Zappa

Graham Taylor ‏@ted14128614m Paul Murray on SSN. Says he was offered board place last week in exchange for withdrawing court petition. He declined. .. ... .... Blazer chaser indeed, eh....

I think you maybe need to read my post again. The post which you originally quoted was at #270. At no point in that post did I write anything about "Murray Minor good", "Money chasing assets strippers", "twitteratti", "nirvana moments" or deliverance from evil. That's why your reply was nonsensical.

No you aren't "left with no other conclusion". You took what I wrote in plain English and turned it into a twisted pile of gibberish which defies any common sense or logic.

I didn't say any of what you've written, so your summation is either completely twisted or complete nonsense.

How much money have the Easdales actually put into the club? Give me a figure, even an approximate figure.

A few points: It's the board who have delayed all of these proceedings by trying to stall and block the resolutions proposed by requisitioners months ago. They have only done so for the selfish reasons of saving their own jobs and trying to stay on the gravy train. Murray already has a blazer. In fact in a recent interview he was asked about this blazer chasing nonsense and responded that he already had several of them. As for Murray wanting a "slice of our pie" as you put it: He's being proposed as a non-executive director is he not? That would hardly be a slice of any pie in comparison to Mather & Stockbridge who are so desperate to keep their snouts in the trough. Not to mention the bus brothers, whose rise to the boardrooms of our club and company could be considered highly suspicious to say the least. There's certainly a fair number of people who are very confused about who has the best interests of Rangers at heart and who doesn't. I know that much for sure.

Have certain parties forced Green's choice of NOMAD to block the appointment of King to RIFC PLC, just as the previous NOMAD blocked the EGM requisition at one point when a compromise agreement had been reached? Or is it maybe just the case that the muppets in the boardroom made another regulatory mistake and had to back track?

Pissing the club's money away on legal fees and spin doctoring... yet again. Worst of all it's only been done to try to save their own jobs out of pure selfishness. Anyone who says Mather & co took this to court in the best interests of the club are kidding themselves. This was one of their final rolls of the dice to try and block democratic votes for the board positions at the AGM.

Is it likely that respectable businessmen like McColl & co were going to fake requisition or EGM/AGM signatures for a boardroom takeover backed by big money investors totaling a significant percentage of the company shareholding though? Do people actually think McColl, Murray & co fancy a stint in the clink? I know we've already got an ex-con on our board, but I doubt if that would allow McColl, Murray & co to lower their standards to submitting fraudulent legal documentation.

It doesn't matter which way you spin it. A video of cuckoo clocks on one of your "Young Will" threads is extremely appropriate and it can be applied to you both in equal measures. I did post it for Bill though, since he seems to have developed a fascination with cuckoos recently.

I know that, but it's missing the point that the board have been going to great lengths trying to make McColl, Murray & co jump through hoops in this saga. First it was the board delaying and stalling the initial proceedings, then eventually demanding that the requisitioners provide proof of shareholding for each individual signatory on the original requisition. Now they've moved on to demanding certified signatures from signatories for actual investors. The boards stalling and blocking tactics completely stink.

Well we know the board have tried to claim they were too late, but whether they actually were too late or not is another matter.

What are we really talking about here though? Is it really that Murray & co might not have filled out paperwork correctly or is it that the board have asked for signatures to be validated by shareholders who are in another country or in another continent on the other side of the world? That would present a logistical problem for getting certified signatures sent over in a short time frame, would it not? The board would know that would they not? There's also another way of looking at this... It would be illegal to forge signatures for these types of legal scenarios, so will often be taken on face value and trust that the signatures are valid. By asking for certified signatures from shareholders on the other side of the world, the board are essentially saying to these investors that they don't trust them. We all know it's got nothing to do with trust though, it's purely the board trying to wriggle out of the situation via a legal loophole.

The board have been stalling as well as trying to block the requisitioners for about two and a half months.

The board don't look good here no matter what the outcome is because either way they've clearly been trying to block the requisitioners having their names put forward for a democratic vote by shareholders.

Don't go all defensive on us, it was for Bill, not his old pal bawsburst.

Wow, that was 9 pages of pure education. In under 10 minutes I've learned that Paul Murray is a spiv and nothing printed in the Daily Record should be believed, especially if it's written by Keith Jackson. A high informative read, so thank you very much!

Someone at representing SportsDirect at our megastore must be smokin' quack.

My original point was just an agreement with Alex when he said - "I think Ally might have led him on a bit about a new contract" and I went on to say that I think other players recently have been led on too. The comments from Pandza suggest this to be the case.

I don't know if you've misunderstood the gist of what I was trying to say or not? I based what I said on the recent situation where we were told that both Pandza & Zaliukas had been offered deals. We were told officially multiple times that those deals were on the table for both players. My point is that if those reports were true, then WTF was going on? We clearly couldn't afford to sign both players without punting a defender or two first, so why would they both have been offered deals at the same time?

That's it in a nutshell and Nacho isn't the only player who's been led on recently. Bringing players in on trial and even offering multiple players contracts when there was no way they were signing for us unless we got rid of players first is just unfair on the players & a pretty embarrassing way for Ally & Mather to be conducting our business. Having said that, Nacho should try to appreciate that Ally has a lot on his plate and is dealing with a lot of different people and different situations simultaneously.

No idea 8Ace

They're Hamilton Accies' main sponsor and their website has a green colour scheme.

"Platinum Sponsorship deal" ? Does that mean they're paying us in bars of platinum?