the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 The money is immaterial to him - he wants to win. He is a professional gambler who takes punts on businesses in the same way an ordinary bloke would have a flutter on the dogs. His reason for looking after his interests over rangers are immaterial. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 1) Yes I just called you a good lad. I must be nuts2) when you are worth 4 billion and have gambles going o with Tesco's share price then 4,8 million doesn't register that much, especially when you are already in control of a significant proportion of that. Race you to the nut-house, fruitcake. He's not gambling for 4.8 million and even if he were = chickenfeed Every £1m of profit Ashley can extract from us is worth £19.81m to the Sports Direct shareprice, Ashley owns 58% (iirc) pretty soon we'd be providing a lot of chickenfeed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 No one ever became a billionaire by ignoring 5 million. The first ten million is the hardest part, let me tell you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 No one ever became a billionaire by ignoring 5 million. Not to begin with, no. but when you already are a billionaire and chancing 8 times that on a throw of the dice (see Tescos for one example) - then you can. Plus it isn't 5 million. You are referring to a historic 4.8 million amount that A) no longer exists at that level and B) he already has a large proportion of what potentially remains in his back pocket. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 No one ever became a billionaire by ignoring 5 million. I wondered how you could afford to post all day, every day. Should have guessed "billionaire" instead of all the other answers that occurred :-) (JEST) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 The first ten million is the hardest part, let me tell you. This is true, I started at the bottom, liked and stayed there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Ashley is trying to get rid of two guys who are looking to bring in 16 million worth of investment. He's doing that to protect his onerous contract. Whether it's about winning, money or just for shits and giggles matters not a jot. It's the same thing that happened when Mather tried to bring in 50 million. And some rangers fans celebrated his failure in doing that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 But I maintain the notion this isn't all about cash is spurious. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I agree with your penultimate post, GS, in general (i usually do agree with you as it happens - and you call me "nuts"" ) Also, what I said was silly, a couple of times on two different threads earlier, was that to suggest he'd "panic" over such interests was silly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Ashley is trying to get rid of two guys who are looking to bring in 16 million worth of investment. He's doing that to protect his onerous contract. Whether it's about winning, money or just for shits and giggles matters not a jot. It's the same thing that happened when Mather tried to bring in 50 million. And some rangers fans celebrated his failure in doing that. The shareholders will ultimately vote on whether the supposed investment is accepted or not. As such, the fate of Wallace is a side issue that is being used by one party's spin department to show the 'good guy' side of Wallace, the one wanting to bring King aboard, while the other lot cast him as the wicked money-grabber who is unsatisfied with his six-figure bonus and that he is wanting more. 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.