Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 His IP address might shed some light, as I'm sure you have thought about before, or maybe he uses proxies....... An IP address is very easy to change. Quite crucial if you want to post on places other than Gersnet! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siam69 0 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 An IP address is very easy to change. Quite crucial if you want to post on places other than Gersnet! Indeed 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. Plato 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueflag 378 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 An IP address is very easy to change. Quite crucial if you want to post on places other than Gersnet! Indeed Indeed indeed however you see , most people think there awesome and then go and make just 1 login or 1 view from a mobile without a proxy and admin wins.. even the free proxy's can be rooted out. I would propose a blanket ban on proxy/vpn sign ups in honesty. Saves you lotta hassle. The even smarter cookies will realise you can also fool some free shite proxies into spitting out your real IP. TOR is easily traceable when people don't understand exit nodes 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Indeed indeed however you see , most people think there awesome and then go and make just 1 login or 1 view from a mobile without a proxy and admin wins.. even the free proxy's can be rooted out.I would propose a blanket ban on proxy/vpn sign ups in honesty. Saves you lotta hassle. The even smarter cookies will realise you can also fool some free shite proxies into spitting out your real IP. TOR is easily traceable when people don't understand exit nodes If your ISP gives you a dynamic IP you just need to reboot your router. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueflag 378 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 If your ISP gives you a dynamic IP you just need to reboot your router. And that would be most people at home since you would only get a home user static from Virgin. That's not the point. I mean for linking to other accounts. Who cares if they changed it.. In fact if it was me. I would send them 50tb data to there router and reboot it myself 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 We all knew sandy and Merlin were lying anyway 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 From The Telegraph: Sandy Easdale's true role in Rangers takeover talks thrown into question by release of emails Rangers football board chairman wanted to retain Ibrox role had Dave King taken over, claims consortium By Roddy Forsyth10:40PM GMT 21 Nov 2014Comments1 Comment The ongoing row over the circumstances in which Mike Ashley achieved effective control of Rangers for a £2 million loan has intensified with the release of emails which indicate that Sandy Easdale – the Rangers football board chairman – did ask for an assurance that he would remain at Ibrox if a takeover by former director, Dave King, had proved successful. King claimed as much earlier this week, only for Easdale - whose brother, James, is a member of the plc board - to issue a powerful denial that any such assurances had been sought. Easdale’s spokesman challenged King to produce evidence and said: “If Mr King has any proof of such conversations and when and where they took place he should produce it and if he is suggesting any improper conduct or motive he should make his position clear.” The spokesman added: “Anybody who knows Mr Easdale would find it risible that he would have adopted such a subservient tone with Mr King.” However, a spokesman for the King consortium – which also included former Rangers director, Paul Murray, and a wealthy supporter, George Letham, amongst others – has told The Daily Telegraph: "Mr Easdale, through his PR man Jack Irvine, has chosen to question our account of his request to retain his and his brother’s board positions in the event of our £16 million investment in the club going ahead. “At all times during negotiations we have maintained proper corporate standards of confidentiality, despite regular leaks of the detail of those negotiations, but Mr Easdale has now requested that we produce proof of his concern over his own position. “As a result of his request, we have released an email which minutes a conversation between Dave King and Mr Easdale and includes Mr Easdale’s request for assurances over his and his brother’s board positions. It also includes Mr Easdale’s confirmation that this is an accurate account of that conversation and his undertaking to discuss the detailed proposal and those answers with the shareholders he represents. “Having now proven that our account was, as it always is, truthful, we will no longer engage in tit for tat with Mr Irvine and Mr Easdale. We will leave it up to the Rangers fans and shareholders to decide who is giving them accurate information on our ongoing attempts to put Rangers back on a secure footing." The email exchanges released by the King consortium include one titled ‘Sandy Easdale’ and timed at 3.59pm on October 22, the day on which he tried to establish the progress of his consortium’s £16 million