The End is Nigh

[wabashcannonball 0]

You're probably right, our club does look daft and is easy meat for those who wish to prey on the juicy titbits thrown by some.

 

Unfortunately, I think every unofficial site has been vocal enough on the subject and I doubt any joint statements would result in any further comment from the club. We've all consistently asked for clarity (not just from the club either) and have largely been ignored - deliberately or otherwise. A few wee websites asking for more are easily swatted aside when fan groups have been satisfied and season books are renewed regardless.

 

If the club's version of events is to be challenged then, while I thank you for your faith, then more suitable people than me have to step up to the plate. In saying that, as indicated to N_L yesterday, I'm more than happy to assist where necessary.

 

 

Thanks Frankie, my point to a greater extent, is that information is being fed through sources beholden to Murray's favour, will it ever change.

[Frankie 8,151]

Seems to me that a boycott of season tickets could be used to call Lloyds' bluff. If their cuts are so bad then we're not going to be able to compete next season. Maybe that's the time to challenge Lloyds to play ball or put us into administration. We've not much to lose with the points penalty as we'd be handicapped anyway, except we can then offer them 20p in the pound for the debt to be paid in full.

 

That would allow the fans to by the club for about �£10M... Well worthy of an investment, as within a few years those shares could be worth three or four times as much...

 

I know it's not that easy but it does seem like Lloyds are bluffing and could end up with egg on their face with a lot less money paid back. I don't think they are in as strong a position as they try to portray and could be pushing Rangers to a point where administration is a far worse scenario for them than it is for us...

 

I may be well off the mark but that's just a layman's view.

 

The season ticket renewal deadline has passed and I believe take-up has been pretty similar to last year as it stands.

 

Of course that doesn't mean people couldn't ask for a refund before the season starts. I'm sure by that time the situation will be somewhat clearer.

[Bluedell 5,330]

I do believe you are prevaricating....

 

No, just highlighting that you were talking crap.

[wabashcannonball 0]

No, just highlighting that you were talking crap.

 

 

If anyone is talking crap it is you , the meeting was about Rangers the statement was about funding being "proved" to purchase the buying of Rangers, why do you bring MIH into it, after all Rangers is a stand alone company, Minty told us so,....you sure you're an expert....

[craig 5,199]

If anyone is talking crap it is you , the meeting was about Rangers the statement was about funding being "proved" to purchase the buying of Rangers, why do you bring MIH into it, after all Rangers is a stand alone company, Minty told us so,....you sure you're an expert....

 

But why did you bring AJ into it when he is not involved at this stage. In fact, it was YOU who posted the method that any transaction would be handled. AJ only comes into the negotiations as part of the Independent Panel who would review any offer and make a recommendation to the shareholders.

 

So just why did you continue on the theme that AJ should know if proof of funding has been received or not ? At this point, proof of funding is needing to be proved to the seller (SDM), not the club chairman.

[wabashcannonball 0]

But why did you bring AJ into it when he is not involved at this stage. In fact, it was YOU who posted the method that any transaction would be handled. AJ only comes into the negotiations as part of the Independent Panel who would review any offer and make a recommendation to the shareholders.

 

So just why did you continue on the theme that AJ should know if proof of funding has been received or not ? At this point, proof of funding is needing to be proved to the seller (SDM), not the club chairman.

 

 

You are obviously another who needs to read the assembly statement. You really should refrain from putting words into posters mouths, a trait which you seem to posess in abundance, you will of course show me where I said anything about AJ should know.

[bmck 117]

You are obviously another who needs to read the assembly statement. You really should refrain from putting words into posters mouths, a trait which you seem to posess in abundance, you will of course show me where I said anything about AJ should know.

 

I'll get grief for this, but why the need to be so contentious? Not just you, but everyone seems to see this is a battle when we should be just trying to get at facts. I read, as craig clearly has, your earlier point that AJ (or someone sufficiently authoritative at the club) should confirm that proof of funding has been shown. I actually thought it was a fair point. But, as craig says, he can't say anything until his part in the process (you outlined) comes. He's read your post and asked you a question, I don't see why you couldn't just say where he's misunderstood you. I think the whole process, not just you wabash, is far too much like this, and the reason we don't get anywhere in a unified manner. If we can't even try and get at the facts of the matter without it turning into a point scoring contest in a wee chat like this, can we realistically expect it from the trust and the assembly and whoever else sets themselves up as an authority?

[wabashcannonball 0]

I'll get grief for this, but why the need to be so contentious? Not just you, but everyone seems to see this is a battle when we should be just trying to get at facts. I read, as craig clearly has, your earlier point that AJ (or someone sufficiently authoritative at the club) should confirm that proof of funding has been shown. I actually thought it was a fair point. But, as craig says, he can't say anything until his part in the process (you outlined) comes. He's read your post and asked you a question, I don't see why you couldn't just say where he's misunderstood you. I think the whole process, not just you wabash, is far too much like this, and the reason we don't get anywhere in a unified manner. If we can't even try and get at the facts of the matter without it turning into a point scoring contest in a wee chat like this, can we realistically expect it from the trust and the assembly and whoever else sets themselves up as an authority?

 

OK. point taken, but my whole contention is with the very first sentence of the assembly statement, a statement from a meeting that AJ, Muir and Bain were allegedly present at, AJ either believes the statement regarding Ellis's funding or he doesn't, Muir can either confirm it as true or he can't, I really do not see why we the fans are being kept in the dark, as to the veracity of this funding statement. I have heard in a few watering holes in Partick, that funding was not confirmed at the meeting and as we all know Partick is a village on the banks of the Clyde.

For my own part I do not believe the club will confirm Ellis funding, for when it fails to materialise what then, also if the funds are in escrow and Murray wants the Ellis deal, why hasn't it been done ?

 

So for the sake of clarity and peoples sanity, it is time for the club to enlighten us, or do the club see us the same way as mushrooms.

[Bluedell 5,330]

If anyone is talking crap it is you , the meeting was about Rangers the statement was about funding being "proved" to purchase the buying of Rangers, why do you bring MIH into it, after all Rangers is a stand alone company, Minty told us so,....you sure you're an expert....

 

Why bring MIH into it? Because they are the company that are selling Rangers. They are the company that Ellis is dealing with and the company that would receive the proof of funding.

 

Rangers aren't selling themselves and therefore are not in a position to confirm funding. They can pass on what they have been told by the directors of MIH if they see fit, but they would likely not have seen first-hand proof themselves.

 

It's really not a difficult concept.

[wabashcannonball 0]

That Minty, can you believe a word he says, even when he plasters it all over his pet newspapers...

ââ?¬Å?Rangers is a stand-alone company and there are no cross-guarantees tying them to the Murray Groupââ?¬â?¢s finances.ââ?¬Â....here's me thinking it was Murray who owned Rangers and wasn't attempting to punt the club in any serious manner.

 

Where would we be without the experts,