Jimfanciesthedude 24,601 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 You are conveniently ignoring the fact Paul Murray has been asked to represent 28% of shareholders who have invested more than £12m.Always wanted to know how 28% of the shareholders managed to invest a whopping 12millOh and where have you been dennis, you fucked off pretty sharpish when the accounts were much better than followfollow and the rst predicted Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 88 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Always wanted to know how 28% of the shareholders managed to invest a whopping 12millOh and where have you been dennis, you fucked off pretty sharpish when the accounts were much better than followfollow and the rst predicted Because they actually paid for their shares, unlike Green, Ahmed and their hangers on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Have I stumbled into gersnet... You trolling on that site aswell. What you going to do with this all done with? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted October 14, 2013 Author Share Posted October 14, 2013 I'm not arguing about right and wrong I'm highlighting the way in which Murray and his group have conducted themselves and the lengths they will go to, to get their own way....are these really the people you want on the board? Will they be receiving a wage? Does that not then make them spivs and greedy bastards?No I don't want Murray, I have no idea what his plans are and I don't think he is particularly convincing.I also think our current board are doing a very poor job.I would rather it was someone else entirely. If King comes in, his wealth alone gives us a security net so he would get my backing.It is unreasonable to complain about Murray for today's events though, this was purely the fault of the board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 88 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Always wanted to know how 28% of the shareholders managed to invest a whopping 12millOh and where have you been dennis, you fucked off pretty sharpish when the accounts were much better than followfollow and the rst predicted The accounts were much worse than predicted by our esteemed Finance Director a few months ago and no where near what was set out in the IPO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawsburst 1,381 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 You trolling on that site aswell. What you going to do with this all done with?Trolling is your bag viagra man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted October 14, 2013 Author Share Posted October 14, 2013 You are conversing with a fence sitter who jumps whichever side the apple falls, more faces than the Matterhorn.I have already explained this to you. I don't understand why you find it so difficult.I think the current board are incompetent, Murray has not convinced me he is much better. I'm not sitting on a fence, I'm saying they are both shite.Today the board were much more shite than Murray though.You have an agenda to back the current board regardless of what happens. People on here see right through you though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE5 107 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Speaking well on STV. http://news.stv.tv/west-central/243278-rangers-opposition-group-forces-delay-of-annual-general-meeting/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elephants stoned 2,994 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 You're deluding yourself again.I assume you're still referring to this nonsensical rant?When the dust settles who the f*&k do you think will be the major shareholder?Seriously who the f*&k do you think King would want on the board?If you for one second think that King's arrival boosts the incumbents re-election chances then you're in for a rude awakening.So quoting Dave Kings own words is a "nonsensical rant" now is it? Your still trying to move the goal posts we are not talking about King being majority shareholder, if you had bothered to put up the post that actually asked you the question it was "how can King AS CHAIRMAN appoint who he wants to the board against the wishes of the shareholders and other board members? " I never said anything about some future scenario where DK is a majority shareholder or anything but simply if he is appointed Chairman without a big shareholding how can he walk over everybody else's wishes? The simple answer is he can't but instead of just admiting that you have to create this argument where you keep trying to weasel out of the fact that you were wrong Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky True Legend 2,682 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I see the 28% has reared its uly head again. Let's settle this matter once and for all. Give us a breakdown of this 28%. Does this include a holding by Liewell to enable him to shit-stir? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus 35 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 No place for the Alky then?Oh the irony from a poster called swally. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigblueyonder 11,156 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Graham Taylor @ted14128614mPaul Murray on SSN. Says he was offered board place last week in exchange for withdrawing court petition. He declined. .........Blazer chaser indeed, eh.... I'm not sure that's a plus, he had a chance to put all this behind us but choose to have his day in court and cost the club money... