Bluedell
-
Posts
17,839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
99
Everything posted by Bluedell
-
Not sure how RYD funds can be ring-fenced when it owes the club over �£1m and is technically insolvent.
-
Who is making these decisions and how does that person know if we have the budget for them?
-
-
.
-
I didn't get there until later on, so missed Nacho and POTN, but did catch up with Gers4life and had a great night.
-
Murray owns 57.1% of MSL. I believe he currently owns around 55% of MIH with his close family owning another 21%.
-
MIH own 57%, MSL own 34.4% and SDM owns less than 0.3% personally, I believe. We don't know if Murray is trying to punt the lot, or just MIH's. I would have thought that the bank would be wanting MSL to sell there's as well as the proceeds should end up at MIH anyway.
-
Why bring MIH into it? Because they are the company that are selling Rangers. They are the company that Ellis is dealing with and the company that would receive the proof of funding. Rangers aren't selling themselves and therefore are not in a position to confirm funding. They can pass on what they have been told by the directors of MIH if they see fit, but they would likely not have seen first-hand proof themselves. It's really not a difficult concept.
-
No, just highlighting that you were talking crap.
-
I'm sure AJ has been told that it's there, but as I said, there's no reason why he should have seen it given he is not involved in the negotiations. His part comes later. It's not his place to comment on the affairs of MIH.
-
I don't see why our chairman would have seen proof of funding, particularly at this stage. That would be an issue between MIH and Ellis.
-
You have to wonder which of the parties trying to buy us fed this to that worthy tome.
-
Sorry to hear that, rbr. It was 20 years ago that I had dealings with them, and perhaps the company has gone downhill in the last 10, as I know that, up until that point, what they were involved in was extremely high quality and often sold out before it was built.
-
While not relevant to the club, I'm extremely saddened to see John Dickie go under. They made fabulous properties and my first property purchase was brand new flat made by them. I loved it, but gave it up when I got married. A quality company with a great reputation.
-
Cambiasso is the biggest shock to me, but someone told me that there had been a fall-out.
-
I'd look upon it as low risk as I doubt there is much evidence to prove anything, as I said above, and if it can flush out King/Park now rather than in 6 months time and get them to put another �£13m on the table then it's well worth it. Not that I'm saying that this is the case.
-
I would have thought that if he was a hired gun then there would be a law that has been broken. Probably something stock exchange related. I'd agree that it is hard to totally discount the idea, and has always been a possibility.
-
It depends what could be proven. Thinking about buying something and not doing so is not a crime. Let's say Ellis is indeed a hired gun. Presumably they would have put some correspondence in place between them to suggest that Ellis was in fact interested in buying the club. Due diligence can be anything from a 30 second scan of the published accounts to a 20 man team from KPMG for a month. He may have carried out the former and therefore can claim to have carried out due diligence. There has been so little said in the press that there is virtually nothing for anyone to claim that they have been misled. For a crime to be committed, it probably would need to be shown that someone has suffered a loss, which I think would be very difficult to prove or else someone would have had to have gained out of it. SDM may well have done so, but what real evidence is there and who is going to pursue it?
-
I ceased buying the Herald due to Spiers and moved across to the Times. I bought it 5 or 6 times a week and found it to be an excellent paper. Since Spiers started his crap in it I now find myself buying it once a week on average. It's a shame that it's losing some of its Scottish identity, but they really should have know better than to employ Spiers.
-
It puts into context the level of his gambling and the level of his debts.
-
Presumably Muir met Ellis in his position as a director within the MIH group and not as a Rangers director. There are certain things that he would be aware of in one position that he would not be able to reveal in another. He is not withholding any information that he has learned in his position as a Rangers director. Conflicts of interest in business are common and I'm sure Muir has no problem in dealing with them in the correct manner.
-
No .
-
Agreed. The RST seem to be claiming that they don't have any views on the parties involved but FF and some board members seem to be part of an anti-Ellis propaganda campaign. Can't say that I have enough information to decoide whether that is the correct decision or not, but hopefully they have more than that FF article came up with. The article points out that several companies that llis is involved in are "financially valueless". so what? That proves nothing. So are some of the companies that I am involved with but that is irrelevant to the ones that are successful. It looks as if the DOB on one of the forms submitted to Compnies House is wrong, but again, so what? They need to a better job at coming up ith reasons as to why ellis is no suitable.
-
Great. Thanks. Don't know why you didn't post that in the first place instead of all these other irrelevant links. Interesting that you accept what the ET print when it suits you, but don't most of the time
-
Still didn't answer the question.......
