What exactly are the Easdales up to?

[californiadreamin52 339]

Dave King - Tax avoider and welcomed wih open arms to invest in Rangers

Sandy Easdale - Tax avoider and treated like a parasite even though he has spent millions buying shares in Rangers.

slight over simplification SE convicted, Rangers did not receive a penny of the share money. King put money into the club looking for and receiving no return on his money

[bigblueyonder 11,158]

slight over simplification SE convicted, Rangers did not receive a penny of the share money. King put money into the club looking for and receiving no return on his money

They invested in the IPO, no matter how many times you say that Rangers didn't receive any money from them will not make it so..

[iang2911 423]

There does appear that there is quite a bit of substance to the rumours though...

What substance, I have not heard anything but hearsay, the only credible piece on their supposed dodgy dealings was a Sheriff saying that they were accused of all sorts of stuff but when she had it looked in to she found that there was nothing to see. Seems to be Urban myths, apart from the VAT case but I remember back then a lot of people were caught out in that.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

They invested in the IPO, no matter how many times you say that Rangers didn't receive any money from them will not make it so..

Another lie the rebels enjoy pushing

Say it enough times it becomes true eh

[j1mgg 3,766]

However as the guy said....at the time he was asked to buy for 76 and the money went into the club.......whereas now if he bought it goes into someone elses pocket

If that person paid more than you for the share you are taking money out of their pocket, in your terms.

Should people sell their shares back to the club for the price they bought them for?

[Cadman 352]

I don't get it either. People defend the likes of McColl not putting money up because it would be giving this and that a load of cash.

So what actually is supposed to happen then? Those who currently have the shares just disappear?

Apparently that's exactly what those pushing for Paul Murray and co are expecting ,, that any investors he brings to the table are just 'going to put there money into the club and take nothing out' and if that's what people think then their deluded. Investors ONLY invest to make a profit for themselves (including the Easdales) or those they represent (the nominees who are backing Murray) ,,, if they didn't want anything back then they would 'donate' rather than 'invest'.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

Doesn't make you less of a fan mate but doesn't benefit the club either,only benefits you,which is fine.

Starting to get fed up hearing that the Easedales have put their money in crap.

If anybody can give me proof they put any major investment into the ipo,when the club needed cash to survive,then i would applaud them.

Im not going to hold my breath though.

As soon as the Easdales bought shares from whoever, they effectively invested in the Club. By buying those shares they took over the initial level of investment of those shares.

[Falcoholic 1,348]

And put a cunt in it :pipeguy:

While all around, reasoned debate and discussion takes place, opinions are traded and perhaps new ideas and information are forthcoming on a subject currently dividing the support and possibly affecting the long term survival of the club, there always appears to be one who pops up with a snippet of intellectual genius.

Thanks for your contribution.

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

With all of the "Sack The Board" shenanigans going on at the moment all the focus appears to be on Mather and Stockbridge and getting rid of them.

However, the ugly Easdale sisters seem to be really really quiet and I wonder just exactly what part they are playing in the situation at the moment.

Can anyone shed any light on this?

Criticise others for failing to participate in reasonable after starting a thread with no substance, a derogatory comment and a feeble question.Do you have a point other than mischief making?

[IanCurtis 155]

If a person invests heavily in the club, as the Easdales have done, then the only way in which they will see a return on that investment is if the club is successful and moves forward. If that happens everyone will be happy, well apart from the people who cannot get on the gravy train, even though they had a great chance of buying a ticket to it .....

Thank Christ someone gets it!! Jeezuz!

[Falcoholic 1,348]

Criticise others for failing to participate in reasonable after starting a thread with no substance, a derogatory comment and a feeble question.Do you have a point other than mischief making?

Putting it simply, I do not have an ounce of trust for any of the current board members. I am not convinced that any of them have the best interests of Rangers at heart. I see big rewards paid out to those that do not appear to be doing very much and the clubs bank balance on a slide of epic proportions to the point where we seem to be staring down the barrel of (shudder) administration once more. I'm just not seeing what the Easdales are doing to either protect their alleged investments or to protect the club from further damage.

The point of the OP was to gauge what others on here thought.

Perhaps I could have rephrased my original post a little different.

And for the record, no mischief making and no agenda, and no support for any of the other blazer chasers either. I just want what's best for my club and I have yet to be convinced that any of the shysters want the same.

[UKIP BEAR 370]

you could of bought shares for less as well if you want, actually you could buy them just now, that is the risk you take.

I chose to buy them when i did to help save the club i love.(like many other bears)

Im not out for any personal gain unlike the Easedales.

[gogzy 31,195]

I chose to buy them when i did to help save the club i love.(like many other bears)

Im not out for any personal gain unlike the Easedales.

That's because the Easdedales are businessmen as well as fans.

They will want to help the club, but they will also want to make a profit, I have no problems with that.

When I say "they put their money where their mouths were"

It means that these guys want to have a say on how Rangers is ran ( like the requisitioners do) They have went the right way about it and bought shares so they can have a voice on the board.

This is why I have more respect for their methods than the requsitioners, who by my reckoning, want a say in how Rangers are ran without putting in any financial outlay.

Now that they own a significant portion of the shares, they will want those shares to make profit, I would imagine they would be more than willing to reinvest more money in the club via a new share issue, it would make perfect businesss sense IMO.

[calzmcm 7]

So in answer to your question.... They are putting money into the club?

[Adoniram 1,919]

That's because the Easdedales are businessmen as well as fans.

They will want to help the club, but they will also want to make a profit, I have no problems with that.

