Jump to content

Zappa

Senior Member
  • Posts

    3,603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Zappa

  1. Because I was very good at maths at school, the current board hold all the aces, and over 60% of the shares. Minico cannot win this, the only thing they can hope for is that they spook some investors by the devaluing the brand ... tactics that they are currently using.

    I was led to believe Murray can rely on 28% of shareholders, the other side have around 32%, and then there's around 40% which you could call floating votes.

    Have I missed something? I thought the last time we heard anything even remotely concrete on what shares the current board have voting for them it was the announcement that Sandy Easdale has 4 point something percent shareholding himself plus a bunch of proxy votes taking him up to about 24% in order to represent the current board at the AGM?

    There's certainly a LOT of spin going on just now, but I'd be absolutely astonished if the current board have a majority of votes come the AGM.

  2. Is it not the case that an announcement will need to be made to the stock exchange if we don't have enough resources to sustain the company? As we are on the LSE we cant go down the same road as Whyte took us.

    I'm not sure of the specific rules on that, but I think you do have to wonder if the reason the previous NOMAD Cenkos (which is a respected company!) got out of dodge months ago was due to them being uncomfortable with irregularities. AJ said months ago that Walter had told him about irregularities and I think it was suggested that Malcolm Murray was of the same opinion earlier in the year (after the IPO). That may even be why Green & co wanted rid of Malcolm Murray. Nothing to do with his drinking at all, but everything to do with him wanting proper corporate governance and no shady dealings? Answer? Smear campaign to make him out as an alcoholic/drunk and get shot of him. One less person looking after the club's best interests and keeping an eye on the dodgy chancers.

  3. by Mather and Stockwell's own remember own admission we have 10 million left

    That was 2 months ago, so that figure will maybe only be about half of that now, possibly even less (it was rumoured last week that only about £4.2m is left).

    They'll have had some more ST cash come in since they claimed we had £10m left a couple of months back, but how much is anyone's guess.

    A lot of folk are saying wait for the accounts, but the accounts are quite likely to muddy the waters even further unless you're a clued up bean counter and even the accountant Bears won't all necessarily be in agreement with their interpretation of the accounts and the grey/murky areas of them.

  4. You should always learn from others peoples mistakes, you shouldn't really accuse people of being involved in scams, if you had any brains you would edit your post heavily or better still delete it.

    scam noun

    informal a dishonest scheme; a fraud:

    I'll take my chances against you and your buddies Green, Ahmad, the Easdales & Toxic Jack. Your putrid attempts at intimidation won't work with me.

  5. Fury, apparently.

    Well, he says he's been threatened with legal action, but does anyone know why? What's the cause?

    It's certainly not a surprise given that they supposedly took David Leggat to court on Monday because of the article he published on Friday.

  6. With this approach to fan relations the board are basically saying they won't be here by next ST renewals, so what is their plan?

    It looks that way, eh? Starting threatening legal action against fans for internet comments and even going as far as taking fans to court shows total contempt for the fans who are paying the boardroom's wages.

    The new message from the muppets running our club is something along the lines of "Give us your money. Oh and btw, don't mess with us or we'll spend your money on fucking you right up the arse".

  7. You have to look at it from a neutral view.

    If the board were suing a Tim for making comments then everyone would be right behind them, but because comments are being made by a rangers fan it is okay and they should be allowed to say what they want?

    I doubt this will come to much and it could just be scare tactics, or it may be more serious(possibly their view) and think someone is deliberately trying to devalue the brand.

    I am trying to be neutral about it believe it or not, but this is about more than just scare tactics here!

    The slimeballs in our club's boardroom started this legal action stuff against the club's own fans last Friday because of Leggo's blog article about the Serious Fraud Office and forums which hosted threads with Leggo's article & related comments were also asked to remove the content and threatened with legal action if the content wasn't removed by 1pm on Monday.

    I'm guessing this new threat of legal action against Fury will probably be a continuation of that.

    It's not necessarily because it's all a pack of lies either as some fans have been saying this past week. There might just be an element (or elements plural) of truth to the SFO story which certain people could be trying to hide.

  8. Looks like the board are getting decidedly bloody twitchy if they're starting to threaten Rangers fans and websites!

    Leggo last week & Fury this week, so they've clearly started trying to silence us. Are people getting too close to the bone?

    This is a slippery slope, but the slimeballs in the boardroom will be familiar with slippery stuff.

    Disgusting that the board are using money the club needs to take legal action against fans. Shocking.

×
×
  • Create New...