signed up? There was some furore and now all has died down ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenny3k 660 Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 25 minutes ago, der Berliner said: On a sidenote, has Gillespie actually signed up? There was some furore and now all has died down ... My guess is he's working a notice period 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic Sharp 40 Posted September 2 Author Share Posted September 2 (edited) 7 hours ago, Bluedell said: King then created further problems in his crazy deals to try and get it out of that, which cost us a lot of cash. [there was no way to deal with the problem without legal dealings, and at that point it largely became a game of cards where the winner was the one NOT to fold. So, I'd say there was rationale for that mate.] King made it personal, which Rangers ended up paying the cost of. The fight wasn't taken away from Rangers but rather iy made it more difficult for Rangers to get away from the deal. [I disagree and it could easily be argued that by making it personal (when he took him on solo and removed it from the clubs finances) he got Ashley to do so too. As DK said prior to that "this has turned personal, so Rangers won't NOW be involved" in other words it's a square go with me and him, largely taking Ashley's eye off the ball (Rangers) it was a bit like that episode of Star Trek TNG when there was a foreign species stuck to the Enterprise feeding off its energy supplies. What was it Picard said.. sour the milk (the organism thought it found mums breast)] I haven't heard that and have no reason to believe it's true. Park wanted to invest in the club and tried to buy it prior to 2011. With all due respect, it dsounds like a crazy internet rumour, but I stand to be corrected. [Parks made an arse of that by offering just a little more than the offer that the corrupt Administrators had accepted. Had King offered £5m more that would've given the media something to create an issue out of.] It's my view that King did it because there was nobody else willing to buy his shares. He was effectively controlling C1872 through their board and the shadow director, and the board of C1872 acted shamefully by agreeing to give him their money rather than invest the money in the club buy buying new shares. [again I disagree. He'd already got rid of the blood sucking Ashley (although through Castore they're back feeding off of us) the club was then a great proposition - great fans who'll cough up at the drop of a hat (great phrase that btw) so it's (and you could see it when Steven Gerrard came in) not a hard investment opportunity. Parks having ruined all the good work has made it such it is NOW a bit harder to get investors because they can see this Board aren't gonna challenge Celtic.] I'd like to think that I'm objective and can see both the good and bad that King and Park have done. [aside from the EH, which should have been bigger, and the new seating for the disabled, I see nothing that good that Parks has done. King on the other had had only a couple of flaws that I saw. 1) he left that coward Stuart Robertson in charge, but I put that down to him having to have a yes man because he was away in SA most of the time, and 2) leaving Parks in charge... then again the excuse for that is maybe had more faith in the other Board members than he should've had] I recall another Number One fanzine contributor 'soap box' I think his name was and myself had a running wee debate (email) about the Royal Family (pro's and cons) and we agreed that the q and a was done in different colours. It was very amusing and in the end we just ran out of different colours. Nice wee debate mate, but maybe time to agree to disagree? Edited September 2 by Chic Sharp 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic Sharp 40 Posted September 2 Author Share Posted September 2 1 hour ago, lenny3k said: My guess is he's working a notice period I hope you're wrong there Lenny. Looks like another Stuart Robertson YES MAN. 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.