Jump to content

 

 

Ruff

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    74

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Ruff

  1. Ruff
    His bid is a non-starter for now anyway. Lets see T3Bs and King push through and get this boardroom cleansed. Forget about Sarver until then and if he is still around and willing to work with them and help us back to the top then great. If he runs for the hills, we've dodged a bullet and we can carry on regardless.
  2. Ruff
    I believe the Nomad gets a copy too. How much good that will do is up for debate but if he reads one and it's backed by circa 10'000, I'd hope it would be taken note of at least.
  3. Ruff
    I've read somewhere today that all parties that this applies to have 10 days to comply. Can anyone confirm this?
  4. Ruff
    5′ 7″ tall???? The pefect foil for wrapping up a packed lunch? Get him signed!
  5. Ruff
    I hope so but something tells me our esteemed board would waive any sell on clause if it meant getting as much money upfront and as quickly as possible.
  6. Ruff
    It would have to be a new fund. The RFFF has become a bit of a problem and is a focal point of division. It was created at a time of unity and unfortunately things have changed. I can't envisage everyone who donated to the fund being able to agree on it's purpose now.
  7. Ruff
    Is this not a win win? We know Ashley can't underwrite it and with this offer on the table the major shareholders will have to put money in to keep their power % and cannot let the issue fail and claim that they have to take another loan to cover the shortfall. Is this REALLY good news?
  8. Ruff
    Craigy? I guess from your "point" that you neither agree with or like the guy. Fair enough but then I would guess you don't know the guy to talk to on a first name basis let alone nicknames unless you were just using "Craigy" as an attempt to belittle him in some way? I don't know him either, not well enough to call him Craigy anyway.
  9. Ruff
    It's getting out there. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11311642/Rangers-chairman-David-Somers-pleaded-for-Mike-Ashley-takeover-to-succeed-emails-reveal.html
  10. Ruff
    I just hope that there are a lot more intelligent shareholders/fans than me who are not only as disgusted by this action/email but they have the knowledge to alert the necessary authorities. No attempt at a denial, "how did you get it?". A law unto themselves apparently. I'm sorry SoS find themselves in this situation now but I thank them for the information. Information that I think shareholders and fans should, without question be made aware of.
  11. Ruff
    To be honest, I'm so deflated with all that's going on that I'll be impressed if he runs a spell check before releasing statements. You made a point earlier that we have nobody already at The Club that could do these tasks, again I despair because again it will cost money. How many people with knowledge in these fields have came in and overseen a shambles for a very pretty price. I hope what you suggest about the embarrassing statements transpires but I've hoped that before my friend.
  12. Ruff
    I totally agree. I noticed part of their remit as company seceratory included meeting management, attendees and shareholders at board meetings. Is this the guy to be wheeled out and paint the very simple and very beautiful path that The Club are about to embark on in this new era?
  13. Ruff
    From CMS Site. Matt Specialises in: Chartered Accountant Corporate Finance Full List and AIM Growth Companies IPOs Secondary Fundraisings Part-time Finance Director Mergers and Acquisitions Corporate Restructuring Takeover Code
  14. Ruff
    If you could find a goalkeeper and add him to the "squad" above. Id be confident they could beat Alloa.
  15. Ruff
    As much as we need the money and £100k can't be sniffed at, I would rather the club waited for the tribunal so not to be seen as accepting DUFC's view on the matter. The SFA should have thrown this argument out as soon as it arrived on their desk. Their failure to do so does not surprise me at all though.
  16. Ruff
    I agree. It would be unacceptable, what I meant by fair enough is that it would have been the boards decision and we would rightly be disgusted by it. TRFB putting this forward would be giving the board 'an out' on the matter. It's ridiculous.
  17. Ruff
    I don't recall candidates being put forward to hold the board to account so I think it would be unfair if fans who tried to do just that were marginalised. I also think TRFB will have shot themselves in the foot if an agreement is made that fan groups should be ignored. If the board were to come out and say "from now on we will only be repying to queries put forward by TRFB" then fair enough but I'd be a little peeved if I was told "from now on we will only be replying to queries put forward by TRFB because the TRFB voted on it and it was their decision."
  18. Ruff
    I read a thread elsewhere first thing this morning, laughed at it and imagined everyone else would too. Checked back in an hour later and it was spent!!!
  19. Ruff
    EXCLUSIVE: Easdale brothers to plough £20m into Rangers JAMES and Sandy Easdale are poised to plough around £20million into cash-strapped Rangers. (January 17th 2014) *Must have been a typo and they meant 2015* So Mike Ashley can do one with his pitiful £10m, I'm sure James and Sandy will pull through yet.
  20. Ruff
    *Things have been lost that can never be recovered.* I agree mostly but the things I mentioned are not lost, more hidden than lost but they can be rediscovered. I should highlight "can be" because it will need the right people with backing from ALL fans. Seems miles away and unachievable right now though.
  21. Ruff
    It's the "new entity" part that got under my skin, I actually agree with some of what he said with regards to tradition, I don't think many of us will be less than disgusted with what has been happening over the past few years, traditions have not been at the forefront of all who have came and went nor are standards and pride. But I know - like most of our fans - about our history, our traditions and our standards. Our Club hasn't lost any of those things, our Club has lost people who will honour them and appreciate that they are in control of an institution, an institution that is known world wide, an institution so meaningful to so many people that when X,Y or Z board member makes a gaff it embaressess thousands of people and we feel it more than the individual that goofed. Is it too much to ask for an individual to come to our Club and respect our history, traditions, standards and pride whilst also remembering and appreciating that any of his/her actions will affect thousands of fans?
  22. Ruff

    Mohsni ban

    Ruff replied to Bearman's topic in Rangers Chat

    I agree but unfortunately I don't think it's that simple, if Foster has another mare I'd imagine Bilel would go straight back in and McGregor shifted to right back. I hope I'm wrong though and he can keep his place at CB.
  23. Ruff

    Mohsni ban

    Ruff replied to Bearman's topic in Rangers Chat

    There was a piece on Mcgregor on the club site and it mentioned Mohsni would complete his suspension at Dumbarton, Zal injured so Mcgregor likely to remain at CB this weekend.
  24. Ruff
    If this turned out to be the only obstacle stopping DK and his co, I'd be very surprised and a lot deflated (with the investment that he/they are suggested to be willing to provide) if DK or a member of his consortium didn't bite the bullet and go back on his word ("won't put money into the pockets of .....") if it meant that the short term hit would be in the best interests of our club in the long term.
  25. Ruff
    I'm unsure how all of this works so if I'm way off, forgive me. The Laxey shareholding just now gives them an influence in major decisions, their influence has increased because of circumstances and maybe put in a posistion where they had to increase so they could protect their innitial investment. Having their shareholding diluted would decrease the influence held but wouldn't decrease how many shares they held. If funds like Laxey are setup just to make money then would it not make sense for them to accept that helping this deal go through is a good chance to see those shares increase in value over the next 1-2-3 years albeit they would have to settle for not being amongst the louder voices when it came to decision making? If they don't want to dilute their shareholding due to influence in desicions, they might not have anything worth deciding over soon.
×
×
  • 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.