When I say "they put their money where their mouths were"

It means that these guys want to have a say on how Rangers is ran ( like the requisitioners do) They have went the right way about it and bought shares so they can have a voice on the board.

This is why I have more respect for their methods than the requsitioners, who by my reckoning, want a say in how Rangers are ran without putting in any financial outlay.

Now that they own a significant portion of the shares, they will want those shares to make profit, I would imagine they would be more than willing to reinvest more money in the club via a new share issue, it would make perfect businesss sense IMO.

Why is there such a taboo about people investing to make a profit?

The whole point of business is to do exactly that. If they invest £2m and walk away in a few years with £4m then it must mean the club is in a healthy position to do so.

I have moaned for years and years about the profligate policies of Murray and the untold damage it was doing. At no time did we ever look at the future and adapt to the changing world we live in from a commercial sense.

Even now we have fans complaining about the money we are spending on players we don't need in he lower divisions.

We have a culture of spend spend spend which in this country simply isn't sustainable.

So if the Easdales come in (or anyone else for that matter) and state they are here to make us profitable and sustainable then they get my vote. I don't care who they are or what reputation they have so long as their first interest is the welfare of Rangers FC.

The Easdales are huge fans of Rangers so seems a bit silly to me that they would invest millions just to rape us.

[Blue corn flakes 1,282]

Time to take the F out yer name pal.

and replace it with a t

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

Putting it simply, I do not have an ounce of trust for any of the current board members. I am not convinced that any of them have the best interests of Rangers at heart. I see big rewards paid out to those that do not appear to be doing very much and the clubs bank balance on a slide of epic proportions to the point where we seem to be staring down the barrel of (shudder) administration once more. I'm just not seeing what the Easdales are doing to either protect their alleged investments or to protect the club from further damage.

The point of the OP was to gauge what others on here thought.

Perhaps I could have rephrased my original post a little different.

And for the record, no mischief making and no agenda, and no support for any of the other blazer chasers either. I just want what's best for my club and I have yet to be convinced that any of the shysters want the same.

I think I trust people telling us they are investing for business reasons more than I trust people who say 'follow us' we are Rangers men. I seem to recall CW being touted as a Rangers man. We know how well that ended.

As for the Easedales I really know very little about them other than they bought McGills, are fairly well off, have been Gers supporters for some time and one of them was banged up for screwing the VAT man (haven't we all??) Other than that everything else I read about them seems to depend on the source be it blogger or journalist. I do not see protecting their investment and protecting the club as being mutually exclusive.

Reagan (The President not that cunt at the SFA) said it best "TRUST BUT VERIFY". After what we have been through this is a prudent approach no matter who is running the club.

[UKIP BEAR 370]

That's because the Easdedales are businessmen as well as fans.

They will want to help the club, but they will also want to make a profit, I have no problems with that.

When I say "they put their money where their mouths were"

It means that these guys want to have a say on how Rangers is ran ( like the requisitioners do) They have went the right way about it and bought shares so they can have a voice on the board.

This is why I have more respect for their methods than the requsitioners, who by my reckoning, want a say in how Rangers are ran without putting in any financial outlay.

Now that they own a significant portion of the shares, they will want those shares to make profit, I would imagine they would be more than willing to reinvest more money in the club via a new share issue, it would make perfect businesss sense IMO.

three important words stood out in all of that mate"i would imagine"

I don't have a problem with people making a profit under the right circumstances.

But something doesn't sit quite right with me regarding these Easedale guys.

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

three important words stood out in all of that mate"i would imagine"

I don't have a problem with people making a profit under the right circumstances.

But something doesn't sit quite right with me regarding these Easedale guys.

Please feel free to elucidate. What do you know about them?

[UKIP BEAR 370]

Please feel free to elucidate. What do you know about them?

I know one of them has been to prison.

I know that these guys started off in the taxi business years ago and speaking as someone who has been in that game 25 years,you did not get to the top of the tree in that game unless you were willing to:-

A.Stand upto some unsavoury people.

B.Be the unsavoury people.

As i say,things just don't feel right with them.

[Dennis 1,011]

Their knees in fenian blood.

[Zappa 358]

Some actual information...........

Sandy Easdale acquired 2,125,000 shares on 10 September to take his shareholding up to 2,842,957 (4.37%).

That transaction was a purchase of 2,125,000 shares from Charles Green (the cheeky chappy who got 5 million shares for hee haw).

That means that the majority (75%) of Sandy Easdale's shares are actually shares which have never given the Club any money or certainly no money worthy of note because even if the 1p per share had ever been paid, it would only be pocket change.

[JWAC 2,273]

I don't necessarily think the successfulness of the club relates to a profit, profit can be made in other ways e.g. buy low/sell high, contracting out services to your own companies or paying yourself exorbitant wages

Dave King has probably lost more because of Rangers than any other in history. I welcome him back with open arms despite the irony of the tax charges he's been in involved in SA. Primarily, Dave King is interested in the well being of Rangers which can't be denied

If a person invests heavily in the club, as the Easdales have done, then the only way in which they will see a return on that investment is if the club is successful and moves forward. If that happens everyone will be happy, well apart from the people who cannot get on the gravy train, even though they had a great chance of buying a ticket to it .....

[j1mgg 3,766]

So if I bought 1000 shares at 70p, someone else bought a 1000 at 90p, and someone bought 1000 shares today, who has the most say?

[bawsburst 1,381]

The Easdales are "minding" the shop at the moment, meantime aj the failed chairman is bumping his gums on radio shortbread but as usual saying exactly zilch.