Board react to Dave King statement

[Anchorman 0]

A spokesman said: "The board notes Mr King’s comments with concern as we are potentially de-stabilising and damaging to Rangers Football Club."

 

I've changed one word in that statement that turns it into an actual statement that reflects reality.

[Calgacus 8]

Why won't deep pockets Dave buy a shareholding of 10 to 15 percent ? The board will have to talk to him then. He can afford it I'm sure

They didn't listen to the requisitioners and they mustered around 30%

[Anchorman 0]

Why won't deep pockets Dave buy a shareholding of 10 to 15 percent ? The board will have to talk to him then. He can afford it I'm sure

 

RAB - sorry but do you never get tired of regurgitating the same old questions about Dave King buying shares? You have been answered in great depth multitudes of times on here why he didn't\hasn't. It is really tiresome for people to keep having to give the same responses over and over. Is it a war of attrition so that it eventually looks like nobody has got any valid counter response, which in reality is because they are in danger of keeling over through 'death by repitition'?

[der Berliner 3,239]

Translates as; Mr king is spot on and we are clueless about how to issue a meaningful reply.

 

They say exactly how they view King's attempt at an "call to arms". Whether you like what the board does or not, King's statements carry attacks and are hardly helpful in any meaningful way. By the looks of it, neither did he approach or was he approached the people in power. He's no shareholder and has yet to give us any clues about his business plan, if any. Apart from a willingness to invest his own money. Yet he likes to see what no company will give to the public unless they are obliged to.

 

The way this turns, it looks more like court cases between the board and King, rather than any sensible attempt at solving this issue. And like it or not, Dave King is as much responsible of this ensuing chaos as the board. Maybe it worked in the RSA ...

[Anchorman 0]

They say exactly how they view King's attempt at an "call to arms". Whether you like what the board does or not, King's statements carry attacks and are hardly helpful in any meaningful way. By the looks of it, neither did he approach or was he approached the people in power. He's no shareholder and has yet to give us any clues about his business plan, if any. Apart from a willingness to invest his own money. Yet he likes to see what no company will give to the public unless they are obliged to. The way this turns, it looks more like court cases between the board and King, rather than any sensible attempt at solving this issue. And like it or not, Dave King is as much responsible of this ensuing chaos as the board. Maybe it worked in the RSA ...

 

He didn't approach? He's screaming from the fucking rooftops and they are not interested - full stop!

 

Why would the courts be involved? Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

[der Berliner 3,239]

He didn't approach? He's screaming from the fucking rooftops and they are not interested - full stop!

 

That is what he says.

 

Why would the courts be involved? Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

 

Well, isn't it obvious enough that he calls on Rangers supporters not to buy ST et al? He essentially calls out for war on the board. Would you as a board-member want to talk to someone like that? Do you envisage the board-members going to sit around a table with him and discuss any investments? I don't.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

That is what he says.

 

 

 

Well, isn't it obvious enough that he calls on Rangers supporters not to buy ST et al? He essentially calls out for war on the board. Would you as a board-member want to talk to someone like that? Do you envisage the board-members going to sit around a table with him and discuss any investments? I don't.

 

He does not call on people not to buy season books. Indeed with kings plan in place I expect books to rise in number. I would certainly but one through his trust.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

They didn't listen to the requisitioners and they mustered around 30%

 

At 51 percent they would start listening and only then.

[Guest stfu]

Spunking away £22m is a pretty de-stabilising and damaging thing to do to Rangers Football Club.

 

More lies.

The current board, which we all agreed to give 120 days to come up with a review, and then didn't let them do it, have not spunked away £22M.

 

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt.

[forlanssister 3,050]

More lies.

 

More, pray tell?

 

The current board, which we all agreed to give 120 days to come up with a review, and then didn't let them do it, have not spunked away £22M.

 

I must have missed the pledge where everyone agreed to give them 120 days eh?

 

You seriously saying spunking away over £22m is not a pretty de-stabilising and damaging thing to do to Rangers Football Club?

 

We had over £10m in the bank when that well renowned business guru James Easdale joined the board.

 

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt.

 

Refeusing to believe Jack Irvine's and McMurdo's bullshit propaganda does not constitute a witch hunt.