WATP_Greg

For clarity, it's also worth highlighting this CIC shell:

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC520806/officers

 

I notice it's Rab Marshall of the Louden's company but that Greg who is standing used to be a director before resigning - presumably because he was standing for RF.

 

This is all a bit needless and bizarre.

For clarity as stated online this is entirely unrelated to share ownership or fans groups - It is sadly being used as a deflection from the company this thread is about. Who has decided to make that choice I'll leave for others to speculate on but I am wholly committed to the RF model for fan ownership and have always been a massive advocate of it as I'm sure the majority of you know.

When the project is confirmed or denied we will let everyone in our support know - I would sincerely love to show you what some of the plans are but are not able to at this stage

They already have 3.52% so they only need 1.48% to get to the 5%.

 

If we assume the million quid they have is enough to pay for the additional 1.48% that would value the club at roughly 67 million.....

RF don't have a million in the bank but they do have around £500k at current prices it would be around £100k iirc to get them to 5%

some run of the mill questions, however a few questions gave you an insight into their way of thinking and approach to football.You would be better getting it on demand from RTV for £4.

 

Tom Miller can be a bit cringeworthy.

I like Tom's patter - its very deliberately cringey haha

Perhaps so but that's not really the point here, common courtesy, if not football norms should have meant that he was told before he read it in the papers.

No, my point was in relation to you thinking he should have been offered a contract...

I think you are viewing this in terms of a fixed term contract in the commercial world.

 

I would suggest that in football terms whilst he knew the date upon which his contract ended, nonetheless it is customary to tell a player whether or not it is likely to be extended or a new offer made. This is a particularly true in our case because there were three different management teams and a new one on the way, so four really and two different ownership groups; all of which would have prevented any offers being made during the season. So the circumstances, where no offer = no new contract, did not necessarily apply.

 

I don't think Foster is the best defender in the world but he is more than useful going forward. He is credited with 6 assists in 29 games last season, two of which were in his first two games back after injury. IMHO he is by no means the worst of those "let go". Sinammon was not rated high enough to get even one start, when it was obvious that McGregor was need at CB; so it would appear that we do not have a first team RB on the books. If we are thinking about spending money on players then surely MF and strikers are the priority. I would have offered Foster a new one year contract at £2,000/£3,000 a week, which he would not be able to better in Scotland.

I think the fan outcry for foster would have ruled out any potential contract - good to see the club showing some awareness imo.

Mine was a typo now corrected but as you say pedantry, perhaps, I'm well known for it

 

Expensive PR though, what was the estimate for an EGM inc all the paperwork, lawyers fees, staffing Ibrox etc?

I stand by my statement Alan

MASH has the right to call the EGM and doesn't foot the bill so its not that expensive for them. Surely you can see that and aren't being disingenuous. You are known for that too!

I think you mean disadvantageous, Greg; but can you explain why paying back the loan does not release the securities? The retail deal is another matter, I don't see why he would renogiate that even if the loan was repaid, what would be the incentive for him to do that? And as I said I don't understand the need for these resolutions, surely the directors are so empowered by virtue of their office?

I think you mean renegotiate and not 'renogiate'... Actually nevermind, that's needless pedantry and something that a dislikeable individual would partake in

Never said paying back the loan wouldn't release the securities.

Both resolutions are PR - but giving MA his cash back won't get us to a position that will see us earn appropriate income from our retail deal.

for gods sake give him his money back and buy his blinking shares and hope we never hear of him again

Then he'd still have us in the grip of an un-advantageous retail deal.

48,000 Tickets are sold - not many to go!

We are in negotiations with SD to change the terms of the retail deal - correct?

If we repay the loans we go back to 51/49% with SD retaining the rights to decide dividends. I think its possible that we haven't repaid the loan as leverage in discussions with SD and until there is an agreement reached I wouldn't have expected us to repay them.

Looked online there and it is looking good - even parts of the club deck limited.

Not sure we'll get to the 50k mark if we've only sold 36k so far.

 

Probably get over 40k, but Club Deck will be sparse as usual.

as of 9am today we had sold 39K - I think we are well on course for a sell out

The 'F Word' as you call it is neither a religion nor a race.

It is deemed sectarian is by Rangers-haters who think nothing of using similar words & phrases against Rangers & its supporters & expect no retribution in the SNP Scotland

Fen*an is the equivalent of hun - Anyone pretending otherwise can't see the wood for the trees.

I personally think that neither should automatically assumed to be sectarian but since one is the other should also be treated that way - and it isn't. Classic hypocrisy

Can't argue with £5 per ticket and I'd hope to see 40k+ at the game.

Will get mine tomorrow at the TO

On the first point, it's really not semantics. (well, it is in the true meaning of the term, which is unfortunately not how it is widely used).

for example, If I get a Green party leaflet, or a UKIP leaflet through my door, it's not unexpected. However, given the size of both of those parties where i live, I'm not expecting them.

