BLUEWISDOM 1 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 This is frightening , going from one group of shysters to another,fearing the worst now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodvale1690 43 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 minico are fucking bricking itwhats the share amount that requires you to bid for the rest of them?30% is it not Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 30% is it notHe has only 4.3% mate, the rest is proxies, just as McColl can say he has 28% Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 we have leaders that HAVE been picked by the shareholders (whether its the shareholders that are liked is another question)Come the AGM we'll see who is in charge, these guys will be picked by the shareholders,the problem with green's idea is that all it takes is a certain viewpoint, as proven by recent demands made to the board, from a certain collective, to completely overshadow the cluba controlling interest would brush off any rebels in a shot, mind some "other" shareholders didnt want Donald Muir on the board at the AGM pre whyte, thank fuck we had SDM (never thought id say that) to come in and blow the shareholder votes out the water as Muir done us a turnThats not quite right though is it?The existing board have not stood for election as yet, the board who created the IPO appointed the directors.Many of the shares have also changed hands so the base is not the same anymore.As far as I can see, it is well within the rights of shareholders to call an EGM or use the AGM to hold a vote and see who the popular choice is.I dont think that we should hound Murray and McColl for having the audicity to try and convince the shareholders they have a better business plan than the current board. I dont actually think Murray and McColl have shown very much to write home about, but neither have the current guys.It just bores me that people constantly come out with the 'put your hand in your pocket' put down to McColl, when there may be absolutely no need for him to do so.If he fails at the AGM, then he fails. But why right them off before it even happens? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 He has only 4.3% mate, the rest is proxies, just as McColl can say he has 28%Does McColl have a 28% proxy? I thought he only had the indication that at least 28% backed him?A proxy means he can legally vote on their behalf I think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I am not saying I told you so, but Sandy is the man and was always going to be. Await his next move!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk and disorderly. 14,418 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 what salary are the easdales taking from the club and are they getting the bonuses stockbridge and mather are on?I'd like to know that too. The rest of the boards' salaries have been scutinised. Why not theirs? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Does McColl have a 28% proxy? I thought he only had the indication that at least 28% backed him?A proxy means he can legally vote on their behalf I think. No point in denial, it will only torture you. McColl has the square root of fuck all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 Does McColl have a 28% proxy? I thought he only had the indication that at least 28% backed him?A proxy means he can legally vote on their behalf I think.Correct, but what gets me is why they haven't notified the LSE about Greens promise, strange one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reformation Bear 6,453 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I've not read all the details so could be wrong but my take for now is.........I understand Charles Green's shares are locked in until December (ie he is not allowed to sell shares until then unless the Club was the subject of a takeover bid (which it is not) in which case the lock-in would be released)..............the 'voting rights' news seems to me to simply be signalling that in any resolutions tabled at the AGM (eg by Murray for P45s to be handed out to Mather, Stockbridge and Smart) then Easdale currently has that % of votes that he can exercise......ie its about signalling to all and sundry who has currently got what voting power in the run up to the AGM.................Murray will know what he can count on for supporting votes and will have (or should be able to) form a view on whether it is wise to pursue his aims at the AGM or to seek a compromise or to stand down...........I suppose the %s could change again depending on the interpretation shareholders place on the published accounts. Wonder how many additional shares Murray has bought to increase his holding and to increase the moral strength of his (still largely invisible) case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 No point in denial, it will only torture you. McColl has the square root of fuck all.I dont really care.Dont particularly like McColls group. They have not laid out any plans to convince me.Right now my opinion is as follows:-Current Board : Wont make up my mind until i see the accounts, but expect them to be crap.McColls Group : No idea what their paln is, they dont have me convinced, but if its between them and certain doom with the current lot, I would give them a chance.Any Other : If they come in with a decent plan and dont seem like con men, they skip the queue to no.1 as long as the current board dotn win me over with the accounts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 "shares worth £7.7m" And not one single penny of that has went to Rangers. For the people who are moaning about Jim McColl not investing anything into RANGERS what do you make of Sandy Easdale doing the exact same thing? And how do you know he or his family didn`t buy during the IPO ? Oh you don`t so more shite.But I hope you go and Tell Dingwall and his mistrust that all the shares they are buying aren`t putting a penny into Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodvale1690 43 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 He has only 4.3% mate, the rest is proxies, just as McColl can say he has 28%i was responding to another post, what is the representation of a shareholders percentage where he/her has to buy out the rest to become majority shareholder and ultimit owner, 30% but can not be a proxy vote by others, the individual must have 30% Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 But I thought people were all for the 'No one will own more than 15% of Rangers going forward!' line.Do we now say that that was absolute nonsense and that for anyone to have a say in Rangers, they must buy as large a shareholding as possible?I thought the idea of having leaders, picked by a varienty of minority shareholders was the popular plan only 12 months ago? It seems like folk are just determined to hate McColl because they dont like him to be honest.Sorry but the people who hunted out Green also got rid of the 'No one will own more than 15% of Rangers going forward!'idea. So sorry but you can`t have your cake and eat it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I am not saying I told you so, but Sandy is the man and was always going to be. Await his next move!!BTW.He doesn't allow others to play with ANY of his money on his behalf. Watch this space. