Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

the board could have accepted it no problem and put it to shareholders. stop lying.

 

Utter nonsense.It needed an AGM or EGM for shareholder approval.

King puuled the wools over your eyes. He never had any intention of parting with his money so he made an impractical offer.

He is history. Get over it

Link to post
Share on other sites
Utter nonsense.It needed an AGM or EGM for shareholder approval.

King puuled the wools over your eyes. He never had any intention of parting with his money so he made an impractical offer.

He is history. Get over it

 

but the board could have approved it to go to the agm.

 

your desperation for king to fail makes me sad he wants to give us millions to get us back to the top.

 

it's a strange rangers fan that doesn't want that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but he hasn't put £130 million into Newcastle, It's an interest free loan

 

Don't know what it's secured against but probably St. James park right in the middle of town

 

That's what I wrote. I might be mistaken, but if it wasn't for Ashley, the magpies might have gone bust over the debt at the time. In any case, he should be nothing more than a part time "saviour", no doubt about that. It is more or less about how any other investor gets on with him and his plus the main shareholders ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Utter nonsense.It needed an AGM or EGM for shareholder approval.

King puuled the wools over your eyes. He never had any intention of parting with his money so he made an impractical offer.

He is history. Get over it

 

You clearly are missing the simple fact here that as this never got past the Board of Directors then they must have rejected it. If they hadn't then they would have RECOMMENDED it to the shareholders. As the shareholders never took a vote on it means that the Board never recommended it to the shareholders - de facto that means that the Board rejected it.

 

Your semantics simply don't work in this case Rab. You can say the Board could neither accept nor reject it which is half right - they can, quite clearly, reject it. They can't accept it but they CAN recommend it to the shareholders. It is obviously a moot point too because the Board clearly rejected it without putting it to the shareholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please tell me it's not only me that's embarrassed that there is threads going here and elsewhere about this 10million pish.

 

Thankfully, very few people on the forums will believe this sort of nonsense, but unfortunately, there's always some fans who read nonsense like this in a newspaper and lap it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Please tell me it's not only me that's embarrassed that there is threads going here and elsewhere about this 10million pish.

 

I read a thread elsewhere first thing this morning, laughed at it and imagined everyone else would too. Checked back in an hour later and it was spent!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thankfully, very few people on the forums will believe this sort of nonsense, but unfortunately, there's always some fans who read nonsense like this in a newspaper and lap it up.

Understood mate.

 

But has it even been in a paper, the Mail or elsewhere, is it not just twitter pish?

 

Although even if it was in a paper, means fuck all, as we know, and especially 'this rumour' ffs.

 

It just reminds me of something probably started by the obsessed, and I think that's why I'm embarrassed that there is still threads actually going about it here and elsewhere.

 

Just my opinion like, and as we all know, opinions are like arseholes. certainly not trying to dictate anything to anyone :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
You clearly are missing the simple fact here that as this never got past the Board of Directors then they must have rejected it. If they hadn't then they would have RECOMMENDED it to the shareholders. As the shareholders never took a vote on it means that the Board never recommended it to the shareholders - de facto that means that the Board rejected it.

 

Your semantics simply don't work in this case Rab. You can say the Board could neither accept nor reject it which is half right - they can, quite clearly, reject it. They can't accept it but they CAN recommend it to the shareholders. It is obviously a moot point too because the Board clearly rejected it without putting it to the shareholders.

 

You fail to appreciate Craig that King by refusing to acquire a shareholding sealed his own fate. When you say 'recommended' you fail to understand it is for the shareholders to vote on. Not the board. Ultimately it is for the shareholders to decide regardless of what the board say.Sadly you have all been strung along by King and his cohorts. He never did want to part with his money so he made an 'offer' which he knew would fail.

King and his gang could have got shares like everyone else. They didn't. End of story

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.