Mountain Bear
-
Posts
1,321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Mountain Bear
-
Fingers crossed. I fear for us if we go into the Semi Final with the midfield that started against Arbroath. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front? Reg: Fuck off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of Judea! 'Judean People's Front'. Francis: Wankers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Irvine has only stopped working for the Club, he's still working for the same Director who was given proxy voting rights by Green, BPH et al (for reasons no-one has yet explained). And according to Forlanssister in another thread, the Lawyer pursuing the liable claim against SOS just happened to be one of only four shareholders in Media House. Coincidence? Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen the back of that odious little scrote yet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The First Annual Gersnet Dinner (The Bears Picnic)
Mountain Bear replied to BrahimHemdani's topic in Rangers Chat
Can I get a body double? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
100% behind SoS and would gladly support a specific appeal for funds to support him, but just doesn't sit well with me using RFFF cash for that purpose. If nothing else it would be certain to further entrench divided opinions among the fans. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Banks in general have no sector appetite for football clubs these days. Most of them would happily exit their current football relationships if they could, certainly the heavily exposed ones anyway. In the past they'd either view funding clubs as part of the support they gave to local communities, or else as a way of cementing relationships with credible local business people. However, as more money came into the game and levels of debt increased, they were forced to contemplate what to do if things went wrong? In those circumstances they have a choice - call in the debt, potentially shutting down the club and alienating vast swathes of your retail customers in the process, or continue to fund levels of debt which bear no relation to normal banking ratios in the hope that the club unearths a gem of a player that they can sell, or some other sugar daddy steps up and bails them out. While our inability to attract a major banking partner isn't good news by any means, I don't think you should infer it's entirely down to our own specific financial situation. Although the first rule of banking is that you should assess the quality of management involved (which must be in doubt in our case), even the best run and most profitable of Scottish clubs wouldn't find it easy to re bank these days (especially not at an interest rate of base + 150 basis points...). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The First Annual Gersnet Dinner (The Bears Picnic)
Mountain Bear replied to BrahimHemdani's topic in Rangers Chat
Me too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Ah, the "throw them in the river and if they drown they're innocent" school of justice. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Unfortunately, I don't have any need or opportunity to use McGills buses, otherwise I'd take great pleasure in walking rather than paying that man a single penny. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Temps, Law, Black & MacLeod - that's pretty much our 1st pick midfield all out at the moment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Had to laugh at the Tesco analogy. Remember last October when they produced a Halloween costume based on a mental patient? They and Asda were criticised by a mental health charity and within hours those products had been removed from the shelves and the charity was offered a significant donation. Now, that was the power exercised by one single pressure group, representing a fraction of the total customer base. Imagine how quick they'd act if 80% of their Clubcard customers demanded to know how much the company spent with an unethical supplier, or demanded stricter animal husbandry, or the removal of lads mags from the magazine racks. Do you think they'd say "but you're not shareholders"? Whoever wrote that is well past their sell-by date. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd forgotten about that goal and had to look it up on YouTube. You're right of course, it's like watching Messi in a Rangers shirt! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I mean "cook" of course. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
In the eyes of the law a spent conviction = no conviction, so we'd better avoid c***k as well. C**k may be alright though! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I rate him quite highly. Right type of signing IMO (age, potential sell on value etc). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
My reading is that he's deliberately emphasising the Board's own statement on having no plans to use MP and Ibrox as collateral, to make that option even more toxic in future and force them down the new equity route. The tone also suggests to me that he's prepared to work with them in future if they'll take his money. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I was totally opposed to the Easdales joining the Board from day one, partly because of their colourful history in business and partly because it worries me why a group of faceless overseas investors would give them their proxy votes in the first place. So, I'd dearly like to see them go soon and completely. However, if DK strikes a deal whereby they, BP & margarita etc are diluted to the point where they don't call all the shots, then I could live with that. Fundamentally though, the current Board received the same message before, during and after the AGM from supporters and aside from a fans survey, I've yet to see any tangible evidence that they're treating us seriously yet. I believe that means we should keep the pressure up all the way until either DK strikes and communicates the structure of a satisfactory deal, or Mr Wallace's 120 day review produces a clear business plan, identifies their preferred source of any new capital, and provides watertight commitments on increased fan visibility of, and influence over, the running of the Club. THEN, we can judge whether any of the current actors deserve to remain on the stage. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Whoa. You're bang out of order.
-
But the publicity which would accompany any such arrangement with DK would be a game changer and hugely increase the profile of both BR and RF. As for your point re BR's requirement to buy shares, DK could simply buy them and give BR his proxy until they had sufficient funds to purchase an initial amount outright, with more to follow each year. Given the right publicity, I'd have thought £1m pa from BR & RF was realistic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd love him to underwrite a tranche of shares for the supporters, to be repaid from BuyRangers / RangersFirst subscriptions over time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
#40 reminds me of these two... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
One for the legal eagles out there to opine on. However, I do find it hard to imagine that a plaintiff can simply lodge a letter of intent to sue and without any court involvement, the defender's assets can't be sold or used as collateral indefinitely.
-
Please continue to say what you think. It's healthy to have someone challenge the orthodox view and whether I agree with you or not, you make your points in a reasoned and non-confrontational way, so I see you as a valued contributor to Gersnet.
-
A poster on Twitter said that even issuing a letter of intent to sue about ownership of the assets would be sufficient to put legal obstacles in the way of granting a charge over Ibrox / MP. I don't know if that's correct, but I asked the guy how long a letter of intent was valid for without actually following it up and he had no idea, so he may be no better informed than I am.
-
The alleged defamation appears to relate to the use of the word "crook" in reference to an individual whose past convictions are now spent, making that description inaccurate.