the drummer 414 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Its quite simple if McColl wants to control rangers he will have to spend big and buy up as many shares as he can Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 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? Sorry to burst your bubble. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ger_onimo 20,488 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Its quite simple if McColl wants to control rangers he will have to spend big and buy up as many shares as he canNot really. There's nowhere near enough shares "for sale" to actually buy a controlling stake in the club. It's a case of getting the people who own the shares to back him. Just as it is for the other lot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Its quite simple if McColl wants to control rangers he will have to spend big and buy up as many shares as he canOr get the votes from those who hold the majority of shares.Look at Mather, he currently has control yet doesnt hold a majority shareholding. 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 to burst your bubble.Does Sandy Easedale have a 24% shareholding? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 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!!What do you mean he is the man? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ger_onimo 20,488 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 What do you mean he is the man?He said this, almost word for word, a few weeks ago about CG and IA. As soon as it came out that IA wanted to sue, he started slagging the pair of them, hoping no one would notice. A strange one to say the least. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
californiadreamin52 339 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Let's get rid of this shit Easdale has only 4.79 in share fact the stock exchange invent any numbers you like but that is his sum total 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 to burst your bubble.Let me rephrase that. No, actually, I'll just repeat the question. Does Sandy Easdale have a 24% shareholding? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Let's get rid of this shit Easdale has only 4.79 in share fact the stock exchange invent any numbers you like but that is his sum totalFurther to the announcement on 17 September 2013 regarding Alexander Easdale's holding in the Company, the Company announces that it was notified on 19 September 2013, that on 10 September Alexander Easdale also acquired voting rights over 12,641,338 ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the Company ("Ordinary Share") representing 19.42% of the issued share capital of the Company, pursuant to the terms of proxy agreements entered into with other shareholders of the Company which remain in place until further notice. As a result, including the Ordinary Shares held directly by Mr Easdale, being 2,842,957 Ordinary Shares representing 4.37% of the issued share capital of the Company, Mr Easdale has voting rights over, in aggregate, 15,484,295 Ordinary Shares representing 23.79% of the issued share capital of the Company. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 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? What a stupid statement Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis 1,011 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Shambles Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 He said this, almost word for word, a few weeks ago about CG and IA. As soon as it came out that IA wanted to sue, he started slagging the pair of them, hoping no one would notice. A strange one to say the least. Get with the big picture. Think about it. More than a few weeks ago I told you to watch the moves with the Easdales and where they were headed. No warning, they speak by actions. Who is one of the many supporting them? Nothing new in their script, nor unusal in business, unless you are not so shining bright. Jesus, it is all rather obvious, unless you wish to go into denial and no one plays with any of THEIR money! These guys don't invest to be side show Bob. Watch the next move, no warning, no announcement, just the action and that's how to do the business and you shouldn't be shocked either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Get with the big picture. Think about it. More than a few weeks ago I told you to watch the moves with the Easdales and where they were headed. No warning, they speak by actions. Who is one of the many supporting them? Nothing new in their script, nor unusal in business, unless you are not so shining bright. Jesus, it is all rather obvious, unless you wish to go into denial and no one plays with any of THEIR money! These guys don't invest to be side show Bob. Watch the next move, no warning, no announcement, just the action and that's how to do the business and you shouldn't be shocked either.Aye ok mr Sugar. Maybe thats because the Easdales told is they were going to build up their shares in Rangers? Anyway it doesn't mean they are good news for us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 157 Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Green has never told the LSE that, he did when he sold to Laxeys.Green didn't sell to Laxey he's giving them to them gratis to settle a promise that he made but couldn't keep.He promised them when they invested that the shares would be floated at £1 per share his transfer of shares to them is to honour the guarantee he gave them.I doubt Laxey were the only ones promised a £ per share but it looks like they're the only ones to have extracted a personal guarantee from Green. Others will be getting paid off with cash hence Stockbridge's selective numerical amnesia. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 when will the rst be giving him his hon. membership.That's what i'd like to knowThey will have to go through the "Easdales Out" phase first Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
