bluebear54 0 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 The Club wouldn't need King's reported £30m all at once. However, from Kings perspective, he would be wanting some element of control so that investment would need to be a one-off affair. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,249 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Yep, that's clearly a big problem for King. He's doing a reasonable job of applying pressure but these people are not easily scared off. Well, I know that "the board" is apparently brushed with evil tar no matter what, but perhaps they think they have another solution or ideas for Rangers' way ahead as opposed to "simply" letting King have his way straight away. Sometimes reading these King statements make you think there is just one way ahead for the club and that is his way. Which might well be true, at this moment and time. I for one do not know what the board can actually do or have in store, but neither do I solely (sic!) belief that they are here to fill their own purses. For the time being, I await Wallace's report and the financial results. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Miles away IMO. The men/man with the power wants their pay day and I'm not sure diluting their holding holds much attraction. The only way they will allow this is if their is a huge fan revolt IMHO. Easdale has already blocked king once he won't think twice about doing it again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Well, I know that "the board" is apparently brushed with evil tar no matter what, but perhaps they think they have another solution or ideas for Rangers' way ahead as opposed to "simply" letting King have his way straight away. Sometimes reading these King statements make you think there is just one way ahead for the club and that is his way. Which might well be true, at this moment and time. I for one do not know what the board can actually do or have in store, but neither do I solely (sic!) belief that they are here to fill their own purses. For the time being, I await Wallace's report and the financial results. If the board have another plan to bring in 50 million good on them. If not they better get talking to dave. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Ps you can be damn sure the accounts are grimm or they wouldn't be out at the last minute. Assuming they are out on time. Club accounts are late. 3.5 working days the business ones will be to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Well, I know that "the board" is apparently brushed with evil tar no matter what, but perhaps they think they have another solution or ideas for Rangers' way ahead as opposed to "simply" letting King have his way straight away. Sometimes reading these King statements make you think there is just one way ahead for the club and that is his way. Which might well be true, at this moment and time. I for one do not know what the board can actually do or have in store, but neither do I solely (sic!) belief that they are here to fill their own purses. For the time being, I await Wallace's report and the financial results. They may well do but so far their only answer has been 'shyte' loan deals. Your words, not mine. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,249 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 They may well do but so far their only answer has been 'shyte' loan deals. Your words, not mine. Well well ... they made one (sic!) loan deal condemned by each and sundry. Hence I took liberty to using that word. That deal was essentially the only thing you can hold against the board (Wallace et al) and it is being hyperboled as a cardinal sin. Without anyone of us actually knowing the reasons or necessities of it. And I for one do not believe it was arranged to quick-fill Laxey's accounts. 150k is neat for them, no doubt, good business too, but more likely just a drop in their turnover. You do wonder whether it is the same for Letham. You'd hope to find out the reasons for that loan and whether Wallace's statements earlier (being finacially sound) were correct. Even if they weren't, I neither just hurl "liar" at him and the board, for how would we know what sort of costs arose between the statement and the loan? I'm not defending the board here, just trying to stay as objective as possible for the time being ... and do indeed not look at it solely from the doom-and-gloom side. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted March 26, 2014 Author Share Posted March 26, 2014 Well well ... they made one (sic!) loan deal condemned by each and sundry. Hence I took liberty to using that word. That deal was essentially the only thing you can hold against the board (Wallace et al) and it is being hyperboled as a cardinal sin. Without anyone of us actually knowing the reasons or necessities of it. And I for one do not believe it was arranged to quick-fill Laxey's accounts. 150k is neat for them, no doubt, good business too, but more likely just a drop in their turnover. You do wonder whether it is the same for Letham. You'd hope to find out the reasons for that loan and whether Wallace's statements earlier (being finacially sound) were correct. Even if they weren't, I neither just hurl "liar" at him and the board, for how would we know what sort of costs arose between the statement and the loan? I'm not defending the board here, just trying to stay as objective as possible for the time being ... and do indeed not look at it solely from the doom-and-gloom side. There's no doom and gloom from me mate - just the necessary objective analysis of what was clearly a bad deal for the club amidst conflicting information from its directors. Sure, I agree it may not be the end of the world but it is an indication of bad judgement and that is a concern. Now, we've got another few weeks before the (over-long) four month review is completed and only then will we be able to see what the club's plans are. However, there has been more than one error from the latest board (Irvine was here too long, Daniel Stewart don't convince, some board members seem to lack good PR, fan interaction is zero) so there's a big difference between being negative for the sake of it and asking valid questions of people that represent others whose intentions we still don't know enough about. That's not hyperbole - that's fact. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Not checkmate yet, more King to Queen four, check. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 King said he wants control for himself for his money. I can't see the current board giving that up. 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.