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calio 688 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Speaking well on STV.http://news.stv.tv/w...eneral-meeting/Essential listening for anyone still sitting on the fence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus 35 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Always wanted to know how 28% of the shareholders managed to invest a whopping 12millOh and where have you been dennis, you fucked off pretty sharpish when the accounts were much better than followfollow and the rst predicted The accounts much better? They are nothing short of disgraceful and very short in detail rather conveniently for the board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 Oh the irony from a poster called swally.But I can separate business from drinking and don't have a habit of running off at the mouth about sensitive issues in the earshot of total strangers Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calio 688 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I see the 28% has reared its uly head again. Let's settle this matter once and for all. Give us a breakdown of this 28%. Does this include a holding by Liewell to enable him to shit-stir?28% matters not a jot mate, the requisitioner's obviously hold enough votes to make their voices heard in a Scottish Court of Law today. There is no debating that & that`s pretty much all that mattered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus 35 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I'm not sure that's a plus, he had a chance to put all this behind us but choose to have his day in court and cost the club money... It is a plus all right the court of session said so. A big minus for the spivs who have cost us money yet again. All that was required was a fair vote at the AGM. Hardly unreasonable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 358 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I'm not sure that's a plus, he had a chance to put all this behind us but choose to have his day in court and cost the club money... It was the board's tactics in trying to block legitimate EGM requisitions and director proposal resolutions for the AGM which caused the need for the court case.The board then tried to buy Murray with the 'offer' of a seat on the board, which he was right to refuse because if he's like a lot of other fans, then he doesn't trust them as far as he could throw them and wouldn't have risked ending the court case on the back of one of our board's now infamous verbal agreements. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus 35 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 But I can separate business from drinking and don't have a habit of running off at the mouth about sensitive issues in the earshot of total strangersI sincerely hope that the people who are your business associates and fellow directors do not clandestinely film you when you are enjoying a meal with someone you thought was honest and trustworthy. The City of London financial institutions appear to trust his business decisions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 157 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 So quoting Dave Kings own words is a "nonsensical rant" now is it? Your still trying to move the goal posts we are not talking about King being majority shareholder, if you had bothered to put up the post that actually asked you the question it was "how can King AS CHAIRMAN appoint who he wants to the board against the wishes of the shareholders and other board members? " I never said anything about some future scenario where DK is a majority shareholder or anything but simply if he is appointed Chairman without a big shareholding how can he walk over everybody else's wishes? The simple answer is he can't but instead of just admiting that you have to create this argument where you keep trying to weasel out of the fact that you were wrongCalm down and keep taking the medication.Here's my original post.I'm sure it's mild compared to what the reaction on here will be when King starts handing out some blazers.Now we'll see if King does or doesn't eh? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigblueyonder 11,156 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 It is a plus all right the court of session said so. A big minus for the spivs who have cost us money yet again. All that was required was a fair vote at the AGM. Hardly unreasonable.It was the board's tactics in trying to block legitimate EGM requisitions and director proposal resolutions for the AGM which caused the need for the court case.The board then tried to buy Murray with the 'offer' of a seat on the board, which he was right to refuse because if he's like a lot of other fans, then he doesn't trust them as far as he could throw them and wouldn't have risked ending the court case on the back of one of our board's now infamous verbal agreements.So rather than end it he wanted to cost the club more money, how very noble of him.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cammyfraserrfc 5 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 This decision today is the best thing for us the fans and the fans who are shareholders. Now we can decide on the future of our club, if you are a shareholder use your vote. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I sincerely hope that the people who are your business associates and fellow directors do not clandestinely film you when you are enjoying a meal with someone you thought was honest and trustworthy. The City of London financial institutions appear to trust his business decisions.He has been running off at the mouth for months before the film was madeI suspect his reputation is rather dented as a resultNot the kind of director I would want in my company Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejay the dj 31,964 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 My god the follow boys are out in force tonight Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 358 Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 So rather than end it he wanted to cost the club more money, how very noble of him..Murray & co offered to pay for the massive costs of posting out the new AGM notices with the new resolutions added which will run into tens of thousands of pounds. That doesn't strike me as someone who "wanted to cost the club more money". 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.