Why We Need to Change

Avatar By

Football Fan says: Member: (66 comments) June 27, 2015 at 11:13 am So …

Comment on Why We Need to Change by mcfc.

Football Fan says:
Member: (66 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 11:13 am

So you are retracting “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK.” and acknowledging it is an extraordinaty claim or day dream
=======================================================================

No sir,all unsold shares can be bought by DK,it is a fact not an extraordinary claim.

=========================================================

So you know King’s resources are adequate to do so and/or he is minded to do so. Or are you saying “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK or any other current shareholder with the resources and will – because that’s how a rights issue works but no one has yet stated any intention to do so.”. In which case you are saying nothing of interest.

mcfc Also Commented

Why We Need to Change
Football Fan says:
Member: (75 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 12:24 pm

There is also no evidence of Rangers not having a plan,we just don’t know what it is,again we just cannot presume there is no plan.

===========================

I can !!!


Why We Need to Change
Ironically FFs attempt to create FUD around PMG’s output and rebuild King’s reputation as Messiah and doer of financial miracles has solicited a number of well reasoned responses on several topics from several contributors. Collectively they lay out the many mine fields between here and fully funded bear nirvana.

So FFs achievement is to clarify for any undecided ST buyer that it’s a choice between a blind faith gamble of £411 on the word of a tardy, absentee, convicted criminal or paying at the gate. As FF has advised several times “we need to wait and see”. I suggest potential ST buyers take his advice and keep their options open. There could be an Xmas treat in it for the kids.


Why We Need to Change
tcup 2012 says:
Member: (252 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 10:54 am

===================================

Here’s a definition of trolling. Does FF’s 66 comment contribution over his first 24 hours here match any of the behaviours described?

“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll


Recent Comments by mcfc

Comment Moderation Thread
Mods – you’ve been very busy pruning comments over the past day or so. How would you describe the reason for that.

erm, moderation?

y4rmy – totally agree with your recently deleted comment – fancy a quick pint – and maybe a few slow ones ?


Comment Moderation Thread
Mods – you’ve been very busy pruning comments over the past day or so. How would you describe the reason for that.

erm, moderation?

y4rmy – totally agree with your recently deleted comment – fancy a quick pint – and maybe a few slow ones ?


SFM – The Next Steps
neepheid says:
Member: (630 comments)
June 18, 2015 at 2:47 pm

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33186503

Ashley loses dual interest appeal, but has fine reduced.

====================================================================

Dear SFA

I’m having some trouble understanding logic on your planet. I believe flummoxed is the word.

Ashley lending money to a football club as the lender of last resort days before an insolvency event is GOOD. Appointing a trusted, high value employee as CEO with extensive football experience to help that football club avoid similar circumstances is BAD. Naturally, the SFA Compliance Officer lodged a complaint. But the complaint was not BAD enough to act quickly – the tribunal was delayed twice (by the SFA) and happened months after the complaint (15-Dec – 03-Mar). Once judged upon, the offence was not BAD enough to require a cease and desist order – and the offence continued. The offence was mitigated because the loan was repaid in Jan 2015 – using a much bigger loan from the offender with provision to appoint two people to the board – once again days before an insolvency event. This bigger loan with board positions is tacitly GOOD because the SFA Compliance Officer has not lodged a complaint.

That the offender exerts almost complete control over the football club by controlling the majority of its retail revenue (76%), plus most of its physical assets and almost all of its intellectual property is tacitly GOOD because the SFA Compliance Officer has not lodged a complaint.

Yes flummoxed is the word.

yours

mcfc


SFM – The Next Steps
Surely W H Ireland and Deloitte need to get this sorted out:

Nominated Adviser – WH Ireland Limited, 24 Martin Lane, London EC4R 0DR

Broker – WH Ireland Limited, 24 Martin Lane, London EC4R 0DR

Auditors and reporting accountants – Deloitte LLP, 2 Hardman Street, Manchester M60 2AT

http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/advisers


SFM – The Next Steps
MSM. if you have shares in RIFC or plan to buy some and wanted to ask if King really did meet Ashley in London on EGM day, you could use this email: investorrelations@rangers.co.uk

from http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/investor-contacts


About the author

Avatar