Rangers takeover: Deal agreed in principle

[Uilleam 6,225]

7 hours ago, buster. said:

It was a reply to your point.

 

You are who decided to focus on the interest rate in your reply to a more general post of mine.

 

Turns out that you were inaccurate. I merely pointed this out with some workings.

 

 

Nah! Not 'avin' that.

You just wanted/want a stick to beat the Board, the outgoing Board at that. 

 

We see you. 

[Uilleam 6,225]

17 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

Need them to get in with the war chest.

Trump has stopped war chests for Europe.

Do keep up, man. 

[buster. 5,473]

Just now, Uilleam said:

Nah! Not 'avin' that.

You just wanted/want a stick to beat the Board, the outgoing Board at that. 

 

We see you. 

Have you been on the whacky backy?

 

You posted about the interest rate and you turned out to be inaccurate.

I simply showed you why.

 

If what you were attempting was 'to defend the board'. then I would humbly suggest you did so with more care and attention to accuracy. It wasn't difficult, even for a layman like myself.

[Uilleam 6,225]

7 hours ago, buster. said:

It was a reply to your point.

 

You are who decided to focus on the interest rate in your reply to a more general post of mine.

 

Turns out that you were inaccurate. I merely pointed this out with some workings.

 

 

Does it matter, unless you want to 'hammer' the Board for paying commercial interest rates? 

[buster. 5,473]

25 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Does it matter, unless you want to 'hammer' the Board for paying commercial interest rates? 

My initial post had two parts.

 

One, to comment that the Chris Jack article (given timing and lack of real substance) seemed to me like the time honoured tactic of serving to distract / animate / encourage, etc, rather than inform. 

 

Secondly, I mentioned the possible revenue that tonight may generate and that would potentially help the club with cashflow. It may mean we don't have to pay so much in commercial interest rates.

 

That isn't hammering the board for paying commercial interest rates. It is more an observation/opinion on the article and why it dropped when it did.

 

_------------_

 

There have been millions of words published on the proposed takeover and very few actually enlighten us.  For the most part, interested parties have been giving nods and winks to chosen outlets and journalists/podcasts etc. have been rehashing the same 'information'.

 

It seems clear that we won't know the important details until when and if the takeover is completed.

 

Until that point, we are in the dark with our fingers crossed.

[Uilleam 6,225]

12 minutes ago, buster. said:

My initial post had two parts.

 

One, to comment that the Chris Jack article (given timing and lack of real substance) seemed to me like the time honoured tactic of serving to distract / animate / encourage, etc, rather than inform. 

 

Secondly, I mentioned the possible revenue that tonight may generate and that would potentially help the club with cashflow. It may mean we don't have to pay so much in commercial interest rates.

 

That isn't hammering the board for paying commercial interest rates. It is more an observation/opinion on the article and why it dropped when it did.

 

_------------_

 

There have been millions of words published on the proposed takeover and very few actually enlighten us.  For the most part, interested parties have been giving nods and winks to chosen outlets and journalists/podcasts etc. have been rehashing the same 'information'.

 

It seems clear that we won't know the important details until when and if the takeover is completed.

 

Until that point, we are in the dark with our fingers crossed.

Well, I am glad that you clarified all that.

 

 

 

[buster. 5,473]

4 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Well, I am glad that you clarified all that.

 

 

 

You should have just thanked me for pointing out your error and you would have been spared from it.

 

 

[Uilleam 6,225]

1 minute ago, buster. said:

You should have just thanked me for pointing out your error and you would have been spared from it.

 

 

You should be on the Board!!

[Scott7 6,522]

1 hour ago, Uilleam said:

You should be on the Board!!

@buster. may not be on the Board but correctly in my view, he has defended them, Mr Bennett in particular against their most persistent critic on here.

[Uilleam 6,225]

16 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

their most persistent critic on here.

I don't know who that is. (I should pay more attention.... Perhaps not.)

 

The shareholders and board members are in a process of disengagement, it seems, so there is less point in worrying about the past, than there is in worrying about the future. Although, as we have little or no influence on what is to come, why worry?