BrahimHemdani

Thank you. I supported the Club thoughout by renewing my ST and paying to attend other home games through the CC system. That was my right as it was the right of any other fan not to attend games.

I meant the recent £5 million.

The Club would not have required the loans were it not for the reduced ST uptake and generally lower attendances this season.

Yes, I see that. He would say that though wouldn't he. He wouldn't say it helped drive down the share price to a point where he felt comfortable abandoning his principles to buy a shareholding. It's not antagonistic just because it's a minority opinion. They answered that at the time.

Glad to hear that.

I didn't mean to be antagonistic, I just don't happen to agree that the boycott was good for the Club or brought about the boardroom change. The loss of ST revenue is more or less equal to the first Ashley loan.

I can assure you of one thing, I am most certainly looking forward to Rangers re-emergence at the forefront of Scottish Football, the first time we beat Celtic, Aberdeen etc in the SPFL and most particularly resuming my travels in Europe, though I fear the first trips will be to the likes of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Not at all, we just wouldn't have the £5/10 million loan round our neck.

I hope your joking, he didn't surely?

I am at a loss to understand why that post wasn't removed by Admin. It was grossly offensive, my father and no doubt relatives of many others on here fought against the Nazi's and/or were their victims.

Who cares what Mr Lawwell thinks about Celtic's history. This is a Rangers Forum; we should be concerned about putting our own house in order and leave Celtic to live in theirs.

One reason why those of us in Milton of Campsie are fighting to retain the greenbelt beteen us and Lennoxtown

Yes indeed should have qualified the comment, thanks.

Absolutely they did. This from the Minutes of the 4th Meeting: Approximately half the money taken in should be held in reserve for a new share issue; lest the CIC holding be diluted due to insufficient funds to purchase new shares. http://www.rangersfirst.org/media/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Minutes_2014-03-04.pdf But they weren't rules as such, so no rules were broken; the circumstances changed and the Board who were elected reacted to that; as a contributor I don't have a problem with that, even if I disagreed with how the votes were cast, it was a democratic vote.

Hopefully GS will call off the dogs then.

Not if the Mosad get him.

The original plan was only to invest half of what came in and keep the other half for a rights issue to maintain the percentage holding and thereby avoid dilution. As things stand however, if there is a 1-for-1 rights issue, to avoid diluting their existing shareholding of 2,006,032 with 12,847 members paying an average of say £10 per month would only take 5 months to raise the money if the shares were offered at 33p. However, I would expect the offer price to be less, perhaps 25p, in which case they would only need 4 months, provided the membership holds up post EGM. If an issue is less than 1-for-1 e.g. 2 for 3 it would take less time and if it was more than 1-for-1 e.g. 3 for 2, it would take longer.

To whom are you referring: Nazi war criminals (who mostly said they were acting under orders), folk who agree with STB or the the Israeli Secret Service? Your analogy was way over the top and you should withdraw it.

In what way is STB (or anyone else who didn't agree with C&C's tactics) comparable to someone like a Nazi war criminal who might head for Argentina and be hunted down by the Israeli Secret Service?

John Gilligan, perhaps?

Yes, they would have to resign and lose any pay-offs to take a job elsewhere.

All that may well be true, BD, but equally it may not be easy to dismiss him for these reasons. I have some sympathy with #34 but #35 may be a more practical solution. That said Mr King may place expediency above all else.

Not in the case of Leach; his position is untenable. Llambias will be voted off and it's not clear if Ashley can or will want to reinstate him on the Board. He may have a short term future on the Board in a transition period. His position as CEO is another matter. If KingCo/T3B are in control of the Boardroom as seems likely then I'm not sure if it is the wisest move or cost effective to replace him unless they have a cheaper and better qualified alternative.

I was writing #27 as you posted this, Craig. I am nothing if not a realist and we are agreed on the practicalities. King would be well advised to get advice before he sacks them both, the law may well be different in South Africa If I was him I would negotiate with Leach and as you say wait to see if he can uncover evidence of conflict of interest or failure to act in the best interests of the company etc on the part of Llambias.

We could indeed just sack them and say, see you in court but my feeling is that whilst Leach may be on difficult ground because of his reported comments about T3B, I am not certain that a Tribunal would hold that as gross misconduct ergo sufficient grounds for immediate dismissal without pay in lieu of notice. Llambias will be even more difficult, whilst the Ashley deal may be questionable he has already prepared his defence to that and he can point to a record of cost cutting. Perhaps FS has or can obtain the precise details of their contracts e.g. are they one year rolling or fixed term; but in any event it seems to me that whether they are dismissed for cause or not, ultimately we will have to pay the balance of their contracts or negotiate a settlement. Leach might be advised to settle for 3 or 6 months pay but Llambias has no reason to settle for anything less than his full contractual entitlement. Also if King does want to work with Ashley, and indeed it may be a necessity for him, then sacking his two placemen may not be the best start to the relationship. One perhaps (Leach) might be an honourable way out, but not both. Just trying to be realistic.