Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

you can be sure it's going to lambias staying in mar hall.

 

you can be sure it's going to pay of directors just because ashley wants them gone.

 

do you really believe we get value for money.

 

Who is paying the squad then? Do you expect Ashley loans money to pay the players while the directors and his own fellow gets paid by ST and pay-at-the-gate cash? Would shed a rather silly light on Ashley, wouldn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way McCoist is running the team I don't think it will be long before the fans start voting with their feet.

 

King is wrong to call for boycotts, but by the same token there are those who are criticising anything that is suggested no matter what.

 

As for the comment "as long as I have a team to support". We'll it borders on the ridiculous.

 

This isn't the rangers we all knew. It's a shell and nothing more. The sooner the blind loyalty mob see this the better.

 

I'll personally won't set foot in in in in our stadium again until there are proper people running the club .

Link to post
Share on other sites

With no clear plan, no proof of funds, not naming investors etc DK played right into the hands of the board.

He gave them perfect reason to reject his proposals whatever they were.

If he'd been up front things would have been different.

 

For me, this hits the nail squarely on the head, as far as King is concerned.

 

"Agree to my deal, and I'll prove I have the cash and who's involved"......Why would ANY business agree to this???

 

If DK was 100% serious about the investment, why wouldn't he provide proof of funding & disclose EXACTLY who was in his consortium - What's the big secret??? What about transparency!!!

 

This is just DK's standard MO.....Put's an offer on the table, knowing it will get rejected, then turns round and complains about it & demands action. If he had met the required term (that Kennedy & Ashley did), the board would be hard pushed to refuse the offer, so why give them such an easy out???

 

In this particular case, both sides are corroborating the story - both are saying that Proof of funds & people were required and that DK was only willing to supply if the deal accepted (in principal).

Further details are required with regards to Kennedy's offer in order to determine if the Ashley deal was indeed the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mccoll has business restrictions with investors he can't invest in anything else just now.

 

I don't believe a word of that really, I was pretty gobsmacked he hit out with that after offering the administrators £6m for the assets after Green' consortium had been gifted the club.

 

King can call for a boycott all he wants, it's now a personal decision for each and every bear to make. Personally I cannot justify spending a penny on Rangers while it is owned and being run in the manner it has been...

 

I don't blame other bears who do continue to go though.

 

It's not an easy decision to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • 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.