der Berliner 3,245 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 They have the proxy over the same shares so it's a fact. What sort of proxy do Wallace, Somers, and Nash have? Are we to assume that they have an early morning phone call with either Laxey and/or Sandy Easdale and ask how to blow their noses for the rest of the day? I mean, you make it sound as if this where North Korea or the like. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 If they don't they will be removed by the people who have appointed and removed all our directors as suited them. The proxy squad we can call them. Nothings changed. But it must. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 While we're on Rangers fans on the board malcolm Murray was handing out leaflets outside the louder yesterday. That's the difference. We need rangers men running us. Very interesting mate. Credit to Mr Murray, good on him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 When Cartmel Murray and Walter challenged them they just called together their proxy and demanded an EGM to remove them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 (edited) But Wallace, Somers and Nash have, yes? Or whom do you think King was speaking to? NB and just asking: does anyone actually know whether everything King did with regard to his tax problems in the RSA would have been legally fine in Britain? Although I note the naivety of your second question, I completely fail to see its relevance to, well actually, anything. And I fail to see what any kind of answer would add to the common wisdom. Edited March 16, 2014 by bluebear54 sp 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Although I note the naively of your second question, I completely fail to see its relevance to, well actually, anything. And I fail to see what any kind of answer would add to the common wisdom. Now, I find it rather astonishing that people deem King to be nigh sacro-sanct in all of this, when he surely isn't. Whereas the board can simply do no good. I for one doubt it is as simple as that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Now, I find it rather astonishing that people deem King to be nigh sacro-sanct in all of this, when he surely isn't. Whereas the board can simply do no good. I for one doubt it is as simple as that. The board have stood by and given huge resources to Super Ally, surely that is good in some peoples eyes. It all depends which angle people are looking at this from. It's never black and white. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Now, I find it rather astonishing that people deem King to be nigh sacro-sanct in all of this, when he surely isn't. Whereas the board can simply do no good. I for one doubt it is as simple as that. People can only go with the information that they have. On one hand you have a board who take out secured loans at 30%, which also contains the Easdales who threaten fans, not to mention their continued off-field activities, and on the other you have someone who previously invested £20 million. King undoubtedly still has a lot of questions to answer, and while you are correct to say that it's not just as simple as that, you can't blame fans or siding with King. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 People can only go with the information that they have. On one hand you have a board who take out secured loans at 30%, which also contains the Easdales who threaten fans, not to mention their continued off-field activities, and on the other you have someone who previously invested £20 million. Granted ... but that loan apart (the circumstances under which it came about are very much unknown), what have Wallace, Somers and Nash done wrong? The way the debate usually goes "the board" is spivery to the core, no matter what. A claim that I find rather ridiculous to make. I doubt that King will speak with Easdale on any greater issues, as that is not his job, is it? Media House is gone, Stockbridge is done ... and Easdale acts in the way anyone would probably react, no matter whether he's on a Rangers board or not. In no way I am suggesting that he's good enough for anything Rangers, I would hope he's gone tomorrow, but people do like to apply double standards here. King undoubtedly still has a lot of questions to answer, and while you are correct to say that it's not just as simple as that, you can't blame fans or siding with King. I don't blame anyone for siding with King. What I lament is the growing factionalism and respective responses. King and the board are now actually dealing with one another, rather than what happened thus far. As I said above, maybe we should take a step back and wait what these power brokers make of it and whether some transparency will finally happen. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 apart from that murder hes a decent bloke. 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.