The Union of Fans Statement

[Hildy 0]

If I had put £20m into Rangers in the past, and it was well known, and if had stated publicly that I was prepared to put another £50m towards the club in the right circumstances, I would not be impressed by calls urging me to place such a large sum in an escrow account.

 

My response would probably not be appropriate for a respectable forum like this one.

 

I am not one of King's followers, but I believe he has the money and a willingness to spend it, but only when he believes the circumstances are right, which is fair enough and perfectly reasonable.

 

We have certainly been too trusting in the past, but King has shown by past deeds that he will put money into Rangers. Expecting him to put £50m in an escrow account is unrealistic and bordering on insulting - especially as many see him as the last credible hope for our floundering club.

[buster. 4,808]

If I had put £20m into Rangers in the past, and it was well known, and if had stated publicly that I was prepared to put another £50m towards the club in the right circumstances, I would not be impressed by calls urging me to place such a large sum in an escrow account.

 

My response would probably not be appropriate for a respectable forum like this one.

 

I am not one of King's followers, but I believe he has the money and a willingness to spend it, but only when he believes the circumstances are right, which is fair enough and perfectly reasonable.

 

We have certainly been too trusting in the past, but King has shown by past deeds that he will put money into Rangers. Expecting him to put £50m in an escrow account is unrealistic and bordering on insulting - especially as many see him as the last credible hope for our floundering club.

 

It helps divert focus from where it should be.

 

Whilst it is only fair and right to examine all sides, the past and current boards seem to escape such vigilance from some despite what has went on/where we find ourselves.

[Calgacus 8]

Admin 2 wouldn't do him any good. He would still have to acquire the shareholdings from the existing shareholders and there is no evidence that they would be easy to deal with - especially if they thought King had caused the problem in the first place. It would be the same situation as with Whyte's shares.

[Frankie 8,151]

If I had put £20m into Rangers in the past, and it was well known, and if had stated publicly that I was prepared to put another £50m towards the club in the right circumstances, I would not be impressed by calls urging me to place such a large sum in an escrow account.

 

My response would probably not be appropriate for a respectable forum like this one.

 

I am not one of King's followers, but I believe he has the money and a willingness to spend it, but only when he believes the circumstances are right, which is fair enough and perfectly reasonable.

 

We have certainly been too trusting in the past, but King has shown by past deeds that he will put money into Rangers. Expecting him to put £50m in an escrow account is unrealistic and bordering on insulting - especially as many see him as the last credible hope for our floundering club.

 

That's a fair point actually.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

admin 2 is far better for the board than dave king.

 

but it's impossible for a club with 50 million of pledged investement and costs of 20 million or less to go into admin. unless someone in control wants it to.

[buster. 4,808]

admin 2 is far better for the board than dave king.

 

but it's impossible for a club with 50 million of pledged investement and costs of 20 million or less to go into admin. unless someone in control wants it to.

 

Our subservience and financing to and for the boardroom has allowed events to reach this stage.

We've now reached a stage where there is only pain to come.

 

Broadly the same people who pushed us in the past are recommending that we continue the subservience and finance to executive control.

 

Up front finance to people who have proved they can't be trusted is crazy.....besides the board have now said (in court this week) that they don't need the money up-front.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Admin 2 if we got proper owners after it would be the best way forward. But there is zero chance of a change of ownership and all there onerous deals with pals will remain in place.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Our subservience and financing to and for the boardroom has allowed events to reach this stage.

We've now reached a stage where there is only pain to come.

 

Broadly the same people who pushed us in the past are recommending that we continue the subservience and finance to executive control.

 

Up front finance to people who have proved they can't be trusted is crazy.....besides the board have now said (in court this week) that they don't need the money up-front.

 

Seems clear to me the board plan to hand out 41 million shares to existing shareholders at a good price tightening their grip on the club then when that cash runs out go to others like king and ask them to invest whatever number leaves GreenCo in charge to limp on further.

[buster. 4,808]

Admin 2 if we got proper owners after it would be the best way forward. But there is zero chance of a change of ownership and all there onerous deals with pals will remain in place.

 

Sports Direct (Ashely) comes to mind.

 

They have a venture alongside Rangers Retail, the later have 51% of the share BUT in votes on financial matters, the 49% of SD outweighs the 51% of Rangers Retail because of the how the deal was set-up.

 

Why would that be ?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Sports Direct (Ashely) comes to mind.

 

They have a venture alongside Rangers Retail, the later have 51% of the share BUT in votes on financial matters, the 49% of SD outweighs the 51% of Rangers Retail because of the how the deal was set-up.

 

Why would that be ?

 

So they decide when and if we get any cash.