Thinker 887 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 I doubt they're in possession of the facts like Cenkos would've been. They must at least be aware that Cenkos have ditched their RIFC NOMAD status. Given that (as I understand it) a change in nominated advisor is a pretty rare occurence, why would they volunteer for sloppy seconds? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 They must at least be aware that Cenkos have ditched their RIFC NOMAD status. Given that (as I understand it) a change in nominated advisor is a pretty rare occurence, why would they volunteer for sloppy seconds? They probably think it's worth their while doing so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 All of this leaves me in a state of confusion. Like many others I am out of my depth in the area of financial intrigue. However, I am not confused in the belief that all of the financial guys involved have no depth of concern for the welfare of Glasgow Rangers and their involvement is driven by personal financial gain. The contributors to this thread have highlighted conflicting views and that is entirely reasonable. However, the most worrying aspect of all this, is that no one seems able to offer solutions to the problems. Most of us just want to support the football club that commands an important part of our lives but right now, I can understand very well, how someone whose town has been taken over by an invading army must feel. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 They must at least be aware that Cenkos have ditched their RIFC NOMAD status. Given that (as I understand it) a change in nominated advisor is a pretty rare occurence, why would they volunteer for sloppy seconds? It's entirely possible that they haven't been told the truth considering our former CEO Green's propensity for telling porkies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 It's entirely possible that they haven't been told the truth considering our former CEO Green's propensity for telling porkies. Is that possible? Surely they'll have had to have gone through some sort of due diligence process before they took RIFC on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Looks like both you and your pal three names shot your bolts prematurely eh?..... Maybe the six month agreement is beyond your comprehension. Your pal mcgobblegiver also got the new nomad spectacularly wrong, you done right holding that one back. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,286 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 All of this leaves me in a state of confusion. Like many others I am out of my depth in the area of financial intrigue. However, I am not confused in the belief that all of the financial guys involved have no depth of concern for the welfare of Glasgow Rangers and their involvement is driven by personal financial gain.The contributors to this thread have highlighted conflicting views and that is entirely reasonable. However, the most worrying aspect of all this, is that no one seems able to offer solutions to the problems. Most of us just want to support the football club that commands an important part of our lives but right now, I can understand very well, how someone whose town has been taken over by an invading army must feel. The point is, IMHO, that most who post certain opinions on here are staunch believers that those in power are here for financial gain and "personal" power only. There is no other way possible and if you say so, your opinion is likely to be smiled at. We are all wary about most people that we do not know, after Whyte that is a certainty anyway. Still, unless someone can put it on black & white that e.g. Mather or Easdale are only here to make money, these people get the benefit of the doubt. Much like Stockbridge ... no matter whether they were brought in by Green or Ahmad or whomever. And even if they are here for money, that is a) not by default wrong (which should be plain obvious to people living in a capitalist society) as long as they do b) their job. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 The point is, IMHO, that most who post certain opinions on here are staunch believers that those in power are here for financial gain and "personal" power only. There is no other way possible and if you say so, your opinion is likely to be smiled at. We are all wary about most people that we do not know, after Whyte that is a certainty anyway. Still, unless someone can put it on black & white that e.g. Mather or Easdale are only here to make money, these people get the benefit of the doubt. Much like Stockbridge ... no matter whether they were brought in by Green or Ahmad or whomever. And even if they are here for money, that is a) not by default wrong (which should be plain obvious to people living in a capitalist society) as long as they do b) their job. There are a few things that those in power could do to allay our fears - it's the fact that they aren't doing so that concerns me. A bit more information on the financial situation would go down well, and wouldn't be that hard to produce. And having guys on the board who have both business acumen and are lifelong rangers supporters would be reassuring. We seem to be moving away from that though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) Maybe the six month agreement is beyond your comprehension. The six months refers to the lock in period for certain shareholders, it's not the length of their contract. Your pal mcgobblegiver also got the new nomad spectacularly wrong, you done right holding that one back. Difference between us is unlike you I don't have to rely on the ramblings of three names as you so notably demonstrated you do, Daniel Stewart oh dear, oh dear.... Edited July 9, 2013 by forlanssister 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 The point is, IMHO, that most who post certain opinions on here are staunch believers that those in power are here for financial gain and "personal" power only. There is no other way possible and if you say so, your opinion is likely to be smiled at. We are all wary about most people that we do not know, after Whyte that is a certainty anyway. Still, unless someone can put it on black & white that e.g. Mather or Easdale are only here to make money, these people get the benefit of the doubt. Much like Stockbridge ... no matter whether they were brought in by Green or Ahmad or whomever. And even if they are here for money, that is a) not by default wrong (which should be plain obvious to people living in a capitalist society) as long as they do b) their job. Ah such sweet serenity! 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.