simplythebest 0 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 name those that are in and how much each has.(that's a given) tell us what you can about others even if its not much. What if they don't want to be named right now? People are entitled to privacy if they want it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 What if they don't want to be named right now? People are entitled to privacy if they want it. nah not in this case not for me. as much as anything they will have to be named in 12 months legally. the fans deserve to know. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,114 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 nah not in this case not for me. as much as anything they will have to be named in 12 months legally. the fans deserve to know. I pressed agree then had a rethink. Giving CG the benefit of the doubt that there are investors ( and I am not entirely sure there are after the CVA failed ) do you not think it would be foolish and insensitive to be broadcasting that until after the 4th July? I would think the likely scenario is that the investors are also awaiting the outcome of that meeting, as are many fans who want to know what they are buying into at SPL prices. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 well just name the ones that are in no matter what. the problem is we have a situation where some people insist whyte has shares others that yahoos like Steve McKenna ate involved. that will persist and be damaging if this cloud of secrecy is maintained. I could just about accept if green said all will be revealed on July 4th. as long as he sticks to it this time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,268 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) To me there are 2 issues at the moment preventing the consortium saying too much:- 1) the so-called dual contracts/EBT case which it's said could strip titles 2) the newco sanctions For 1) we must fight to the highest court in the land. These were won on the pitch fair & square. The dhims see an opportunity here. They're not interested in whether there was dual contracts or not. They just want to strip Rangers of honours. We must not also allow them to connect 1) & 2) by saying we get into SPL sanction free if we accept penalties/sanctions as a newco from the dual contracts/EBT case For 2) I believe we have to outsmart the SPL here. They have a dilemma: they need us in the SPL for financial reasons but would not want to readmit us without some form of sanctions. Green & Co must play hardball here and say any readmission to SPL must be without sanctions or we go to the SFL. Call their bluff. I think div3 is impractical. There's stadia which hold less than 2,000 people. The police might have something to say also. Why not suggest we play 2 seasons in div1 whereby we'd get promoted(hopefully) at the end of 2013-14 ? there would be 2 advantages to us as I see it: 1) we'd screw their SKY deal 2) the dhims would lose players who wouldn't want to play in SPL without us and get weaker and wouldn't make CL group stages. their revenue would reduce too meaning they'd(hopefully) have a pile of debt. by the time we returned to SPL we'd have one season to play in SPL before we got back into Europe. Obvoiusly we'd lose players over the next 2 seasons but we'd be able to bring thro' young players like Ness, McCabe & co who'd be ready by the time we got back to the SPL. We must not allow ourselves to be a cash cow for the SPL whilst being saddled with loads of penalties & sanctions Edited June 19, 2012 by RANGERRAB error 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.