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 Sorry but the people who hunted out Green also got rid of the 'No one will own more than 15% of Rangers going forward!'idea. So sorry but you can`t have your cake and eat it.That was another Green moonbeam moment Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsox1 1,361 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 That was another Green moonbeam moment well if that was the case why are people asking why "'No one will own more than 15% of Rangers going forward!" doesn`t count now.It was either a good idea or a bad one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
In walter we trust 228 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 "shares worth £7.7m" And not one single penny of that has went to Rangers. For the people who are moaning about Jim McColl not investing anything into RANGERS what do you make of Sandy Easdale doing the exact same thing? Well at least he has bought shares not like McColl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 well if that was the case why are people asking why "'No one will own more than 15% of Rangers going forward!" doesn`t count now.It was either a good idea or a bad one.It was a great idea, but that's it, a great idea! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,248 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 It was a great idea, but that's it, a great idea!Yes I'd like to end hunger in the 3rd world. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 well if that was the case why are people asking why "'No one will own more than 15% of Rangers going forward!" doesn`t count now.It was either a good idea or a bad one.The claim at the time was nonsense because it was completely unworkable. I said so at the time. Didnt stop those who agreed with it now changing their idealistic position just because of McColl's position.By all means slate mccoll and murray for being unclear with their plans. Even just say you dont like or trust them, that is fair enough. Using the sharebuying thing as an excuse is just illogical and hypocritical though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 Was wondering where he was tonightRangers adviser Jack Irvine said: "Sandy Easdale is stepping up his commitment to the club and is determined to help the board bring stability."He is equally determined that he and CEO Craig Mather and their fellow directors will not be deflected by time wasters and trouble makers." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 The claim at the time was nonsense because it was completely unworkable. I said so at the time.Didnt stop those who agreed with it now changing their idealistic position just because of McColl's position.By all means slate mccoll and murray for being unclear with their plans. Even just say you dont like or trust them, that is fair enough. Using the sharebuying thing as an excuse is just illogical and hypocritical though. Sorry, but I don't get your business logic. If I am a private investor, with the single largest shareholding of 24% in this case, then be sure I am looking to have a big say. This scenario also is suitable to most institutional investors, with many small ones in our case, as this guy is shouldering most of the risk, with most to lose and would hardly jeaopordise his own investment, thereby protecting theirs along the way. It's not as if he is wetunder the ears. TheEasdales are a success, no matter whatyou may thinkof them. As I said before, Sandy doen't have strangers manage any of his money and 30% will be in his bag before xmas and won't be paying afortune for it either. I will now speculate......Hole in the accounts? You betcha, but nothing so bad. Share price, what happens? Takeover? Big time! Ever get the feeling that this was all planned?!! Share deal already done. Nothing new here in the business world of power brokering. McColl and pea brain mini, were never going to win and McColl knew this, He just didn't tell mini! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ger_onimo 20,488 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Sorry, but I don't get your business logic. If I am a private investor, with the single largest shareholding of 24% in this case, then be sure I am looking to have a big say. This scenario also is suitable to most institutional investors, with many small ones in our case, as this guy is shouldering most of the risk, with most to lose and would hardly jeaopordise his own investment, thereby protecting theirs along the way. It's not as if he is wetunder the ears. TheEasdales are a success, no matter whatyou may thinkof them. As I said before, Sandy doen't have strangers manage any of his money and 30% will be in his bag before xmas and won't be paying afortune for it either. I will now speculate......Hole in the accounts? You betcha, but nothing so bad. Share price, what happens? Takeover? Big time! Ever get the feeling that this was all planned?!! Share deal already done. Nothing new here in the business world of power brokering. McColl and pea brain mini, were never going to win and McColl knew this, He just didn't tell mini!He doesn't have a 24% shareholding. Not even close. Why do you try to come across like you're in the know when you get the most basic details catastrophically wrong? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 And how do you know he or his family didn`t buy during the IPO ? Oh you don`t so more shite.But I hope you go and Tell Dingwall and his mistrust that all the shares they are buying aren`t putting a penny into Rangers. :lol: And you, ya complete roaster is what is up with the online Rangers support right now. Quote Link to post 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.