flyingrodent Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I have very little interest in what celtic do or don't do, right now it looks Rangers needs a lot of time and alot of work to put things right. I'm sure this was exactly the position back before a ball was kicked in the old Third Division, a few years ago. Back to square one it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'm sure this was exactly the position back before a ball was kicked in the old Third Division, a few years ago. Back to square one it is. More or less, only without Charles and pals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 More or less, only without Charles and pals. With more debt and less money ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 May I join the you say potato I say potato debate. Nominate can mean to appoint someone to an office, duty, role or position. Now I must admit I thought it was a substance over form argument, but in fact looking at the stock exchange release, it says this; "SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility, any such nomination will be subject to regulatory consent pursuant to the AIM Rules and other regulatory bodies." Therefore I surmise that the definition of nominate was in this case as defined above. The reason I come to that conclusion is that the clumpany (stop laughing at the back) don't seem to have any rights to deny the nomination (as it were). Yours aDONis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 More or less, only without Charles and pals. Quite. Now that you've got rid of that bunch of proven crooks with their track record of failure and financial jiggery-pokery both inside and outside of Ibrox, the future must look very bright under the new crooks, what with their very similar track record. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) May I join the you say potato I say potato debate.Nominate can mean to appoint someone to an office, duty, role or position.Now I must admit I thought it was a substance over form argument, but in fact looking at the stock exchange release, it says this; "SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility, any such nomination will be subject to regulatory consent pursuant to the AIM Rules and other regulatory bodies."Therefore I surmise that the definition of nominate was in this case as defined above. The reason I come to that conclusion is that the clumpany (stop laughing at the back) don't seem to have any rights to deny the nomination (as it were).YoursaDONisEven when King says....(King: I've had discussions with Ashley's allies over who Sports Direct's representatives on Rangers board will be) They're still saying ..aye but he's only nominating them?! Can't wait till Ashley's (rats) are put on the board to hear TEDIs back peddling excuses. Edited March 6, 2015 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 May I join the you say potato I say potato debate. Nominate can mean to appoint someone to an office, duty, role or position. Now I must admit I thought it was a substance over form argument, but in fact looking at the stock exchange release, it says this; "SD will also have the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility, any such nomination will be subject to regulatory consent pursuant to the AIM Rules and other regulatory bodies." Therefore I surmise that the definition of nominate was in this case as defined above. The reason I come to that conclusion is that the clumpany (stop laughing at the back) don't seem to have any rights to deny the nomination (as it were). Yours aDONis In principle I agree with you, my thinking was they do have the right to reject a nomination but not refuse that the seat be filled by someone who they agree should fill the nomination. Otherwise what happens if you start nominating convicted tax evaders, your NOMAD would get nervous and leave and where doe that get you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dublinarab Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Bennet making a lot of sense today. I can understand - if giggle at - the GIRFUY's from the other Sevco fans but given the position that Ashley appears to have established for himself it looks like the new board will have to dig very deep, or suck up to him and come to a long term agreement where they will 'manage' Rangers with his backing. I think if king passes the fit and proper test with the SFA it's a farce, given how clear their rules are but the noises are that he will. I think he ll have no problems with AIM as he's still a wealthy, connected guy and allowed to act on boards, and hold directors positions in the jurisdiction he was convicted in. I think it's wrong given the magnitude of his crimes against the citizens of his poverty stricken and unequal country but capitalism - of which AIM is at the Wild West end of things - is more forgiving. The other guys now involved will probably be able to do a better job than the shower of the last 3 years - if Ashley allows them and the Bears lower their expectations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You saved it at the end? Deflection? You do not half speak some shite. Yes I believe that when an announcement to the stock exchange says nominate it means nominate. Oh you do seem to understand English, thanks for the clarification that nominate means nominate in your head , I was beginning to have my doubts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Are they, how do you know..link with proof or this is just another guess. Not proof but King says here he wont sign the check to fast track the process, so if they go quickly, it should be reasonable to assume they reached a favorable agreement , or no 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 There's no way King should pass a fit and proper test, but I'm sure he will. I don't get why he has to be the front man when there's seemingly credible business figures involved who a) Were not involved with Old Rangers when they went down the shitter, and b) Don't have recent criminal convictions for fraud. It's a con. The SFA/SPFL have obviously told him he'll be allowed in if he pretends to take a step back now and be seen to cooperate with their Mickey Mouse investigations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You saved it at the end? Deflection? You do not half speak some shite. Yes I believe that when an announcement to the stock exchange says nominate it means nominate. Ho Lee Fuk... So Ashley is just going to roll over and have his belly tickled when the RIFC board turns down his nominations? I think not. By the way - what has been happening to the Rangers Clumpany board while all this has been going on? Have any changes been made there? You know - the Clumpany - the thing that's actually playing football? - the thing that all the Fans think they've been buying shares in, when they've just been buying part of a holding company? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Are they, how do you know..link with proof or this is just another guess. Out of interest idiot, what are you going to say when Ashley's new rats go on to the board? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You saved it at the end? Deflection? You do not half speak some shite. Yes I believe that when an announcement to the stock exchange says nominate it means nominate. You may believe that, but i know that when an announcement to the stock exchange is made by RIFC, it is frequently found to be false and followed by a correction. For example http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/462 and http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/456 And that was before the company was run by a glib and shameless liar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) I don't get King's hubris on how he's not bothered if the SFA abide by their own FPP guidelines and AIM don't allow him to be a director. The key thing is (unlike his SA companies where he delegates executive power) King doesn't own TRIFC, he's a minority stock holder. So if the SFA act properly, and AIM do not anoint his directorship, then what has he got really? He can't be seen to be an executive of TRIFC. And if the SFA act spinelessly but AIM do not (possible) he's looking at a delisting which means he has to offer the other Sevco holders fair value - like Romanov did at Hearts, This is aside from the ludicrous boasts about £10m on players for the Championship next year, hilarious repeat of stupidity., Edited March 6, 2015 by Pete's Frontier 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Why do The Rangers need new players, they have proven goal scorers like Miller and Boyd? Edited March 6, 2015 by Romeo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Why do The Rangers need new players, they have proven goal scorers like Miller and Boyd? Don't forget Lee Wallace, best left back in Scotland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Don't forget Lee Wallace, best left back in Scotland Exactly. Ant that Baldy guy with the funny voice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accietilleyedye Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 But they are sports direct implants..zero hours contracts and all that. But seriously..they did a shite job, and have benn kicked out of the door by the very shareholders they were supposed to be working for, they should get nothing. And we are back to deflection , round and round we go Tedi , don't you ever feel like getting of the merry go round that is supporting The Rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete's Frontier Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 £10million on players for the championship next season when hearts have strolled it with free transfers and kids? Remind me why rangers fans are happy about king getting voted in? Guaranteed to be a loan or a rights dilution. Murray did not not put a penny into the deceased Rangers and King will do likewise with Sevco whatever the media fanfare says. Please do spend £10m on journeyman for the Championship 2016 title, better still give it to the fat gardener to spend. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.