Dragonfly Trumpeter

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and let people guess.

So the club lied in their RNS? I find that unacceptable and will be asking Paul Murray why he did so. The prospective Nomad completed its checks on the "fit and proper" status of the existing and the proposed additional director of the Company and confirmed to the Company that it was satisfied on both fronts.

I do not remember you alluding to that, was that when you were getting stuck in to men like Bennett, King and Murray? Or was it when you were supporting and voting for the lamb and the leech, hoping to keep them in position as directors to further shaft our football club and wreak even more havoc? I tried the search option but it was all over the place. I am , however, not too unhappy that Deloitte LLP came to that conclusion, even though the non-declaration by the former directors poses another serious problem for our club. Because sadly, I reckon there will be much worse to follow when the full extent of the damage done by our former directors comes to light.

Really? Signing an expensive player on English premiership wages is what we should be doing? Wrong market, totally.

DK does not have any money, you have posted that hundreds of times yourself. So why even speculate?

There were never 32,682 people in yesterday, nowhere near it. Not even decent for ticket sales and way over the top with regards to folk who actually went. The football has been pish for a long time, people are not going. Simple.

The same day Sport Direct lawyers made an application to the Companies Court in London seeking the following - 1/ That the Claimant shall not comply with the request of Mr Mark DIngwall by letter dated 3 February 2015 for a a copy of the Claimant’s register of members. 2/ That they “shall not comply with any future request (whether made by Mark Dingwall or any other person) to inspect the Claimant’s register of members or for a copy of that register where the only purpose given for the request is to enable members to be contacted, without identifying the subject matter and purpose of such contact: 3/ Mark Dingwall do pay the Claimant’s costs, such costs to be assessed if not agreed. The hearing is set for 11.30 on 14th April. Ok, whatever you say.

Which headline is misleading?

Did King say he was now trying to get one willing to approve him or who said it? I missed the quote.

Why does there need to be a return on the money or of the money? Really? Do you seriously expect guys (3Bs + DK) who own app 35% of the company between them to 'gift' money to the club just because it needs it? Eg, gift £10million to the company when Ashley owns near 9% of it? The finance plan you speak of needs time, as has been explained.

Even from a man who wanted to keep the Lamb and the Leech and tried to justify their actions in the Rangers boardroom, that is quite incredible.

They could but they do not want to lend the club money at all. They want to put in equity. That needs to be done in the correct manner and takes time. This loan was only given because funds were needed now.

Because they want to put in equity and re-finance the business. Direct funding into the club can only be done in the proper manner. Expect the rights issue for the un-issued shares to happen shortly. Then the real work will begin.

It is probably as simple as it is self explanatory. To provide the Company with time to deliver a longer term funding solution. Pay this month's salary run and have the rights issue for the unissued 41m shares. Then have a proper sort out when the wigs have bailed. No interest or fees though. Poor show by RIFC director's standards, as the heroic Lamb + Leech showed. If only they were still there.

I do not have a problem with it. And it shows their class, which is nice. Gutter level.

An excellent, young, prospect at full back who has been getting rave reviews for his performances for quite a while. So no chance then.

No Halkett, Gallagher or Crawford. Plenty of the same old diddies though.

I am just a bit concerned that I do not have a busy schedule this week and I think I will actually give up another 12 hours of my life tomorrow and attend the game. I expect to be one of less than 20k in the ground if I do go. Not sure if I need the Samaritans, a shrink or possibly both.

In all fairness, he did score a decent goal against Timothy as well. So he has actually contributed twice in 8 years. Probably the biggest waste of money ever at our club. And still sucking the tit.

Fury got where he is despite generous and prolonged support for Craig Shyte in the past - and that was very relevant to us. So I do not see him having a problem with this mere Mohammad retort.

Credit for taking it, a hiding to nothing? Never. The blame is cast and the expectation shattered. So It is win - win for McCall, a no brainer because he cannot fail. A hero turning it around and getting us up or unable to rescue the M&M omni-shambles.

I don't think any Rangers supporters voted to keep the Lamb. And at the egm, apart from Ashley, only 1.33% of the issued shares wanted to keep him.

Shit against Malmo, his 1st challenge, and got worse. Results don't lie, and he was very, very consistent. McCoist's only successes were - his salary and the penny shares he got for his soul. The guy who backed Greenco for pure, personal wealth to the massive detriment of our football club.

I am not so sure. But they have been in place for a day now so maybe you are correct.

You don't see why to be honest? That is what I replied to and why I suggested perhaps you should have ignored it. Granted, I now see why you don't see why.