Jump to content

 

 

SteveC

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,389

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SteveC

  1. SteveC
    Talking sense? Where does he address the buying of shares in a way to avoid investing in the club that was selling them?
  2. SteveC
    I seem to remember one of them issuing a statement saying they were aware that there was a great risk if not likelihood that this was the case but that on the other hand they were designed to buy shares and so felt they were going to do so despite the fear that the shares would turn out to be worthless. My memory, however, is unreliable these days so this needs to be confirmed or denied by someone either in the know or less challenged in the memory stakes.
  3. SteveC
    Yes, SBS, me too. I absolutely want FO and agree with Hildy above completely....but I have such little hope for it that it is a negligible hope - on a good day.
  4. SteveC
    The Mail coverage didn't look negative to me, they seemed to be impressed. Crap paper, I know but unusual to see Rangers' fans portrayed without the usual scale of snidey to vile bile asides. Certainly didn't stint on photos either. EDIT: PS and this one report alone could alert non-forum or social media bears to the £1 atrocity; and certainly also bring it to a different audience.
  5. SteveC
    Perhaps they feel it is better than doing sweet f a? Impressive coverage in the Daily Mail is already more than nothing. Granted Ashley is unlikely to care much but it is still something however little rather than just allowing us to be ripped apart without a murmer as has become our way.
  6. SteveC
    Thousands of online orders all made and then cancelled?
  7. SteveC
    Well said. Unquestionably true, imho - my only change would be to end with "it really should not be a difficult one" (and only because for some reason. for many, it seems to be).
  8. SteveC
    Not since even earlier, tbh
  9. SteveC
    That's a depressing read. Not saying it's inaccurate, bu sure as hell is a downer
  10. SteveC
    I very much fear that many of those will never return. Same thing would happen to fans of any Scottish club who stopped going. You'd be pretty hard pushed not to find something better to do with your time. Routine is all that keeps many going.
  11. SteveC
    I knew we couldn't argue for long, big boy!
  12. SteveC
    I agree with your penultimate post, GS, in general (i usually do agree with you as it happens - and you call me "nuts"" ) Also, what I said was silly, a couple of times on two different threads earlier, was that to suggest he'd "panic" over such interests was silly.
  13. SteveC
    I wondered how you could afford to post all day, every day. Should have guessed "billionaire" instead of all the other answers that occurred :-) (JEST)
  14. SteveC
    Not to begin with, no. but when you already are a billionaire and chancing 8 times that on a throw of the dice (see Tescos for one example) - then you can. Plus it isn't 5 million. You are referring to a historic 4.8 million amount that A) no longer exists at that level and B) he already has a large proportion of what potentially remains in his back pocket.
  15. SteveC
    Very droll. ?
  16. SteveC
    "hysterical" = tone? You go away and think about it then no need to rush back with an answer... Ponder, ponder ask for advice, seek semantic escape. After all it is all you ever talk about, whyever should anyone think that you know your mind concerning it? An answer would have taken less time and fewer words than your evasion, you know.
  17. SteveC
    Who said anything about name calling or insulting terms - I said "tone". You don't think your tone is hectoring, self-righteous or at all unfriendly to RF? Btw I didn't even bother going on to highlight your use of "absurd" in the same line. Setting yourself up as judge, jury and arbiter in a thoroughly "civilised" manner, no doubt. Just to reiterate for the millionth time, I'd be ecstatic if RST took over Rangers with FO, or RF did or a combination of the two. I am just stating what is the reality facing us, it ain't gonna happen the way things are. So if you want FO, you have to stop solely promoting RST's "answer" and denigrating/attacking/constantly undermining RF. Not that I think RF will succeed either, but I wouldn't "needle" them in posts as being somehow anti-FO which you seem hell bent on doing. I do wish that I was wrong re RST's chances of ever making an impact for FO as being impossible, but that's the situation. So we come back to the same question: What's your choice, FO or no FO?
  18. SteveC
    Not if it is a club that will never succeed, that is toxic to many of the people in the small pool it seems to try to attract support from. You've never answered this basic point. RST has been running for years, it is nowhere near FO, it has - whether rightly or wrongly, frankly no-one caress - alienated many fans and groups of fans. You seem to support both FO and RST as the vehicle for achieving this. As I have repeatedly said - it is obvious that you can't have both. Which are you going to support? If you say RST then you will never see FO. It's that simple. What's your choice, FO or no FO?
  19. SteveC
    1) Yes I just called you a good lad. I must be nuts 2) when you are worth 4 billion and have gambles going o with Tesco's share price then 4,8 million doesn't register that much, especially when you are already in control of a significant proportion of that. Race you to the nut-house, fruitcake. He's not gambling for 4.8 million and even if he were = chickenfeed
  20. SteveC
    Hildy, do you really not see why posts like this put people right off all your sensible posts? What tone do you expect your first sentence to come across in? if it is neither belligerent nor petulant, then you have not succeeded in conveying it.
  21. SteveC
    Gunslinger, you are a good lad and a valuable poster, but repeating on various threads that Ashley is "panicking" over one of the smallest financial concern in his vast empire will never make it true. Nothing that happens at Rangers will ever affect his bottom line .He has an "interest" at best - not a concern far less a panic will ever crease his brow regarding us. We barely register to him financially and we don't register at all in any other way
