Jump to content

Richard Wilson of the gherald opines.


bawsburst

Recommended Posts

Re. the parts you highlighted.

1. That is one of the reasons they are in court and why I said they had a maximum of 5%

2. Again as per my previous post they tried to have the AGM delayed before the case was heard but failed

3. The petitioners agree, but they only account for between 0.71% and 5.03% of the shareholders. They are saying that they are happy, but they don't speak for the other shareholders. There is an assumption there that there are no other objections. I hope that assumption is correct

This place would go mental if it was suggested that Paul Murray was removing shareholders' rights to 21 days consideration of the resolutions which is what would happen if that ruling was binding on all shareholders

lisburn. You are by far the best poster on here who supports the rst and more people like you could convert guys who are reluctant.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Re. the parts you highlighted.

1. That is one of the reasons they are in court and why I said they had a maximum of 5%

2. Again as per my previous post they tried to have the AGM delayed before the case was heard but failed

3. The petitioners agree, but they only account for between 0.71% and 5.03% of the shareholders. They are saying that they are happy, but they don't speak for the other shareholders. There is an assumption there that there are no other objections. I hope that assumption is correct

This place would go mental if it was suggested that Paul Murray was removing shareholders' rights to 21 days consideration of the resolutions which is what would happen if that ruling was binding on all shareholders

As I said the club disagree with you as I do, the AGM goes ahead as planned, that is not an assumption that is a clear statement by the board.

The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on October 24, 2013.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"As I said the club disagree with you as I do, the AGM goes ahead as planned, that is not an assumption that is a clear statement by the board."

This Board havemade plenty of other clear statement that turned out to be rubbish

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said the club disagree with you as I do, the AGM goes ahead as planned, that is not an assumption that is a clear statement by the board.

The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on October 24, 2013.

We could go round in circles all day and never agree, so we'll probably need to wait and see. Since I always like to have the last word, a clear statement would have said -

The Annual General Meeting of the Company will, therefore, proceed on October 24 2013

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm feeling the love here guys, much appreciated.

On a serious note, I strongly believe that fan ownership is the only way we can secure the long term security of our club. Despite our differences we all have one major thing in common and that is a desire to see our team become successful and sustainable again. As an organisation, the RST has obstacles to overcome in order to grow to a size that will give us a realistic opportunity to achieve our goals.

We are always looking to improve as an organisation. I implore anyone who believes in fan ownership, but dislikes the RST for whatever reason, join and change it from within. We have made massive strides in the last 12 months and want to keep that improvement going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could go round in circles all day and never agree, so we'll probably need to wait and see. Since I always like to have the last word, a clear statement would have said -

The Annual General Meeting of the Company will, therefore, proceed on October 24 2013

:cool:

The statement is clear enough, even for those who don't want it to be, hopefully the hostiles see sense and withdraw tomorrow. (tu)

DK has no love or time for fan ownership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"As I said the club disagree with you as I do, the AGM goes ahead as planned, that is not an assumption that is a clear statement by the board."

This Board havemade plenty of other clear statement that turned out to be rubbish

there is always one to put a damper on fans getting on a wee bit.

So what's your solution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement is clear enough, even for those who don't want it to be, hopefully the hostiles see sense and withdraw tomorrow. (tu)

DK has no love or time for fan ownership.

I spoke to a friend of mine who is a corporate lawyer and I asked his opinion. It was heavily caveated with "based on the information available", but he was of the impression that Murray and co would be successful. A key point here is that there will be much that we haven't heard so far. I only hope the AGM goes ahead as planned regardless of the outcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

What have we become eh?

It's really sad when you look at it. I long for the day I can go back to just moaning or worrying about events on the pitch.

I better make it clear, I asked the question about the court case when I was gathering information regarding resolutions 9 and 10 for Thursdays meeting

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re. the parts you highlighted.

1. That is one of the reasons they are in court and why I said they had a maximum of 5%

2. Again as per my previous post they tried to have the AGM delayed before the case was heard but failed

3. The petitioners agree, but they only account for between 0.71% and 5.03% of the shareholders. They are saying that they are happy, but they don't speak for the other shareholders. There is an assumption there that there are no other objections. I hope that assumption is correct

This place would go mental if it was suggested that Paul Murray was removing shareholders' rights to 21 days consideration of the resolutions which is what would happen if that ruling was binding on all shareholders

I thought the petitioners/requesitioners represented some of the large institutional investors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm feeling the love here guys, much appreciated.

On a serious note, I strongly believe that fan ownership is the only way we can secure the long term security of our club. Despite our differences we all have one major thing in common and that is a desire to see our team become successful and sustainable again. As an organisation, the RST has obstacles to overcome in order to grow to a size that will give us a realistic opportunity to achieve our goals.

We are always looking to improve as an organisation. I implore anyone who believes in fan ownership, but dislikes the RST for whatever reason, join and change it from within. We have made massive strides in the last 12 months and want to keep that improvement going.

You know exactly what's needed to make the RST grow

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to a friend of mine who is a corporate lawyer and I asked his opinion. It was heavily caveated with "based on the information available", but he was of the impression that Murray and co would be successful. A key point here is that there will be much that we haven't heard so far. I only hope the AGM goes ahead as planned regardless of the outcome

Has Murray promised the RST (or any of its members) anything?

Has he committed to fan ownership which is after all your raisin d'être?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the petitioners/requesitioners represented some of the large institutional investors?

I thought the petitioners/requesitioners represented some of the large institutional investors?

So did you alter ego DeliriousDennis, I think he mentioned the figure of 28% a few time. (hourly)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So did you alter ego DeliriousDennis, I think he mentioned the figure of 28% a few time. (hourly)

Rap the pish, it's boring.

Knew I hadn't made it up:

In a statement, a spokesman for the requisitioners said: "We embarked on this exercise seven weeks ago at the request of shareholders speaking for 28% of the club's shares.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/rangers-shareholders-claim-clubs-broker-blocked-compromise-agreement-with-current-dir.1379068511?_=aced6dedd8203df3cb3d81f46c263fd71b7b3e48

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Murray promised the RST (or any of its members) anything?

Has he committed to fan ownership which is after all your raisin d'être?

There have been no promises made as far as I'm aware. He has indicated that he is keen on supporter representation/ownership and we quoted it in a recent statement. Personally I would like him to say it publicly. He's had and will continue to have plenty of opportunities to do this. Again in my personal opinion he needs to give fans something to back. As far as I can see there is no indication of his plans or even who will run the club if the executives are voted off

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found

×
×
  • Create New...