Darthter 542 Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Plus if he said that the sfa would have him! on the flip side.....if he was 100% open about his plans/intentions, the SFA may alter their 9% ruling - I believe it is at the discretion of the SFA. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) think it was around £3.4m newcastle £3.9m us. doubt that counts the money we returned in unbought stock. meant to say leopards dont change their spots. He is greed personified Edited January 28, 2015 by trublusince1982 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Looking at his involvement with Newcastle where 50k turn up every second week, i think he thought the same would happen at Rangers. I am sure he thought it would be the same scenario but with even more shirt sales and Europe involvement as well. He now sees this is not happening, and with Rangers Supporters offering loans and investment all that is keeping him from baling out ( all be it with his contracts intact ) is his unwillingness to admit defeat and the red face he would be left with. That is my take on the situation, as like others I cannot see why he would be hanging around. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Very much so, chilledbear. It is more like spoilt-brat behaviour than that of an acute business-man. Rather take all down in flames than do the honorable thing. That his behaviour draws even more bad publicity to him and SD does not concern him in the slightest, it seems ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Summoning him to parliament and getting him to face tough questions in the full glare of publicity is not something Ashley will relish. I believe this was raised yesterday by a Scottish Labour MP (Donohoe) and if it can be made to happen, it will be an uncomfortable experience for a man who rarely gives interviews. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I imagine we will never see his face in parliament TBH. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Summoning him to parliament and getting him to face tough questions in the full glare of publicity is not something Ashley will relish. I believe this was raised yesterday by a Scottish Labour MP (Donohoe) and if it can be made to happen, it will be an uncomfortable experience for a man who rarely gives interviews. Just out of interest, has this been done before? What right has the Parliament to question people like Ashley or summon him to Parliament? Edited January 28, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 851 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 The other question I'd like to know the answer to is: by what mechanism has MA garnered support from the share holders who have sided with him so far? Does he stealth-own them through some subsidiary? (In which case the SFA would be after him) Do they benefit from onerous contracts of their own that MA's placemen will maintain for them? (Which would be a dereliction of fiduciary responsibility) Basically, IMO, there is no way MA is working with the best interests of RIFC in mind, and any shareholder that votes to maintain the status quo at an EGM must be dodgy in some way. Stating the obvious I know, but if we could somehow uncover these dodgy connections it would spell the end for all involved. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Just out of interest, has this been done before? What right has the Parliament to question people like Ashley or summon him to Parliament? people can be compelled to attend a Select Committee or Enquiry and answer questions under oath - but a run of the mill MP cannot compel a normal citizen to attend parliament to answer questions. And, anyway, this sudden interest in getting to the bottom of the Rangers saga by Labour MPs has more to do with the upcoming election and the prospect of them getting wiped out by the SNP than with any search for justice. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 In the grand scheme of things he's put in very little money however, he stands to make a lot of money whatever the outcome. 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.