  22. SteveC
    My disagreement with you is not over your main points here. My disagreement is that you not only think there is one vehicle for achieving these aims, but that the vehicle you support is not trusted (whether rightly or wrongly) by many and won't ever succeed. It's been running for many years and has made little progress. At the time our club was most in need of FO the option wasn't even there and it won't ever be under the one and only scheme you support. You are right in all you say re FO, but you are deluded if you think it can come about under RST. That may be unfair, it may be sad (it certainly is to me) but it is where we are and where you have been stuck for ages now. You seem to want FO but only under RST. Those two have proved mutually incompatible, hence = stasis and endless repetition that deadens an already faded message.
  23. SteveC
    i doubt he's panicking, we are just one of many financial gambles and playthings. Hardly something for him to be concerned over far less panic. We are small fry to him financially and bugger all else to him in any case
  24. SteveC
    You don't say, well I never - what a new thought from you, Hildy. I wish the RST had been succesful, but it hasn't been - and, yes I know the figures from the past, you quote them weekly - and no-one believes it will be. I have been a member. I signed up. I signed up to Rangers First too. I gave money to RFFF. none of them show the slightest chance of ever gaining a foothold of significance, however. I'd dearly like FO for Rangers, more than almost any other dream I have for the future but it's a fantasy at the moment - and a far fetched one at that when the likes of Ashley and King are the only names in the frame. As I say I wish you had or could deliver FO but you can't and you repeating yourself ad infinitum on every thread possible that it is the only way forward for Rangers is nothing other than depressing given that what you are saying is the only way forward is a vehicle that doesn't move. I am not, note, saying you are wrong or should fail or getting involved into why you stalled - but stalled you have and we need a moving vehicle. It would be nice if you could all just get together and support one vehicle: a moving forward Rangers Supporters' Bus - or at least all work together for the benefit of our club rather than cheer-leading your own broken-down carts. However, as we have absolutely no power or influence anyway the ways things are organised at Ibrox, it will be hard to get people motivated to save our club as other fans have saved theirs, I understand that. I know you mean well and I admire your efforts in what you think is right and that you believe you are helping - but to keep saying that everyone has to do something when they quite clearly are not going to/do not wish to and that isn't really helping. It's just being stubborn.
  25. SteveC
    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/500k-for-rangers-to-dump-wallace-and-nash-183855n.25551275? £500K for Rangers to dump Wallace and Nash CASH-STRAPPED Rangers could have to shell out over £500,000 to pay off chief executive Graham Wallace and director Philip Nash if the pair are ousted. Billionaire businessman Mike Ashley wants both Wallace and Nash removed from their positions on the board - and has called a general meeting of the Ibrox club. The surprise move is a significant development in the escalating battle for control of the troubled Glasgow institution. The Rangers board issued a statement yesterday morning saying that it is "united in its support of the executive team". However, Sports Direct tycoon Ashley is hopeful he has the 51% shareholder backing that he needs to get the motion passed. Ashley has formed an alliance with football board chairman Sandy Easdale in recent weeks. And, if major stakeholders Laxey Partners or other investors support the bid, it should go through. However, former Manchester City chief executive Wallace and ex-Arsenal and Liverpool financial director Nash would need to be compensated if it does succeed. And it could take £500,000 to pay up the remainder of their contracts with the SPFL League One champions. One option would be to put Wallace and Nash on fully-paid gardening leave until their deals run out - but that would put a strain on already-dwindling finances. Rangers would need to appoint a replacement to run the club if Wallace, who earns an annual salary of £315,000, was removed. Alternatively, they could pay the highly-remunerated executives off in one go - and honour any bonuses they have in their agreements. Despite raising over £3million in a new share offering last month, Rangers only has enough money to sustain it until the end of 2014. And it is unclear where the money will come from to pay Wallace and Nash if they are removed from their positions at the EGM. Hopes were high that Scot Wallace could restore order when he succeeded Craig Mather as chief executive last November. The Dumfries-born accountant came with an impressive track record, having worked in a variety of senior roles, including chief executive, at Barclays Premier League club City. However, he has been unable to mend the club's relationship with a large section of the Rangers support who are unhappy with many aspects of the running of the Ibrox club. Just over 23,000 fans renewed their season tickets for Ibrox this summer - a drop of over 10,000 on last season. And in recent months it has emerged that a power struggle was being waged between football board chairman Easdale and Wallace. Wallace is reported to have opened negotiations with former director Dave King in the past month about coming to the rescue of the Light Blues. The South Africa-based businessman has previously stated that he was prepared to invest £50m of his money to get Rangers back to the forefront of the Scottish game. But King coming on board would dilute the stakes of existing investors and they are unprepared to lose more money on their outlay after seeing the share price plummet from 70p to just 20p.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.