Rangersitis 0 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) On PA wires: I feel sorry for wee Jack Irvine - one minute he's employed by the Easdales, the next he isn't. Meanwhile, James wants to know who this guy Interest is. Edited October 8, 2014 by Rangersitis 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,217 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Always good to know that the right hand has no idea about the left. Alas, we have 10 days off with on-field action, so here comes another week of off-field "terror". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Always good to know that the right hand has no idea about the left. Alas, we have 10 days off with on-field action, so here comes another week of off-field "terror". You can't seriously believe that to be true, can you? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 On PA wires: I feel sorry for wee Jack Irvine - one minute he's employed by the Easdales, the next he isn't. They don't seem to care about being so blatantly in your face patronising towards the Rangers support anymore, as they think we're stupid and hope it just gets lost in the 'noise'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Sandy Easdale's spokesman Jack Irvine said on today's Rangers/Mike Ashley announcement: "Sandy Easdale is not part of the PLC board and has no knowledge of any of the recent announcements. However he is watching with interest." Wallace is also part of the football club board along with Sandy Easdale. The proposed resolution would only remove him from the PLC board and not the football board.... Given that Sandy Easdale has so much of the voting rights and has no knowledge of the issue, can we expect him to abstain? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Wallace is also part of the football club board along with Sandy Easdale. The proposed resolution would only remove him from the PLC board and not the football board.... Given that Sandy Easdale has so much of the voting rights and has no knowledge of the issue, can we expect him to abstain? Given precedent, can we expect the Proxies/Easdale/Irvine line to be transparent and honest about their stated intentions or position ? So in answer to your question, we would be unwise to take what comes out from that particular camp in regard to voting intentions in an EGM, if it were to actually happen. As I understand you are also infering. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I read yesterday that Wallace and Nash had a meeting with King. Is that why they're being chopped ? King is denying this happened. Not that anyone's word is trustworthy - they've all lied under oath, and barefaced to cameras 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 They don't seem to care about being so blatantly in your face patronising towards the Rangers support anymore, as they think we're stupid and hope it just gets lost in the 'noise'. Gosh, I wonder what on Earth could make them think that.................... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 So in answer to your question, we would be unwise to take what comes out from that particular camp in regard to voting intentions in an EGM, if it were to actually happen. As I understand you are also infering. Yeah, my question was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenzEK 0 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Let's look at the club's investor centre: Laxey Partners Ltd 16.32% Artemis Investment Management LLP 9.95% MASH Holdings Limited 8.92% River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP 7.06% [blue Pitch Holding 5.43%]* Alexander Easdale 26.15% Miton Capital Partners 4.98% [Margarita Funds Holding Trust 3.19%]* * - Sandy has their vote That means we have at least 36% who'll vote for the removal of Wallace and Nash. Now, some people are suggest Laxey and Artemis may have changed horse to back King so that suggests around 27% who'll vote for the status quo. It looks very tight. The Easdale's control proxy for 20% and own 5% in their own right (or thereabouts) if I remember correctly. Margarita and BPH only account for just under 9% of those held proxy votes so do we have any idea who the remaining 11% are within that voting block? 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.