RANGERRAB 3,255 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 McColl was never interested, we can forget him. As for Laxeys shares, as has been said, that money didn't goto the club, like King wants. The deal didn't suit. I believe he will be our eventual saviour. If McColl wasn't interested why was he part of the requisitioners? Just courting publicity? I do realise LAXEYS shares money didnt go to the club but given the relatively small amount involved couldnt King have paid this money to at least get some say in the club ? Loose change to him I'd have thought given his wealth 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,255 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 And was it not Malcolm Murray who made that decision when he was chairman? He's one of the requisitioners now unless I'm mistaken No it wasn't Who then? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Everyone had the opportunity to get shares a year ago. The ones who chose not to seem to be making the most noise at present. Frankly it was a joke that the requisitioners were simply going around lobbying shareholders instead of getting proper financial backing. What was Jim McColl all about ? King too. If Laxey can fork out £1.3m for 5 per cent of Rangers couldn't McColl or King have done that given their wealth? Or maybe more ?We are where we are.Rangers are a plc owned by shareholders who will elect who they wish to run Rangers on thursday. It's a foregone conclusion. Get over it. Thanks for the advice. I shall of course ignore it and be seeking a proper board regardless of the agm. Oh and as I say every board member so far brought in by a minority few shareholders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Everyone had the opportunity to get shares a year ago. The ones who chose not to seem to be making the most noise at present. Frankly it was a joke that the requisitioners were simply going around lobbying shareholders instead of getting proper financial backing. What was Jim McColl all about ? King too. If Laxey can fork out £1.3m for 5 per cent of Rangers couldn't McColl or King have done that given their wealth? Or maybe more ?We are where we are.Rangers are a plc owned by shareholders who will elect who they wish to run Rangers on thursday. It's a foregone conclusion. Get over it. Everyone who did get shares has seen their cash squandered. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 No it wasn't Who then? Green and ahmed of course the other one hundred percenters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 If McColl wasn't interested why was he part of the requisitioners? Just courting publicity? The "courting publicity" argument is where anyone's case or argument against Jim McColl falls flat on it's face because he's not known to want to publicly get involved in things like this. Indeed, it's been said that he previously withdrew his backing from a Rangers buyout because he wanted anonymity and when his involvement was leaked he stepped away. All in all it seems to me that he probably got involved with the requisition simply because he cares, was worried about the club and thought he could add some value through connections and credibility. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 The "courting publicity" argument is where anyone's case or argument against Jim McColl falls flat on it's face because he's not known to want to publicly get involved in things like this. Indeed, it's been said that he previously withdrew his backing from a Rangers buyout because he wanted anonymity and when his involvement was leaked he stepped away. All in all it seems to me that he probably got involved with the requisition simply because he cares, was worried about the club and thought he could add some value through connections and credibility. Is that not the same thing we are asking about BPH and Zeus? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Is that not the same thing we are asking about BPH and Zeus? No, not at all. McColl got involved in the idea and planning stages of a scheme where he would have been underwriting a fan ownership based model and buyout, so if anyone wants to draw comparisons, then the anonymity aspects are based on completely different situations. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 No, not at all. McColl got involved in the idea and planning stages of a scheme where he would have been underwriting a fan ownership based model and buyout, so if anyone wants to draw comparisons, then the anonymity aspects are based on completely different situations. Then why does McColl/King not just put up the money to gain control? That's all they need to do 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 The current board will win at the AGM this week because simply the requisitioners would not put their hand intheir pocket and buy shares. If we want rid of Zeus then buy them out If we want rid of Blue Pitch then buy them out It really is that simple Is it really that simple, telling other people, how they should spend their money? 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.