BEARGER 1,829 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30106866 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 It's all up to the supporters we can do this 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 won't be popular with some but he is dead right in my opinion there will soon be nothing left of the club we love if we do not force change. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 we'll survive no matter what 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 "I truly hope that those fans that continue to blindly support the club (for the right reasons) finally realise that 140 years of the club's history will be irretrievably lost unless they withhold their financial support for the current regime at matchdays and the retail outlets." disturbing comment is it not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,207 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Why give Scrote & Co hits? Rangers: Dave King urges fans to starve club of cash By Richard Wilson BBC Scotland Dave King has urged Rangers fans to stop supporting the club financially. The former Ibrox director was responding to claims by Rangers chairman David Somers that King's consortium had not provided proof of funds for their investment offer. The board subsequently accepted a £2m loan from Mike Ashley, having rejected another proposal from Brian Kennedy. King has called on Rangers fans to act, saying: "The future of the club depends on every fan now taking a stand." Somers had claimed that King's consortium failed to provide proof of funding for their £16m investment proposal, or the identities of all of those providing the funds. A spokesman for the consortium described Somers' remarks as "disingenuous", adding that the group had given private assurances that all the relevant information would be provided upon acceptance of the investment proposal. "Somers' comments are, to his knowledge, not honest," King said. "Unfortunately, his utterances are what we have come to expect of recent appointments to the Rangers board. Fortunately the fans will not be fooled by such platitudes. "I truly hope that those fans that continue to blindly support the club (for the right reasons) finally realise that 140 years of the club's history will be irretrievably lost unless they withhold their financial support for the current regime at matchdays and the retail outlets." The King consortium's offer was based upon the group receiving an equity stake in Rangers International Football Club plc and control of the board. To release new shares, 75% of current shareholders would need to agree on the deal, and Sandy Easdale, the football board chairman, owns 5.2% and holds the proxies for a further 20.94%, effectively allowing him to block the deal. A spokesman for the consortium said: "We had private discussions with Graham Wallace [the former Rangers chief executive] and Sandy Easdale in which we told them that we would immediately provide proof of funding and details of the full make-up of the consortium following confirmation from Sandy Easdale that the shareholders whom he represents were prepared to support the terms of our investment proposal in principle. "Sandy Easdale agreed to proceed on this basis. Unfortunately he was not then able to provide the confirmation we asked for. There was no possibility of proceeding any further without the support of Sandy Easdale's group who had the power to block our proposed investment." The board of RIFC were then faced with two loan offers, from Ashley and Kennedy, both of which would provide a short-term fix ahead of future fundraising. During lengthy discussions, and after finance director Philip Nash resigned, the board accepted Ashley's offer. The owner of Newcastle United has since made another £1m available, with further funding required before the end of the year. "Where [the King offer] fell down was really at stage one," Somers said. "When I said to all three of these people 'would you show me proof of funds?' two showed me proof of funds. The consortium did not. "The second question for the consortium was 'I know there are eight of you, I only know three of you. Can I please have the other five names?' And the message I was getting all the time was 'if you agree to do a deal, if you persuade 75% of shareholders, then we'll show you funds and you can have the other names'. "It wasn't meeting the due diligence requirements. I cannot go to shareholders when I don't know all the names, I can't check the names out and I can't put my hand on my heart and say 'these guys have the money'. "In the end we had to move on to stage two which left two providers. Then it was a simple case of which provider was offering the lowest interest rate - Mike Ashley was offering zero interest which is difficult to beat - and which provider wanted least security - again Mike Ashley only wanted a small amount relative to the other deal. Once we got to that stage it was a no-brainer which one we were going with." BTW, we are essentially back to day one after the last AGM, with the respective parties fling words at and contradict one another. What King demands now from us is only going to damage the club, not the board or the shareholders. How that strategy is deemed sensible and useful while at the same time handing fanciful names/attributes to those people he may very well want to talk to in the future about investment is quite debatable. The fight for our club (and that includes all parties concerned) has got down to a level that is almost equal to that displayed on the park more often than not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,207 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 disturbing comment is it not? It would have been, if he had explained what he is actually referring to. As it stands, it is party-politics - innuendo. It is that kind of stuff that makes Kings statements so frustrating a read. I mean, he's the good guy and should hold most of the aces, but he has an open verbal go at the board and here at the support as well, how can he believe that this will go down well with either? Starving the club will destroy the club or play it into the wide open arms of Ashley. He will most likely gain next to nothing doing this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Why give Scrote & Co hits? BTW, we are essentially back to day one after the last AGM, with the respective parties fling words at and contradict one another. What King demands now from us is only going to damage the club, not the board or the shareholders. How that strategy is deemed sensible and useful while at the same time handing fanciful names/attributes to those people he may very well want to talk to in the future about investment is quite debatable. The fight for our club (and that includes all parties concerned) has got down to a level that is almost equal to that displayed on the park more often than not. it will certainly damage shareholders and as such they may damage the board. we either finance this corporate rape or we say no we will only finance proper running of our club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quattro 0 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 disturbing comment is it not? Seriously out of order comment by King. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,207 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 it will certainly damage shareholders and as such they may damage the board. we either finance this corporate rape or we say no we will only finance proper running of our club. Does anyone on here actually believes that not going to Ibrox will hurt the shareholders more than the club? Or, to be more precise, that any money raked in via tickets goes anywhere else than in running the club right now? When we apparently need to take loans to actually have the cash to pay people? I would like to get an explanation how that would work. 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.