+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Scottish Football League (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Scottish Premiership (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+----- Forum: Rangers (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=131)
+----- Thread: RIFC (/showthread.php?tid=130)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RE: RIFC - El Car - 16-01-2015
I think it's fair to raise at least the possibility of legal action against members of the board at this stage. Despite there being other possible offers on the table they've put a bar on anyone but Ashley being able to get security on the stadium, and if the Three Bear are to be believed they're either borrowing more than they need from Ashley or have never asked other parties to increase the loans they've offered. The same goes for the Sarver offer - they didn't even try to get him to up his offer. Basically members of the current board appear to be looking after the interests of a particular shareholder or shareholders, and are not acting in the best interests of the company as a whole as is their legal duty.
RE: RIFC - Fredstersafool - 16-01-2015
Maybe they think there acting in the best interests of Rangers football club though???
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 16-01-2015
(16-01-2015, 10:29)El Car Wrote: I think it's fair to raise at least the possibility of legal action against members of the board at this stage. Despite there being other possible offers on the table they've put a bar on anyone but Ashley being able to get security on the stadium, and if the Three Bear are to be believed they're either borrowing more than they need from Ashley or have never asked other parties to increase the loans they've offered. The same goes for the Sarver offer - they didn't even try to get him to up his offer. Basically members of the current board appear to be looking after the interests of a particular shareholder or shareholders, and are not acting in the best interests of the company as a whole as is their legal duty.
If that's the case - and it seems so - then the major shareholders who are being disenfranchised are the ones that need to raise any complaints, not the fan's groups. (I see the demonstration outside Ibrox tonight is now a full-scale boycott. Malodorous cυnts at work again.)
Interestingly, if PLT are offering to match Ashley's offer, then surely that's another safety net that could be used by the board if the Ashley repayments are defaulted. Ibrox would still be safe.
RE: RIFC - Fredstersafool - 16-01-2015
Also calling for pitch invasion on Twitter Trus.
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 16-01-2015
What are the repayment terms of Ashley's loan if known?
And is there interest on the loan.
To me its looking like somers et al looking after their own interest.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 16-01-2015
(16-01-2015, 13:44)supercooper Wrote: What are the repayment terms of Ashley's loan if known?
And is there interest on the loan.
Nobody knows.
Technically, there is no loan yet. All there is is permission for Rangers to offer the assets as security on a loan from Ashley.
(16-01-2015, 13:44)supercooper Wrote: To me its looking like somers et al looking after their own interest.
Well, not their interest but Ashley's. It looks like it although we simply don't know all the details. If there's any impropriety involved then those injured shareholders would be screaming from the rooftops about it. King especially.
RE: RIFC - Larry-AV - 16-01-2015
Counter-offer matching Ashley's, the 3 Bears are doubling their initial loan offer :
Skysports - The Three Bears say Rangers' Ibrox stadium should not be used as security for a loan
Here Here ! ... but again, none of this would have happened if Robert Sarver's offer had been accepted !!!
RE: RIFC - St Charles Owl - 16-01-2015
Thats the same story I put up yesterday and while it says they are willing to do it, they still haven't formally done it from what I can see. Its definitely a move in the right direction but now they have to put their money where their mouth is and they have to get the board to agree to it. Doesn't mention what, if any, collateral they will require, that will be a key thing, previously they have asked for seats on the board, not sure they will get that!!
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 16-01-2015
King requests EGM, resolutions to remove entire board and replace with himself, Paul f*cking Murray and some RST patsy.
An abject example of shooting yourself in the foot.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 16-01-2015
I'm not anti King. That's just his resolutions, now that the egm is called, Park etc can add resolutions - if King had requested Park etc as directors that would have given foundation to claims of collusion when they bought their shares.
The games afoot.