sannybear 0 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It could be argued that not giving the club money leads to more Ashley loans and therefore more Ashley control and Ashley having security over more of our assets, and therefore doing more long term harm than good. It's all over , chaps . We're fucked if we boycott and fucked if we don't . This £2m won't last long , what securities will be offered then ? I think we all know what's coming . It's not as if there's going to be any resistance from the board now . Truth to tell , we were fucked from the moment DM sold to CW , everything thereafter has been a stitch-up . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It could be argued that not giving the club money leads to more Ashley loans and therefore more Ashley control and Ashley having security over more of our assets, and therefore doing more long term harm than good. Or he could give us our retail income He won't give us loans that can never be repaid. o 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 879 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It's all over , chaps . We're fucked if we boycott and fucked if we don't . This £2m won't last long , what securities will be offered then ? I think we all know what's coming . It's not as if there's going to be any resistance from the board now . Truth to tell , we were fucked from the moment DM sold to CW , everything thereafter has been a stitch-up . I wish I could disagree with you, but leaseback is looking like the only thing that makes sense with regards to Ashley's motives. The ultimate onerous contract. There are barriers to him owning the club, but he's never been directly interested in that anyway - just the advertising and merchandising opportunities that come with it. I could be wrong, but I don't see anything in the SFA rules to stop him owning Ibrox - or would this count as influence? Could anything be gained by petitioning the SFA to insist they enforce their rules and force him out? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 What's the point of leasing back an empty stadium. The sfa may well be our best hope. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 879 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 What's the point of leasing back an empty stadium. The sfa may well be our best hope. I don't know - maybe I'm feeling particularly paranoid this morning. But what's the point of anything Ashley's doing? He's driven a lot of fans away already yet still seems to be trying to gain more influence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I don't know - maybe I'm feeling particularly paranoid this morning. But what's the point of anything Ashley's doing? He's driven a lot of fans away already yet still seems to be trying to gain more influence. He wants the badge and Wallace refused him it. He wanted the stadium name change and Nash blocked that. He wants the leaks about his onerous contracts to stop. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 He wants the badge and Wallace refused him it. He wanted the stadium name change and Nash blocked that. He wants the leaks about his onerous contracts to stop. If Ashley has indeed bought the stadium naming rights, and there has been nothing proffered to refute the veracity of Sandy's words, then there may have been an agreement reached between the parties, but Nash couldn't have blocked anything. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 He wants the badge and Wallace refused him it. He wanted the stadium name change and Nash blocked that. He wants the leaks about his onerous contracts to stop. Can you prove any of that? What I see is Wallace and Nash wanted the deal with King, Murray and Letham that's why they are gone. From what I understand at the end Ashley wanted Nash to stay as apparently he has saved £5m (yet to evidence of that though). Do you think the leaks about the contracts came from the Wallace/Nash camp? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 The leaks came from s easdale it seems and every paper 8 the land has told us Wallace blocked Ashley wanting the badge with no retractions 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It's all over , chaps . We're fucked if we boycott and fucked if we don't . This £2m won't last long , what securities will be offered then ? I think we all know what's coming . It's not as if there's going to be any resistance from the board now . Truth to tell , we were fucked from the moment DM sold to CW , everything thereafter has been a stitch-up . I was trying to say something similar last night but only succeeded in alienating colinstein and Gunslinger. Every time we think are at a crossroads with a chance to do something.... We aren't. It is always a mirage. We are ducked if we turn right and ducked if we turn left or go on or go back. The last chance of escape ebbed with the choice of the administrators. It would have been Hell with any administrator but we got (Whyte ecstatically got) D&P and so we're consigned to an existential nightmare of, to bring the ever reliable Sartre into it, "No Exit". Leeds United land with add ons. 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.