simplythebest 0 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Charles is right, having one powerful owner got us into this mess. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 why dont the ex rangers men like smith souness advocat and all the old directors invest some of their cash in the rangers it gave them all a good living time to put something back i think . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 why dont the ex rangers men like smith souness advocat and all the old directors invest some of their cash in the rangers it gave them all a good living time to put something back i think . Because they don't care, frankly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Because they don't care, frankly. i for one dont wish to see any of them at ibrox again 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 If Brian Kennedy "really" wants his 50% why can't he just say to 4 of his pals here £1milllion go buy 10% of Rangers for me, then buy the other 10% himself or is that too simple? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 If Brian Kennedy "really" wants his 50% why can't he just say to 4 of his pals here £1milllion go buy 10% of Rangers for me, then buy the other 10% himself or is that too simple? It probably is too simple! I've not seen a great deal of commonsense in this whole saga, a saga which the SFA/SPL have delayed to such an extent we're all at each others throats and all potential owners are queing up to slag off each other. What a mess! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 If Brian Kennedy "really" wants his 50% why can't he just say to 4 of his pals here £1milllion go buy 10% of Rangers for me, then buy the other 10% himself or is that too simple? do you really believe Mr green would give away control like that. he says no one man can control more than 15% because it suits for now. a month ago he was offering Walter control of 50%. when green sees a deal that's good for him not rangers then he will sell whatever the buyer wants. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yes I do, he has said on numerous occasions he would welcome investment. Perhaps on his terms but either way he would be his getting money. All the investors would need to do was make the bid public through a lawyer or press release. If Green said no then he'd need to explain why he said no. If Green really offered Smith 50% why didn't Smiths group take it? They'd have equal say in everything surely? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yes I do, he has said on numerous occasions he would welcome investment. Perhaps on his terms but either way he would be his getting money. All the investors would need to do was make the bid public through a lawyer or press release. If Green said no then he'd need to explain why he said no. If Green really offered Smith 50% why didn't Smiths group take it? They'd have equal say in everything surely? well Mr green said he offered it. mind you he does get befuddled. you only get a 50% share if you get equal numbers of directors on the board and if a votes split I reacon the ceo or chairman decides. bluedell could tell us for sure. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango 0 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 If Green really offered Smith 50% why didn't Smiths group take it? They'd have equal say in everything surely? If I remember it right they were to get 50% ,but Zeus were to have more directors on the board and therefore control,who in their right mind would own 50% and have no say ? 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.