Sandy Easdale appointed a director of the football club

[Zappa 0]

Director of transporting the fans' money oot the back door!

[simplythebest 0]

I don't understand how the Easdales are managing to do this.

 

Sandy Easdale only has an agreement to buy Green's shares, so he's not a significant shareholder yet.

 

The brothers have neither the credentials or the credibility for either of them to be on our board never mind both of them, so how on earth are they now both on our board?

I'd say it's probably what happens when someone buys up shares.

[RANGERRAB 3,318]

I don't understand the problems with the Easdales. Much of it is unproven speculation as far as I'm concerned. To me they're a couple of bluenoses living their dream of being Rangers directors. What I would is that they're nowhere near gaining control of the club and are extremely unlikely to do so.

[boss 0]

No wonder they didn't announce this disgrace yesterday!

 

We really desperately need a respectable Rangers man with top notch business credentials on that board. The Easdales having 2 out of 4 board seats is not good news because Mather is weak and the Easdales will only need to look at him a certain way and he'll vote with them.

 

Heaven help us.

 

Look on the bright side, if Whyte tries to claim some part of the assets I'm sure S&J will have a quiet word!

[Calgacus 8]

being locked up for fraud is not unproven speculation - no one with that in their past should be anywhere near Rangers

[Calgacus 8]

I'd say it's probably what happens when someone buys up shares.[/QUOT

 

 

They only control a small proportion of the overall shareholdings - no where near enough for them to warrant two Directorships.

[RANGERRAB 3,318]

being locked up for fraud is not unproven speculation - no one with that in their past should be anywhere near Rangers

 

you'll find a lot of eminent, self made celebrities from the business world(if that's the right description) have business dealings in their early days they'd rather forget about. Richard Branson is one. Even SDM's early business dealings were suspect and he owned Rangers did he not ? I'm a great believer(unfortunately) that often where's there's vast wealth there's often been vast crime. That's unlikely to change.

What I would say about the Easdales is that their businesses are known about. The exact opposite of Whyte whom no one knew for sure what he was worth

Edited September 14, 2013 by RANGERRAB

[Zappa 0]

Look on the bright side, if Whyte tries to claim some part of the assets I'm sure S&J will have a quiet word!

 

There's no bright side to that pair being directors of our Club and I'd be more inclined to imagine them cutting Whyte in on an asset deal than asking him politely to GTF!

[craig 5,199]

[

They only control a small proportion of the overall shareholdings - no where near enough for them to warrant two Directorships.

 

To preface, I am not defending the Easdales being on the board, not at all.

 

However, the shareholding you have has, or should have, nothing to do with whether you have a directorship in any company. Your business acumen should dictate whether you should be on a board of directors.

 

I don't think that the Easdales have that either BTW - they run what seems to be a successful business, yes, but they don't have the appropriate credentials for a football club, IMHO.

[Calgacus 8]

you'll find a lot of eminent, self made celebrities from the business world(if that's the right description) have business dealings in their early days they'd rather forget about. Richard Branson is one. Even SDM's early business dealings were suspect and he owned Rangers did he not ? I'm a great believer(unfortunately) that often where's there's vast wealth there's often been vast crime. That's unlikely to change.

What I would say about the Easdales is that their businesses are known about. The exact opposite of Whyte whom no one knew for sure what he was worth

 

Getting sent to prison is a bit different for dodgy business dealings.