Jump to content

 

 

Ashley considering EGM and repayment of loan


Recommended Posts

Snatched from FF

 

Dave King has stated the money is available to repay the 5m he obviously just doesn't feel inclined to pay it yet.

 

Given the fact that MA needs shareholders like you and I to vote to give him his cash back suggests the terms of the loan are not as water tight as we feared.

 

MA only gets the securities in the event of a default by the club. He owns nothing.

 

MA has a 5m liability and contracts with Rangers at a time when his involvement in the dodgy takeover is under investigation by police. You can bet Sports Direct shareholders are asking questions about their exposure.

 

DK has not been passed FaP by the SFA yet. Let's not score an own goal by showing the world that he's in control before he's passed.

 

Can we all calm down a bit.

 

am i looking at this right

 

- suspended from AIM due to corrupt NOMAD jumping ship before transition

- new NOMAD rejects us due to the previous corrupt boards running of the club

- hence delisting

 

Ashley & his stooges in Easdales, Llambias and Leach CAUSED the delisting of the company

and now he wants answers?

 

A Rangers spokesman has told SSN:

We are considering Mike Ashley's request with our advisors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that King lending Rangers the money to pay off Ashley would prejudice King's position with the SFA; but he did indicate that he wanted to work with him i.e. use his money, for a period.

 

No doubt the actions of the previous Board contributed to the rejection by the prospective new NOMAD but our lack of working capital, no CEO, no FD and King's difficult position may also have been factors.

 

Shareholders are entitled to know the truth of the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that King lending Rangers the money to pay off Ashley would prejudice King's position with the SFA; but he did indicate that he wanted to work with him i.e. use his money, for a period.

 

No doubt the actions of the previous Board contributed to the rejection by the prospective new NOMAD but our lack of working capital, no CEO, no FD and King's difficult position may also have been factors.

 

Shareholders are entitled to know the truth of the matter.

 

yet again you are saying we were rejected by a nomad. it's untrue, we had a nomad. it was AIM who wouldn't take us on.

 

or are you saying the new board have lied?

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.