Sandy Easdale now Controls 24% of RIFC

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

We should all be bricking it. It's far too soon for any one party to have a controlling interest in the club.

i agree, but hopefully it wont come to that as mini's supposed 28% will likely not sell to easdale for a kings ransom

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

Nothing new there, Green`s consortium always had around that.

The only thing changed is the person fronting it.

Spot on

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

even if none of his money went into the club, at least he is going about things the right way, buy purchasing shares, some of the fans on here will likely spend more on rangers over the season than PM and JM will do

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.

[North Rd 2,860]

Has the Easdales won the lottery? I kept hearing on here that no way they had that much money!

[North Rd 2,860]

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.

That was another of Greens B/S

Also, remember Green still hasn't notified the Stock Exchange about his promise of shares to Easdales! Funny that! Especially when he did with the agreement to Laxeys.

[AlBear. 8,499]

So will people be demanding we see this guys "plans for the future"? He's not invested a penny into Rangers but has a seat on the board and 24% of the club.

He doesn't have 24% of the club.

Different name, same More than a fan...

[SteveJ 743]

"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?

This was Dave King's point

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

More Than A Fan - I could be wrong but is there even that many IPO shares out there to get controlling stake?

There's certain ways things have to be done. He's done the right thing getting Greens shares first

Plenty of time for him to invest further as majority shareholder

Just think about it for once !!

[californiadreamin52 339]

Some what over exaggerated he only owns 4.37 in share, but has the voting rights in total of 23.79 all of which could melt like snow aff a dike unless in his families possession. Show us your proxies!

[gary2006 123]

what salary are the easdales taking from the club and are they getting the bonuses stockbridge and mather are on?

[thehost 11,061]

when will the rst be giving him his hon. membership.

That's what i'd like to know

[North Rd 2,860]

More Than A Fan - I could be wrong but is there even that many IPO shares out there to get controlling stake?

There's certain ways things have to be done. He's done the right thing getting Greens shares first

Plenty of time for him to invest further as majority shareholder

Just think about it for once !!

I'm sure he hasn't Greens shares yet, only first refusal.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

I'm sure he hasn't Greens shares yet, only first refusal.

You sure? I thought Green said he had actually now sold up?

The change of broker thingy allowed him to sell within the 12 months.

[SteveJ 743]

of course some of that went into rangers, when the shares were first bought the money went into the club

Incorrect. The shares handed out to CG, for instance, were in lieu of a contract clause.CG did not pay a dime for them, as he got his £25k 'loan' back in full and put no money into Rangers. IA also got his loans back in full, having been handed shares for 1p each.

[North Rd 2,860]

You sure? I thought Green said he had actually now sold up?

The change of broker thingy allowed him to sell within the 12 months.

Green has never told the LSE that, he did when he sold to Laxeys.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

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.

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 club

a 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 turn

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

Incorrect. The shares handed out to CG, for instance, were in lieu of a contract clause.CG did not pay a dime for them, as he got his £25k 'loan' back in full and put no money into Rangers. IA also got his loans back in full, having been handed shares for 1p each.

and do we know that easdale has only bought the gift shares given out

[AlBear. 8,499]

I'm sure he hasn't Greens shares yet, only first refusal.

Kind of the point of this isn't it? Create a massive over reaction by claiming he has a quarter of the club when in fact he only has people currently willing to support him with a combined 24% of shares.

[SteveJ 743]

and do we know that easdale has only bought the gift shares given out

The majority share he bought from CG and IA means that these gift shares make up the majority of the £7M you are saying went into Rangers. Hard to put a figure on what money has actually went into our bank account and not the boards, but it is clear to all that it ain't £7M

[Big Al 55 9,248]

Kind of the point of this isn't it? Create a massive over reaction by claiming he has a quarter of the club when in fact he only has people currently willing to support him with a combined 24% of shares.

McColl controls 28% then doesn't he

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

I'm sure he hasn't Greens shares yet, only first refusal.

Who's shares are these he's got then? The point still remains the same regardless of who's shares he's purchased

[Zappa 358]

Nothing new there, Green`s consortium always had around that.

The only thing changed is the person fronting it.

Sounds about right calio.

[North Rd 2,860]

Who's shares are these he's got then? The point still remains the same regardless of who's shares he's purchased

He still only has 4.3% the rest is proxies.

[Mor3los_1 3,672]

Unreal that this guy shows his support for Rangers by buying more shares and he is still getting abused while Murray and co sit on there arses waiting on a free shot.

[AlBear. 8,499]

McColl controls 28% then doesn't he

Make a thread about that. I'll get the beers in.