pete 2,499 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Can we please stay on the topic guy's without bitching at each other. Thanks. Now back to the Easdale's. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) Charlie has taken millions out of rangers king has put tens of millions in. I know who I support of the two and why . Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 4 Beta If you have concerns as to how Charles obtained any monetary gain from Rangers perhaps you should share them with the constabulary, who will no doubt investigate your concerns to their full extent for which all reasonable Rangers fans will thank you. The slight if you can call it slight difference between the two parties that you mention is that the South Africans thought it prudent to inform and ask the assistance of the British courts in freezing Mr King's Rangers holdings at that time, apparently the SA authorities had concerns that the monies were not Mr King's to invest and had been obtained surreptitiously. Perhaps King will pursue his threat to sue murray for his alleged £20 million to be returned, as scammers go King appears to be a good few leagues below the master murray, how ironically delicious that one should get turned over by the other. As for Charles has he ever been censured by a court or had his monies or property seized by the authorities, I await your complaint to the constabulary with interest and its outcome, or perhaps Wattie will beat you to it as you said previously he knows what is going on. What do you make of King's previous comments that we have something to be sorry about, ironical and spectacularly wrong about covers them. http://www.topnewstoday.org/redirect/index.php?g=2579787 Edited July 11, 2013 by reaper 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 He's a successful businessman who strikes me as being a very intelligent individual who doesn't take shit from no-one (hence the ridiculous claims in this thread) He's a lifelong fan of Rangers FC and wants us back where we belong. He hasn't any experience on any of the above that amms says...wait a minute maybe he does, what do we know? Let's see instead of jumping to conclusions and making up stories from the steamie. I asked what experience he brings because in the clamour that's surrounded his appointment it's been forgotten. It surprises me the club hasn't made a statement explaining his strengths and areas of expertise. Whatever you think of Murray and Cartmell it was at least easy to see what expertise they had. As a non-exec director what is it Easedale brings to Rangers? What other non-execs does he hold, what did he bring to those companies? It's remiss of us not to ask that question, anyone who is elevated to the board of Rangers should be able to explain what they bring, it's neither a leading nor loaded question. You seem to be suggesting the 'dignified silence' approach to Easedale's appointment. Those days have gone, anyone who wants a part in how our club is run must expect scrutiny and be able to demonstrate what they bring to the board and the club. Have you met Easedale, do you know him, do you vouch for his intelligence and his success? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 My uninformed take on it is that as part of the agreement to buy Green's shares they insisted on a seat on the board. The appointment isn't to do with areas of expertise but rather share ownership. Green is keen to sell his shares therefore he was keen to get Easdale appointed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 (edited) If you have concerns as to how Charles obtained any monetary gain from Rangers perhaps you should share them with the constabulary, who will no doubt investigate your concerns to their full extent for which all reasonable Rangers fans will thank you.] There are plenty of ways to take money out of a football club which are perfectly legal. That doesn't mean to say they are in the long-term interests of the club or won't hamper success on the park. When comparing King to Green, it's a big Rangers fan with some shady financial history versus a guy with a reasonably clean business record (at least in terms of court appearances etc.) who is in it purely for the money. Weigh the pros and cons of each and who wins? Who's likely to do more for the club? Personally I'd say King. Edited July 11, 2013 by Thinker 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Green selling his shares ... maybe I'm wrong, but isn't there a clause mentioned somewhere that he can't sell his shares up until 2 years of getting them? Likewise, I remember reading that he can't sell them before January 2014 somewhere else. Not sure if everything like that was said about Ahmad though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Hmmm, post of mine disappeared. I've removed a bunch of posts and pete's removed a bunch too. The bitching and personal insults need to stop folks and that applies to everyone who's been involved in doing it. You know who you are. Stay on topic and cut out the personal crap please. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Green selling his shares ... maybe I'm wrong, but isn't there a clause mentioned somewhere that he can't sell his shares up until 2 years of getting them? Likewise, I remember reading that he can't sell them before January 2014 somewhere else. Not sure if everything like that was said about Ahmad though. The agreements in regards to the lock ins were with Cenkos nobody else, they were in place to help Cenkos keep an orderly market. Ahmad too was subject to a lock in as being a key employee of the company. With Cenkos having departed the scene any agreement with them is in effect void the question is will Strand Hanson be as particular as Cenkos in their desire to maintain an orderly market. On the AIM market the NOMAD is effectively the de facto regulator. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The slight if you can call it slight difference between the two parties that you mention is that the South Africans thought it prudent to inform and ask the assistance of the British courts in freezing Mr King's Rangers holdings at that time, apparently the SA authorities had concerns that the monies were not Mr King's to invest and had been obtained surreptitiously. By all accounts, the overseas courts werenâ??t amused that all this cash had been frozen more than a decade earlier, yet King hadnâ??t pleaded to the numerous criminal charges he faced. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The agreements in regards to the lock ins were with Cenkos nobody else, they were in place to help Cenkos keep an orderly market. Ahmad too was subject to a lock in as being a key employee of the company. With Cenkos having departed the scene any agreement with them is in effect void the question is will Strand Hanson be as particular as Cenkos in their desire to maintain an orderly market. On the AIM market the NOMAD is effectively the de facto regulator. Is it possible then that, rather than Cenkos dropping RIFC, the desire to change nomad was driven from "this end" and is all about circumventing the share lock-in? 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.