crucible

That meeting was the one with Stockbridge and Mather held a couple of weeks ago.

Yesterdays timid affair was nothing like the meeting with the board, either in numbers or content a sham in my eyes.

Hugely disappointing and says nothing new or of any note from the meeting.

King is said to meeting the Easdales at this moment.

Subscribe to whatever you want but the institutional investors who paid 70p per share had seen the price drop to 42p with no sign of it picking up. Wouldn't you be concerned?

My concern would hinge on whither I was a long term investor or short term speculator, I will subscribe to my own thoughts that the stories of who approached whom are somewhat open to interpretation.

Driving force was maybe the wrong term.....but he was approached by other shareholders to "spearhead the uprising". He & P Murray are the ones actively leading the revolt. The shareholders approached him for a reason. Based on previous comments from McColl I agree 100% that if he took control (unlikely), he certainly would not be a sugar daddy. I believe he would do what CG & M Murray originally stated (& failed to do) - get the club running soundly and within its means as a solid business entity.

Any report I have seen on who was approached by disgruntled shareholders cites Paul Murray, I do not subscribe to that story for one moment.

So the fact that he's not willing to invest £xxm with probably no prospect of a return shows that he is a poor business man???

 

He didn't make his millions by ploughing money into ventures where no gain was to be had. Right now, it is his business acumen that is the driving force behind the requisitioner's battle....

I see no evidence that he is the driving force, his investors are alleged to be unhappy at his time spent on us, he has stated his reluctance for any meaningful involvement in the running of the club and he is certainly no sugar daddy.

You have neither a moral nor a legal right to know anything about people who for whatever reason use the proper avenues to protect their identity in any company or investment, the SFA know the beneficial owners if they are satisfied I have no reason not to be.

I have no doubt of McColl's reaction if anyone started digging into his off-shore involvements or proxies.

Board members will have their own thoughts but as a Trust we have to get a vote from our members on who to support. At the moment, we are trying to ask questions of both sides so that we can give the members as much information as possible before asking them to vote. Put it this way, if all the Board are pro-PM and the membership comes back and says we want you to vote for the current Board, then that is what we have to do.

Fair enough thanks.

I think you are correct Bluedell. Certainly, I think the vast majority of the RST Board are in favour of change but some need convinced that PM/ JM is the way to go. Talking to members at our AGM I think the feeling is the same. We had hoped that if we could set up meetings with both sides it may help those in the undecided category.

Can we assume from that the RST have already decided on allegiance, as only some remain to be convinced that PM/ JM is the way to go ?

Exactly what we don't need another private meeting, don't understand why it can't be public for all fans rather than minority bodies or even filmed for all or broadcast by Rangers Chat radio.

Why would it be a problem if it is statutory law, I doubt anyone is going to change business law/rules to suit us.

If McCoist didn't know what sort of financial basket case we were after being promoted as the face that saved Rangers and urging fans to buy season tickets, we must have been fed some amount of PR horse shit about Ally's involvement at every level.

The relevance for me at any rate Bluedell are based around the accusations that the "non Rangers men" (sorry about the term but it probably sums up things best) involved at our club are taking a salary or bonuses far in excess of their worth. That to me is not completely accurate as Ally's wages prove.

 

I dont want to sound as if Im having a go at Ally - Im not - just the gravy train culture which appears to exist within our club of offering exorbitant wages and bonuses and which all seem to be riding.

Wasn't a Rangers man involved in sanctioning payments that being MM ?

The point is to reflect the concern of their members.

What is their combined membership numbers, who do they speak for.

Seems very similiar to concerns raised by McColl's investors, perhaps they would rather not weep.

I was going to say I wonder why DD doesn't get the same scrutiny before I realised I don't wonder at all.

As far as I am concerned it would only be Baxter and he has the added kudos of actually playing for the rest of the world select against England, then World Cup holders

Looks to me like they're saying that they are utterly and completely out of their depth.

I would expect no less from you.

Looks like the nomad is saying get it sorted or we will do it for you.

yes but it's jack irvines diatribe.

 

or rather his masters diatribe

No it's quite clearly Rangers hating english's diatribe, if you want to deflect it elsewhere that is up to you.

An anti King diatribe badly disguised, I believe he is bringing his views to the attention of the authorities, nothing new from that Rangers hater.

I really will leave it with you and your words, forgive me for laughing at your naivety..

"But you are denying it based on CF being Rangers-hating. Rangers-hating doesnt make it untruthful".

Who's actually doing the speculating though?

 

Let me hazard a guess and say charlotte fakes.

My guess is Pinsent Masons.

Ah such modesty omitting to include some of your own musings in order to alter the context, I'm content to let people read it themselves from post #37 forward and let them draw their own conclusions.

 

Though if you may indulge and point out where in this thread where I have as you state claimed Pinsent Mason's are 'spinning' or that they are anything but 'honest' ?

Pretty clear what you claimed, as you guessed Pinsent Masons, thing is what are you suggesting they were speculating about, maybe check with your source ?

So we have made the quantum leap of "I wouldnt hazard a guess as I dont frequent Rangers-hating websites" to proof positive that they use doctored documents ? Even if they do doctor documents I havent seen any proof that this one is doctored, have you ?

 

It seems to me that you are basing all of this on the premise that CF is Rangers-hating and therefore must always be wrong when there is the suggestion your argument may be flawed.

 

If what FS posted IS from Pinsent Masons then they were making speculative statements, regardless of where they came from.

 

The one thing we know is Pinsent Masons is respected. We do not know whether they speculated on Whyte's involvement, but it certainly is plausible. But you are denying it based on CF being Rangers-hating. Rangers-hating doesnt make it untruthful.

Enough said, if you want to continue to attempt to justify a Rangers hating site carry on.

So if there is the possibility that this is genuine (seems neither you or I know for sure the veracity of info coming from CF) then there is the chance the narrative posted by FS is factual from Pinsent Masons, correct ? In which case, the statements used within that narrative are very speculative in nature.

 

So, even though you see it as a Rangers-hating website (which is fair enough), it stands to reason that Pinsent Masons could very well be speculating. Doesnt mean they arent a well respected firm but that narrative certainly suggests that they are not completely certain that Whyte wasnt involved in some way or another - only that they could possibly gain more comfort if they had more co-operation by the people listed.

You would obviously have to trust a Rangers hating site that uses doctored docs as your choice of source, your prerogative to give them the credence that no one I know would.

Has CF not been seen to be accurate previously ? Serious question

I couldn't even hazard a guess I don't frequent Rangers hating sites, I saw on FF it was credited to the fakes site.