der Berliner 3,245 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 That would be the stuff you tried to blame HMRC for? So you are suggesting that club people/employees (or attached slugs) told the media that we're short of getting a winding up in order to promote Sandy Easdale's "good deed"? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) You think had he played Mr Nice guy they would have rolled over and had their belly tickled ? Get a grip dB. . He should have said nothing at all, because it deserved nothing at all. Nothing to do with Easdale's belly or anyone rolling over. Edited January 5, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 So you are suggesting that club people/employees (or attached slugs) told the media that we're short of getting a winding up in order to promote Sandy Easdale's "good deed"? Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 So you are suggesting that club people/employees (or attached slugs) told the media that we're short of getting a winding up in order to promote Sandy Easdale's "good deed"? Well done Sherlock 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 A touch too sado-masochistic way of attention seeking, IMHO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 A touch too sado-masochistic way of attention seeking, IMHO. It's got nothing to do with attention seeking, but everything to do with PR/spin in order to try to save his blazer if Dave King and the other Bears take over. Thanks to his style and use of the Toxic PR man though, Sandy's just damaging his chances of remaining at Ibrox even further. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSolace 0 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The Easdales are not fit to wear a club blazer. End of. I would imagine it is the view of the 3 Bears and King. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Latest from King on this mornings activity: King retorted angrily and told Telegraph Sport: "Given that Sandy Easdale rejected new funds and was a chief architect in getting the club into this mess, lending a small amount of money is the minimum he should have done. As part restitution he should make the £500,000 a donation rather than a loan." Easdale were bluepitch and margarita on the board they could have voted their 6% for the King investment but didn't it would have made little difference to the final vote. It's been said on here that they've cost us millions but they've made nothing from us as far as I can see they'll likely lose money on their shares they've put up half million to keep us going........... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 It's got nothing to do with attention seeking, but everything to do with PR/spin in order to try to save his blazer if Dave King and the other Bears take over. Thanks to his style and use of the Toxic PR man though, Sandy's just damaging his chances of remaining at Ibrox even further. I do not assume that he/they will remain in any sort of capacity bar being shareholders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Easdale were bluepitch and margarita on the boardthey could have voted their 6% for the King investment but didn't it would have made little difference to the final vote. It's been said on here that they've cost us millions but they've made nothing from us as far as I can see they'll likely lose money on their shares they've put up half million to keep us going........... That half a million is secured on money which is guaranteed to come to the Club. Hardly a risk. They have undoubtedly cost the Club millions - pray tell what has happened with the tens of millions the Club has spunked out the door since they came in ? What infrastructure has been created ? What cost reduction has taken place ? What improvements have we seen ? There can be no doubt that their (not just them to be fair but all the other "custodians" of the Club since admin) have cost the club millions upon millions by being involved in the fiscal mismanagement of the Club. Surely that has been proven beyond doubt. Post admin the Club had zero debt. They had the goodwill of the support and a great deal of ST's and merchandising sales. They then also had an IPO and the only real "progress" is that the Club purchased a dilapidated Edmiston House, which is still in a state of disrepair. Whilst the proceeds of all of those revenues have been spunked to the point that we were looking at another winding up order and have given up naming rights for a quid (how nice of Mike to give those back.... at a price of course....) and lost the merchandising of the Club. And you want to laud them for 500k that they should never have had to put up anyway ? Thanks but no thanks. No amount of Toxic's spin will ever convince me that the Easdales have done good by the Club. King is spot on.... this is the least that the Easdales could do. I wont be thanking them when they have been profligate with the Club's monies elsewhere. 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.