This is the RIFC Board : Chairman David Somers, Finance Director Barry Leach and Chief Executive Officer Derek Llambias. Of the three, only David Somers has shares in RIFC (per Rangers' Investor website). Skysports - James Easdale resigns as a director of Rangers Comment following the SSN article : jimmy hendrix says 25/02/15 8:47am 1 down, 3 to go. although I expect the new lot to be just as bad, in this circus. Or as Pete Townsend wrote : 'Here's to the new boss, Same as the old boss.' ! ... Don't get fooled again.
Pete Townshend didn't say that at all he said "meet." Your misquotation actually implies that the old boss was a perhaps a good fellow, "Here's to" to me has positive connotations as if you were toasting them whereas "meet" is far less ambiguous. I would cast doubt any real Rangers fan would actually have a positive word about "the old boss" so for me the analogy fails. Larry are you Charles Green?
And he's been overlly harsh on Circuses, most Circus shows I have been to were well run affairs, although I must admit his hidden allegory to "animals" tickled me.
Apologies for the misquote ('Here's to' instead of 'Meet'), but I still maintain that it is between the devil and the deep blue sea, or frying pan and fire, with the two camps at the EGM. 'Don't get fooled again' stands. "Won't Get Fooled Again" lyrics NO, I am not Charles Green !
Larry Larry Larry. Do you not credit your fellow Rangers supporters with at least the tiniest piece of intelligence? Do you not think they will be wary of anybody who takes control of the club after what has happened over the last five years? Are you actually saying that we would be better off keeping what we have because what is to come will be just the same? Are you ****ing mental, a tim or on hard drugs?
I repeat what I have said before, it is the devil and the deep blue sea, or frying pan and fire. Rangers had the offers from Robert Sarver, but these were rejected by shareholder blocking, which could have been due to the Easdale's block (26%), or Dave King plus the 3 Bears' block (34%), or both blocking them. Whoever blocked Sarver put their interests ahead of the interests of Rangers Football Club. So as far as I am concerned, it is a plague on both your houses, but my main concern is that the Big Hoose Stands, irrespective of who wears the blazers.
Robert Sarver wasn't blocked by shareholders. He was blicked by a board who refused to communicate with him. He was blocked by a board who's agenda seems to be based on making Mike Ashley sole proprietor of RFC. Sarvers offers were never passed on for shareholder consideration, they were simply ignored until the fellow got fed up and walked away. That is according to Robert Sarver though but perhaps Larry is privy to information that the Yank wasn't. As for the big house standing(**** knows where he gets this ****e) Without the support of the fans there will be no "big house". Without regime change there will be no support from the fans. You work it out Larry. What's better, frying pan or fire?
Bob, The Board runs day-to-day matters, but it cannot change the total shareholding of a company without shareholder approval. Skysports - Robert Sarver explains why he withdrew his interest in Rangers The board of Rangers rejected the first proposal from Mr Sarver on January 6 on the basis that the board felt it was unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming. Following receipt of the revised proposal, the board sought the views of a number of major shareholders and has reached the same conclusion, namely that the resolution to approve the placing is unlikely to achieve the 75 per cent majority required.
Of course the Board blocked Sarver, but only after consulting shareholders and finding that Robert Sarver's second offer would not get the 75% support that it required. Without the support of shareholders, the board did not have the authority to accept or implement Robert Sarver's second offer. I have seen no statement from either the Easdales, Dave King, or the 3 Bears, saying that they supported Robert Sarver's second offer, so I have to draw the conclusion that they all blocked it, in pursuit of ther own interests.
I think you should read your post again. See where it says the board blocked the first offer because the BOARD felt it was unlikely to get approval? Do you also see where it says the board sought the views of a number of major shareholders for Sarvers second offer? Who do you think those major shareholders are likely to be? Dave King or the three bears who the board are loathe to talk to and are forever rubbishing in the media? Or Board members the Easdale boys and Mike Ashley who has two of his minions serving on the board? Are you getting it yet? It should also be pointed out to you that the 75% needed was actually voted on at the last AGM. It was proposed that the percentage needed should be lowered to 51%. Who proposed this ammendment? The Rangers board did. Who voted against the ammendment? The Rangers board did.