bid. Forwarding the email already sent to fellow consortium members Murray and Letham to Sandy Easdale – King adds his and their responses. King writes: “Paul/George, I have concluded my anticipated chat with Sandy who is acting solely as a shareholder. Sandy advised me that he will have to consult further with the shareholders that he represents once he receives my further response to what follows; 1. We went over the in-principle aspects of the proposal we have presented to the board including the recognition of the time frames and regulatory approvals that this would entail. Sandy had no issues with this per se and adopted a generally positive attitude but raised 3 important issues that could arise if our proposal is accepted and implemented. I outline them in points 2 to 4 below. I believe that Sandy is being reasonable in advancing both of these points as issues that affect how he, as a shareholder, responds to our proposal. 2. Sandy asked me to clarify our intention re his/James ongoing involvement in the board if our proposal is ultimately implemented. I advised him that my personal view was that I had no difficulty working with them and there is no intention to remove them afterwards. I am willing to commit to that in some acceptable format. I need your thoughts on this as I indicated that I was not able to speak for you on that point as we have not discussed it. Paul and George confirm that they and the shareholders they represent concur with my thoughts on this point. 3. Sandy would like to know who is/could be in the consortium as he would like to know who he might be dealing with in the future. Please help me with an actual/potential list of names. This has been raised as a key issue for the board as well. The following are the names that can presently be disclosed and are subject to any changes once we get to the final contract stage. Paul Murray, George Letham, George Taylor, Andy Ross, Barry Scott. There are another 3 individuals who are unwilling to have their names released until a transaction has been agreed in-principle. I confirm that the names will be given at that time. I am aware of the individuals and am certain you will have no difficulty with them. I confirm, Sandy, that you are the only person I have shared this list with. 4. Sandy asked if we had formed a view of the attempt by Mike Ashley to remove the CEO (Graham Wallace) and FD (Phillip Nash). I stated that we had no view on that however I added that I personally would be surprised if the 2 individuals were part of the long term future of the club. Do you see it differently? Paul and George concur with the thoughts I have expressed. In the event, the plc directors chose to strike a deal with Ashley through which the Newcastle United owner agreed to loan the club £2 million interest free for six months in return for two seats on the plc board. Ashley has since increased the loan to £3 million as disillusioned fans continue to boycott home games. Earlier this month the Rangers Supporters Trust asked the AiM regulators to investigate the Ashley deal, which was not only accepted ahead of the King consortium’s proposals, but also those of Sale Sharks rugby league side owner, Brian Kennedy, who offered a loan of £3 million at an annual interest rate of 3% to ease the beleaguered club’s continual cash flow problems. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11247379/Sandy-Easdales-true-role-in-Rangers-takeover-talks-thrown-into-question-by-release-of-emails.html?fb 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 With all this farce, you do wonder how King and Easdale would ever get - not to speak of working - together again. "FC Hollywood" springs to mind. You almost wish that someone like Ashley or Kennedy takes over, if only to throw all the bampots out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 (edited) With all this farce, you do wonder how King and Easdale would ever get - not to speak of working - together again. "FC Hollywood" springs to mind. You almost wish that someone like Ashley or Kennedy takes over, if only to throw all the bampots out. We've been FC Omnishambles for years but then, some thought all was well and on course at various stages throughout. Much of the 'Soap Opera' aspect comes from or is controlled by those who run the communications/PR. From one side, it is partly designed to nuture the divide between supporters. As time passes and attendences go down, interest in the political becomes generally less intense except for actual news that stops you in your tracks such as the multiple arrests last week. In short, people start finding other things to do and reach a stage where they can't be bothered with the 'noise' or what seems to have become for many, the expensive, unenjoyable 'duty' of following Rangers. Still awaiting the accounts and the annoucement of the AGM, we come towards another dark crossroads. A football club that has gone through something in the region of 100M in two and a half years and have very little to show for it. Not even those "exceptional items", the car park or Edmiston House, which currently have charges lodged against them. Edited November 22, 2014 by buster. 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.