californiadreamin52 339 Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Further to the announcement on 17 September 2013 regarding Alexander Easdale's holding in the Company, the Company announces that it was notified on 19 September 2013, that on 10 September Alexander Easdale also acquired voting rights over 12,641,338 ordinary shares of 1 pence each in the Company ("Ordinary Share") representing 19.42% of the issued share capital of the Company, pursuant to the terms of proxy agreements entered into with other shareholders of the Company which remain in place until further notice. As a result, including the Ordinary Shares held directly by Mr Easdale, being 2,842,957 Ordinary Shares representing 4.37% of the issued share capital of the Company, Mr Easdale has voting rights over, in aggregate, 15,484,295 Ordinary Shares representing 23.79% of the issued share capital of the Company.still does not change the amount of shares Easdale currently owns 4.79 But he is the frontman for Green,Ahmed, and Bluepitch Sharers hence his voting rights Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaujolais 1,371 Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Perhaps the more pertinent question is; for how long will the Easdale's be able to maintain the voting rights of those shares that are not directly owned by themselves.The biggest issue for the Club off the field right now is the requirement for some sort of board room stability. The fact that The Easdale's currently have "control" over almost 25% of the shares does not necessarily mean that this will be the case in the future. What Rangers Football Club requires is a clear winner in the board room battle, otherwise the turmoil and collateral damage both to its reputation and business is unlikely to cease,It is very difficult to implement a strategic plan to develop a business if the board/ management are constantly involved in tactical battles that are fought merely to keep their bums on the decision making seats. The current situation is no way to run a business. I therefore hope that Murray and McColl are certain that their facts as to the finances are correct.As many other posters have said this can only be settled one way or another when the audited accounts are produced. If these accounts prove the business is being well run- then I hope McColl and Murday would have the decency to remove themselves from the scene and stop all the media crap and costly distractions. If however the accounts prove otherwise then I see no end to the farce. All we can do as non controlling shareholder fans ie customers of the business is support the team one the park. To do otherwise at the moment is only going to worsen the problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stfu 596 Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 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? It is called playing by the rules.It is quite simple really, if you want to have a controlling interest in a company you buy the shares. What you don't do is to try and destabilise the company with mudslinging and gossip when you do not even want to buy the club.That only harms the club it does not help it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 88 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 Does Sandy Easedale have a 24% shareholding?No he doesn't despite all the spin to the contrary he owns only a small percentage of the shares. He has the support of some others that at them moment gives him 24% of the voting rights. But the Business world being what it is, they could change their minds at any time and support someone else, or simply sell their holding all together. After all how much trust do they really have in a convicted criminal? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson's cat 744 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 It is called playing by the rules.It is quite simple really, if you want to have a controlling interest in a company you buy the shares. What you don't do is to try and destabilise the company with mudslinging and gossip when you do not even want to buy the club.That only harms the club it does not help it.There are two ways to win control of a company:1. Buy 51% of the shares; or2.. Persuade 51% of the existing shareholders to put you in charge.Option 1 is a non-starter at Rangers because 51% of the shares are not currently 'for sale'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 No he doesn't despite all the spin to the contrary he owns only a small percentage of the shares. He has the support of some others that at them moment gives him 24% of the voting rights. As opposed to Mini who holds no shares and reckons he has 28% supportIn his dreams Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don81 2,832 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 No he doesn't despite all the spin to the contrary he owns only a small percentage of the shares. He has the support of some others that at them moment gives him 24% of the voting rights. But the Business world being what it is, they could change their minds at any time and support someone else, or simply sell their holding all together. After all how much trust do they really have in a convicted criminal? A lot more trust that they have in you or mini, mini sucker!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weshallnotbemoved! 714 Posted September 22, 2013 Share Posted September 22, 2013 They need to keep it together in fashion becoming directors of Rangers.Far too many local people see them bladdered and acting the hard men in public after matches. Tims or press are picking up on that so they shouldn't give them the photo op or the opportunity. 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.