Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

So they have your support then, you'd be happy with them owning a large stake in our club would you?

 

I wouldn't be happy or unhappy, nor would I be supporting them or not supporting them.

 

I do think in our position we can't chase away investors in a hurray.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be happy or unhappy, nor would I be supporting them or not supporting them.

 

I do think in our position we can't chase away investors in a hurray.

 

The Easdales aren't investing in the club. They're simply buying existing shares from others

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Easdales aren't investing in the club. They're simply buying existing shares from others

 

Everybody is asking what are McColl/Blins plans. We should also ask the present incumbents, how are they going to get future investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be happy or unhappy, nor would I be supporting them or not supporting them.

 

I do think in our position we can't chase away investors in a hurray.

 

In what way are they investors?

What do they bring to the board, what are their skills, areas of knowledge, their expertise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we pretty well agreed Green etc are not here for the long run ?

 

So at the EGM, if McColl fails and Green etc are not hanging round, and seem to be selling to the Easdales, will that in essence mean the EGM is between McColl/Blin and the Easdales ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we pretty well agreed Green etc are not here for the long run ?

 

So at the EGM, if McColl fails and Green etc are not hanging round, and seem to be selling to the Easdales, will that in essence mean the EGM is between McColl/Blin and the Easdales ?

 

I'm not sure where James Easdale stands. Sandy is "just" another shareholder, no director et al. I did wonder why McColl and Paul Murray did not ask for the removal of James Easdale, which one would expect he would do if the Easdales are that "bad". There is not much one can do about this anyway ... and by the looks of it, all this sharedealing brought a new dimension to the speculation activities on the various boards ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where James Easdale stands. Sandy is "just" another shareholder, no director et al. I did wonder why McColl and Paul Murray did not ask for the removal of James Easdale, which one would expect he would do if the Easdales are that "bad". There is not much one can do about this anyway ... and by the looks of it, all this sharedealing brought a new dimension to the speculation activities on the various boards ...

 

If it wasn't Rangers, it would be fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.