Skyson1872 2,923 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 Trying their hardest to portray it as a minority shareholding Together they own 45% of the media company and have the biggest share holdings in both them and the filth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howsitgoing 4,281 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, gj923 said: What would they be taken to court for? For appointing an chairman to the SPFL of which our MD is on the board who then took up another board position (he has about 5 or 6) which was widely reported in the press in March of which certain shareholders also have shares in another SPL football team. What exactly would be the action that was raised? Conflict of interest. You listen to much to the lies of Doncaster if you believe there isn’t one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakbear 3,580 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, gj923 said: What would they be taken to court for? For appointing an chairman to the SPFL of which our MD is on the board who then took up another board position (he has about 5 or 6) which was widely reported in the press in March of which certain shareholders also have shares in another SPL football team. What exactly would be the action that was raised? Treason? Aggravated taigery? practising of unlicensed witchcraft in a blue zone ? fuck knows what action should be raised but King as called for an independent investigation by a QC and the response has been “nah fuck off” so what is the next step? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howsitgoing 4,281 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, Skyson1872 said: Trying their hardest to portray it as a minority shareholding Together they own 45% of the media company and have the biggest share holdings in both them and the filth. Even the bbc are calling Desmond a major shareholder in inm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gj923 1,457 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 Just now, Bakbear said: Treason? Aggravated taigery? practising of unlicensed witchcraft in a blue zone ? fuck knows what action should be raised but King as called for an independent investigation by a QC and the response has been “nah fuck off” so what is the next step? probably another statement alleging something else from King Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathen fish boy 8,572 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 let me get this right,so they've actually released a public statement saying we shouldn't have released a public statement? What fuckery is this? Tards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakbear 3,580 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, gj923 said: probably another statement alleging something else from King He has committed himself on this. A highly public spat on a very specific subject. He can’t just let it lie now and he equally can’t issue another statement. It clearly will achieve nothing. The next step has to be action of some kind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryju84 3,170 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 23 minutes ago, Bakbear said: Thank fuck they responded, I was ready to throw ma phone in the bath if I had to read anymore “Rangers, The Rangers” pish. Although it’s proof positive that as a support we will never be united long enough to ever take this shower of fucking crooks to task Anyway. The response once again simply attempts to dismiss Kings complaints as puerile nonsense. King must have taken a legal opinion before now so time to challenge this in a court of law or back off The response... or just response? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 19 minutes ago, Bakbear said: Treason? Aggravated taigery? practising of unlicensed witchcraft in a blue zone ? fuck knows what action should be raised but King as called for an independent investigation by a QC and the response has been “nah fuck off” so what is the next step? Take it to UEFA FIFA or CAS. With any of them involved they can't keep it in Scotland where they can bury it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGovanIniesta 1,000 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Guardian said: Take it to UEFA FIFA or CAS. With any of them involved they can't keep it in Scotland where they can bury it. From one corrupt organisation to the next Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amato 3,016 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 3 hours ago, markem said: I’d say the prosecution can now rest tbh. Case closed. Guilty. Admin- are you able to change backup's username to Tom English? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure_Quality 3,295 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 1 hour ago, backup said: The biggest danger to The Rangers is the narcicistic meglomaniac sitting in the Chairman’s chair, I also see we don’t have any Mark Twain fans only english ones. Does no one read anything other than kings puff pieces ? FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal Bear 72 363 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said: New company name is RIFC (Rangers International Football Club Ltd) So Idiotup must think we died The Rangers International Football Club PLC is a holding company. The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the operating company (or owner). The Club (Rangers Football Club) is owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club LTD, which, in turn, is a subsidiary of The Rangers International Football Club PLC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
linfield1690 4,249 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said: FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO. ffs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup2 1,535 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said: FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO. Is that you talking about your self Tom ?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,608 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said: FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO. ??? Decent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKnight87 17,277 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Skyson1872 said: Trying their hardest to portray it as a minority shareholding Together they own 45% of the media company and have the biggest share holdings in both them and the filth. And they are claiming minority shareholders ? Absolutely corrupt to the core. King better have something else up his sleeve. Action is needed not just statements Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMotor 2,208 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 26 minutes ago, Pure_Quality said: FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO. Interesting date on that tweet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Bear 15,088 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 1 minute ago, TheMotor said: Interesting date on that tweet. Indeed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMotor 2,208 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 SPFL are playing semantic silly buggers here. They are basing their argument on the differences between major shareholder and majority shareholder. Odd how they don't consider a 29% shareholding in a company as having an influence in this case but they consider a 10% shareholding as having an influence when considering dual ownership of clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howsitgoing 4,281 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/inm-should-be-run-for-denis-o-brien-and-dermot-desmond-1.3463823%3Fmode=amp “In his disclosure, Mr Pitt said that on January 25th, 2016, senior management at the company met Mr Buckley to discuss a strategy document being prepared for the board. “Mr Pitt asserted that, during the course of the meeting, the chairman [Mr Buckley] had indicated that the priority should be to maximise returns to the two main shareholders, ie Mr O’Brien and Mr Dermot Desmond, as they had invested significantly in INM in recent years,” said Mr Drennan in his affidavit.” Their SPFL patsy might be in there for their interests in INM also, there’s a current court case against them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vision 16,725 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 4 hours ago, markem said: I’d say the prosecution can now rest tbh. Case closed. Guilty. Guilty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markem 7,251 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 43 minutes ago, TheMotor said: SPFL are playing semantic silly buggers here. They are basing their argument on the differences between major shareholder and majority shareholder. Odd how they don't consider a 29% shareholding in a company as having an influence in this case but they consider a 10% shareholding as having an influence when considering dual ownership of clubs. Totally agree however unless I am wrong it’s irrelevant. The rule is the rule whether majority or major (?) Its a smoke screen of an irrelevant argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backup 4,724 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Pure_Quality said: FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO. The real ? is what sort of person would go to the extent of forging something like that what are they afraid of, some idiot that doesn't understand the calendar obviously and certainly no friend to The Rangers as far as I am concerned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigo 32,526 Posted May 31, 2018 Share Posted May 31, 2018 Yeah, they're not majority shareholders. They're the LARGEST shareholders, by a massive distance, and therefore by some distance the most influential people in the two companies. Apart from anything, we (as in we fans) need to get our language right on this so they can't wriggle too much. But anyway, the SPFL statement seems ridiculous to me. Splitting hairs and squirming around with semantics and being wilfully obtuse as far as I can see. The denial of a conflict of interests is flabbergasting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.