Ongoing new manager discussion and speculation

[rbr 1,247]

I'm asking questions. Had I won the Euromillions yesterday, I'd have a few million to spend by next week. Just saying. You by default imply that King's lying and I think it is only fair to question that a little.

Theres no doubt hes lying , his whole defence to the TOP was that he had no personal wealth of any note and that everything he had was in his family trust over which he had no control , 3 months later he is pledging up to £7 million in funding via the same family trust he has no power over , they are his words not mine .

Also the whole concert party thing was a fiasco , of course they were acting in unison the 3 share purchases were announced within hours of each other and they stated they had been working together , another absolute shambles , at the time several informed posters on various forums called this and have been proved correct .

 

 

[forlanssister 3,050]

I'm asking questions. Had I won the Euromillions yesterday, I'd have a few million to spend by next week. Just saying. You by default imply that King's lying and I think it is only fair to question that a little.

 

The point being made is that the claim he has no funds to satisfy the TOPs demands and his assurances to the Auditors in regards to future funding do not tally as they're blatant contradictions.

[boabie 230]

The point being made is that the claim he has no funds to satisfy the TOPs demands and his assurances to the Auditors in regards to future funding do not tally as they're blatant contradictions.

 

That only applies if we accept that King, although saying there's money he'll provide to put into Rangers it is coming through a family trust which he does not control personally.

The difficulty King is going to have with TOP is his previous statements which imply that the whole trust is in fact under his stewardship.

Whatever comes out in the wash and however this ends I don't think there is any question that King has, whether intentionally or by mistake told porkies to somebody.

Edited November 26, 2017 by boabie

[pete 2,499]

That only applies if we accept that King, although saying there's money he'll provide to put into Rangers it is coming through a family trust which he does not control personally.

The difficulty King is going to have with TOP is his previous statements which imply that the whole trust is in fact under his stewardship.

Whatever comes out in the wash and however this ends I don't think there is any question that King has, whether intentionally or by mistake told porkies to somebody.

 

What businessman doesn't? I don't really see why people are too worried what he told TOP as long as Rangers are getting the money.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Theres no doubt hes lying , his whole defence to the TOP was that he had no personal wealth of any note and that everything he had was in his family trust over which he had no control , 3 months later he is pledging up to £7 million in funding via the same family trust he has no power over , they are his words not mine .

Also the whole concert party thing was a fiasco , of course they were acting in unison the 3 share purchases were announced within hours of each other and they stated they had been working together , another absolute shambles , at the time several informed posters on various forums called this and have been proved correct .

 

And there is absolutely no chance that he has since been granted some power or family members have joined in with him? You make it sound that certain things are beyond any chance of happening ... just saying.

 

As for the "concerted party stuff, there is not much dispute about that, from a business point of view. Then again, you do wonder about the motives of the TOP when they want him to spend 500k or the like to offer a below market bid to all other shareholders with virtually no chance of succeeding. Thus, it is more like a advanced penalty on him than anything that makes business sense. But that is not exactly the point I was looking at above.

[Uilleam 5,429]

I read your putative statement and immediately discarded it.

It is terrible the level of scepticism I have that now greets all news on Rangers unless it is an official club statement.

After the last two games I think I am completely scunnered.

 

As I said, oh wise one, don't shoot the messenger. The story, not a statement, has an interesting source; whether, or not, it has legs is a different matter.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What businessman doesn't? I don't really see why people are too worried what he told TOP as long as Rangers are getting the money.

Very much my view.

 

 

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

And there is absolutely no chance that he has since been granted some power or family members have joined in with him? You make it sound that certain things are beyond any chance of happening ... just saying.

 

As for the "concerted party stuff, there is not much dispute about that, from a business point of view. Then again, you do wonder about the motives of the TOP when they want him to spend 500k or the like to offer a below market bid to all other shareholders with virtually no chance of succeeding. Thus, it is more like a advanced penalty on him than anything that makes business sense. But that is not exactly the point I was looking at above.

You would need to be pretty naive to believe that

 

 

[craig 5,199]

And there is absolutely no chance that he has since been granted some power or family members have joined in with him? You make it sound that certain things are beyond any chance of happening ... just saying.

 

As for the "concerted party stuff, there is not much dispute about that, from a business point of view. Then again, you do wonder about the motives of the TOP when they want him to spend 500k or the like to offer a below market bid to all other shareholders with virtually no chance of succeeding. Thus, it is more like a advanced penalty on him than anything that makes business sense. But that is not exactly the point I was looking at above.

 

No, you really don't need to wonder about the motives of TOP. Their rules are there for ALL companies and individuals to act in accordance of. And it appears that King hasn't. Which is also a very different question to whether or not TOP need to revise such rules to apply a more common sense approach, which I would agree is needed.

 

However, their only "motives" are to apply the rules that they have had in place for a number of years.

[colinstein 294]

that the TOP should take an obviously vexatious complaint from an ex board member to court for the first time ever seems very strange. The fact that the COS has not delivered any judgement I think tells you they know fine well something reeks.....I wouldn't be surprised if Ashley is exploring ways of Stockbridge (?) withdrawing the complaint as part of the retail deal he's done with us and selling his shares