 

On the second, if you deny that we are at least partly responsible, then we ain't never gonna get nowhere.

1. We've lost focus from the point - that you claim being a vocal Rangers supporter means you should be prepared for abuse from political party supporters - that shouldn't be part and parcel of being a Rangers Supporter imo.

2. What am I responsible for in drawing abuse from a political party's supporters?

Bear with me here, because this may seem like hir splitting but it's really not. I didn't say that I expected we should be abused, but rather that being abused should not be unexpected. There is actually a fair difference.

 

 

 

Well, to a large degree we are the authors of our own misfortune by the great bulk of us remaining silent when the right wingers and loyalists speak in our name.

 

 

 

Well said. Couldn't agree more.

I think your first point is semantics tbh - the definition of unexpected is not expected.

I disagree with your second point that we are to blame for others prejudices - I could make any analogue of religious or racial bigotry where we'd have to prove that we don't conform to a derogatory stereotype, surely that isn't what's right.

it really does not mean that at all. For heaven's sake, I've been a Rangers supporter for longer than most on here and an SNP supporter for almost all of my adult life - are you saying I think I should be abused by fellow SNP members?

 

The fact is that the vocal element of the Rangers support, the ones chanting about sticking independence up your arse, hating alex salmond or throwing bottles in George Square and waving fascist and loyalist flags get up the noses of the vast majority of the wider non-Rangers aligned population. Until we recogise that, and unless those of us of a different political mind set make our voices heard then it can be no wonder that we are all tarred with the same brush.

I never stated that you said we should be abused - but instead that we should expect to be abused. Which is what it appeared you suggested.

Further your second paragraph above puts the blame of others bigotry and hypocrisy in our own court ('no wonder that we are all tarred with the same brush').

I don't believe that pandering to extremists helps anyone, and I don't think its acceptable to tar hundreds of thousands of people - that is discrimination.

I'll ignore the dig as being infra dig.

 

If you're talking about the two numpties who shouted down Murphy in Glasgow their actions were moronic and obnoxious, mirroring as they did the actions of Murphy himself. The two have been widely condemned on SNP forums and, rightly, suspended from the party for bringing its nae into disrepute.

 

If you're talking about individuals who send you sectarian or other abuse, send their details to SNP headquarters. You'll find that the party has no tolerance for those who beak the law and, if they are members and if there is a case, they will be suspended pending investigation. Oh, that any of the unionist parties were half as consistent.

 

If, however, you're talking about any of the 1.5 million Scots who voted for indpendence and who are not SNP members, are you surprised that you, as a leading figure in a Rangers community that is seen as aligning itself with British nationalism, loyalism and reactionary politics and which is vocal in its detestation for, in no particular order, Alex salmond, the SNP, Scotland and independence, are subject to abuse yourself?

The way you frame the question in the last paragraph makes it appear that you think that being a Rangers Supporter publicly means that you should expect abuse from supporters of political parties - I don't think that is acceptable. The demonisation of our support is something that I think we need to deal with.

The party is being linked with anti-Rangers sentiments by a section of the Rangers support; by nobody else. I doubt whether these stories will cost any votes, since people stupid enough to vote politically based on their footballing allegience wouldn't have been voting SNP anyway.

 

What is certainly true is that the wider SNP membership, indeed wider Scottish society, of all clubs and none, are becoming increasingly put off by the behaviour of those moronic Rangers fans who align themselves with British nationalism, Unionism and in some cases Fascist causes, drape themselves in union flags, behave like thugs and drag the name of the club through the mud with their obnoxious behaviour.

I don't think its a one way thing - As someone who runs a twitter account with 20k followers and only posts about Rangers (nothing political), there has been a consistent level of abuse from those supporting the SNP (twibbons/profile affiliations etc). People who equate supporting Rangers with being a bigot.

Its nonsense and whats worse is that those individuals don't see the irony in their viewpoints.

http://www.rangersmegastore.com/puma-rangers-home-socks-2015-2016-373167?colcode=37316744

Red and Black Socks

Personally I'm not overly concerned.

Allows people who were already against the board to take shots at them but if the statement released is correct then what were they to do.

If the investors are lined up regardless then this will be little but a footnote in the near future.

I shook his hand at the big meeting up the west end hotel. Nice guy and he would be a major asset on our board.

My dad had a meeting with him and spoke very highly of him - seems to have the club at heart and explained his reasons for not being able to invest heavily in the club whilst offering support for fans and RF specifically.

Thought it was decent.

Traynor is with Level 5 PR which the club is now using.

I think we've seen many times Ashley appears to think he's beyond the law - or will at least stretch it as far as possible to his benefit using the resources at his disposal.

 

This seems like bullying to be - nothing more, nothing less.

Could be - I wonder if there is precedent

Strange one - shareholders are entitled to the register I thought.