Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman 32s

 

Petitioners say that, anyway, Rangers received an "on the face of it" authenticated motion & it should go to AGM.

Expand

 

 

 

Reply

Retweet

Favorite

 

Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman 1m

 

Petitioners are arguing enough evidence was submitted to Rangers to authenticate the signatures.

Expand

Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman 3m

 

Rangers are arguing they didn't accept motion as it was not authenticated. They say 3 signatures were not authenticated.

 

Sums the whole thing up - If these guys wanted to be taken seriously it should have been done right, then they wouldn't be having to do this.

 

It just gives the board loopholes to escape through

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are missing the bigger point here though....

 

The Board like to think they are open, transparent and approachable.

 

So here they have business-minded people who believe they have something to offer the club, who want their names put forward - and we have a Board who are trying to use legal loopholes to protect themselves and deny the shareholders an opportunity for an open, democratic process.

 

It stinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are missing the bigger point here though....

 

The Board like to think they are open, transparent and approachable.

 

So here they have business-minded people who believe they have something to offer the club, who want their names put forward - and we have a Board who are trying to use legal loopholes to protect themselves and deny the shareholders an opportunity for an open, democratic process.

 

It stinks.

 

Of course, but from the boards actions over the last 18 months we know differently, the requisitioners know this as well, yet still gave them a loophole and by making the argument that the requisition is good on the face says to me it was a basic error they made

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are missing the bigger point here though....

 

The Board like to think they are open, transparent and approachable.

 

So here they have business-minded people who believe they have something to offer the club, who want their names put forward - and we have a Board who are trying to use legal loopholes to protect themselves and deny the shareholders an opportunity for an open, democratic process.

 

It stinks.

 

Exactly.

 

The board have been going to great lengths trying to make McColl, Murray & co jump through hoops in this saga. First it was the board delaying and stalling the initial proceedings, then eventually demanding that the requisitioners provide proof of shareholding for each individual signatory on the original requisition. Now they've moved on to demanding certified signatures from signatories for actual investors.

 

The boards stalling and blocking tactics completely stink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And on that roundabout we jump back on.

 

Seriously, we should be having a vote of no confidence in the current encumbents.

 

Pissing money up a wall all to protect themselves. Lets not be kidded, their action to defend this request is being done to defend themselves, NOT the club.

 

Get them out. Bunch of fuckwits !

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.