Member Info for SteadyEddie

A penny or two each day suits me very nicely. Nice dividends will encourage long term holders. Good luck all.

I haven't traded in a while (static portfolio) but yesterday's price drop was a significant over-reaction. As I read it, the money is coming just not this financial year. Strong brands, profitable, paying dividends, I'm in this both feet. No Brainer sums it up perfectly.

I'm afraid I don't buy into the "he said, she said" stuff from either side. We have all heard / read the quotes. It is not proof of anything, other than Ally's opinion on that day.

"I don't care if Pacific Shelf 5088 are a new club - they walk like a duck, cluck like a duck and whine like a duck when beaten - so why does it matter ?" Exactly. My Brother in Law is a Rangers season ticket holder. He won't be drawn into any new club / old club debate, he simply says "it's Rangers". That's enough for him.

"Rangers then Rangers now,ask Neil Doncaster" Since when did Rangers fans regard anything Neil Doncaster says as worthwhile? Tell me why his opinion is to be so valued, I'm intrigued.

"No one has ever contested the oldco, newco as far as I aware. Maybe you just don't understand it." Stu, I hope you are smart enough that the irony is deliberate. As for "no one has ever contested", that one has been going on from day 1 (of the New Rangers) and will for ever more. The "contested" part seems to be around the definition of a Club. Some say Club and Company are one and the same. Conclusion - Rangers are a new Club. Others describe a Club as an undertaking, something without legal personality and therefore cannot "die" in a sense. I have no doubt there is more to a Football Club that simply the corporate body, but how to you quantify the elements that cannot die? More importantly, how can you buy / sell / own that which cannot be defined? I have not heard a single credible account of what transferred between the Oldco and Newco to make it the same Club. Until I do, it is not an argument that I can accept.

If so, Cheerios all and best of luck!

Sorry Stu, I assumed that was you were Trolling again. I will stick with that assumption.

I might believe you about the Easdales, not Ashley. When Ashley makes a move to recover his losses, he will be ruthless. If you don't believe me, look at his record in business. The Easdales may be all mouth, but any move by Ashley will give them confidence. Do you doubt it?

"The problem with your theory Eddie, is that Mr King isn't on the board, and therefore could reasonably argue had no chance to implement his plan." That argument wouldn't stand up to a small breath of wind. Paul Murray is interim Chairman. Interim to what happening? Yes, you got it, argument settled. It would take 5mins to prove Big Dave has a controlling interest. What is more, it really isn't about Mr King's status at the moment. It is all about what he said prior to the EGM that influenced how shareholders voted. If it can be shown that shareholders were misled, damages would be considerable. The only question would be whether Dave King suffered alone, or the other Board members suffered too. If you can find another reason for abstaining I would be delighted to hear it. Or maybe you actually believe Option 2 or 3 are likely?

"but never got 25K a week in Edinburgh..... " The comment was you cannot buy a player for £4M and pay them £25K per week in the SPL. Celtic did just that, from Hibs as you say, in the SPL. So, clearly you can. What has his pay at Hibs got to do with anything? The statement was about what you pay for players then pay them, nothing to do with what they earned before. Please keep up.

"He is now receiving parliamentary interest, never a good sign." Mr Ashley was "invited" to parliament, and politely told them where to shove it. Parliament were informed Mike was not available for the entirety of March because of "immovable commitments". Immovable is a good word, keep that in mind when you consider what he might do next.

"It looks like it backfired on them and played into King's hands." I looks like King played into the hands of those he appeared to have defeated. You seem convinced what happened at Rangers has been orchestrated. You see a plan behind the events. Do you think abstaining from the EGM vote was calculated? There are 3 possible reasons for abstaining: 1) Had a good reason for abstaining 2) Couldn't decide between Yes and No 3) Couldn't be bothered to vote Given what is at stake, we should discount Option 3. Is Option 2 likely? I would suggest not. So, we are left with Option 1 as the only reasonable choice. Which begs the question, what was the good reason?

Just for fun, here's a scenario .... Dave King rides into town with promised galore about new investment, new NOMAD in waiting, Champions League Football, etc. The fans love it, many investors think this is a winner too. Not even the block votes want to vote against and abstain instead. A happy ending? Not quite. Here is the fun part. What if the block votes and larger shareholders knew Dave King didn't have a NOMAD and that delisting was inevitable. How could you benefit from this situation? Simple, you let the vote go through, let the NOMAD myth play out, then pounce with legal action. Lambias was famously collared by press at the airport and asked the question of reporters, where's the money and who is the NOMAD. He knew King didn't have a NOMAD. So what did the Easdale block and Mr Ashley do? Give King enough rope to hang himself. That is the likely scenario. All those who voted for, or abstained, at the EGM could reasonable argue that they didn't vote against based on statements made by Dave King. If his can be argued successfully in Court, this would be catastrophic for the new Board. Court action, if nothing else, would force the current Board to reveal exactly what was happening behind the scenes. What would the damages be? Considerable. Every "yes" voter and every abstainer could make a claim. The fans groups and fans might not. Mr King wouldn't take himself to court so discount his block. Were the 3 bears properly advised? It may be they have something to say (though Mr Park is in a tricky position as a Board Member). Don't be surprised if one or two of the 3 Bears start to distance themselves from Mr King. Some people on here were naive enough to think delisting was no big deal. Delisting is a nightmare scenario.

"Sandy's case will come to court at the same time as Whytes claim over Sevco. 30th February two thousand and never." What about Mike Ashley?

"it does not take a rocket scientist to work out you cannot buy 4million plus players and pay them in excess of 25k per week to play in the league of Ireland, sorry I mean the SP Hell" That's exactly what Celtic did with Scott Brown. You can do it, as long as you have the income to support it. Celtic do, no-one else in Scottish Football can. You were almost right.

Stu, a few corrections for you: "They managed the company so badly they, allowed the share price to slide from 93p to 17p and got voted out of power." When Lambias and Leach joined the board they share price was in the mid-20's and when they left it was mid-30's. If you have some other "facts" then please present them. "They burned £70m and most likely questions would be asked." No, they didn't. The board has changed several times over the 3 yrs. The only constant has been Easdale who hasn't taken a penny to my knowledge. Are you suggesting he did? "It was they who let the NOMAD go without handing over to a new NOMAD." You still don't get that the NOMAD has the power to resign with immediate effect. The do not need the permission of the company. In fact, requiring permission would negate the usefulness of such a sanction. Are you still holding to your myth that a NOMAD cannot resign with immediate effect? Is that why you continue to peddle the lie above? If you want to talk about the £70M then you have to look at all the previous boards which included for a time Walter Smith and Malcolm Murray - supposed Real Rangers Men.

"CB - Welcome the chase. Nice pun. If we accept that The Easdales have just lost over £2M due to delisting, solicitors acting on theit behalf will seek recompense. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Sandy & James would know that they are not the kind of guys that you take advantage of. A legal case may be the least of King's worries." Before we descent into playground stuff, Stu, I think what Sitonfence means is any legal action by the Easdales is the least of King's worries. Why? Because there are many more shareholders who may also be encouraged to take action. Do you honestly believe Mike Ashley will do nothing now his shares are toilet paper? He is a man with very deep pockets, the best lawyers, and doesn't like to lose. Think about it. The door is open and all the current Directors are liable.

"Sell a seven year plan that assumes that every fan will INVEST in a new board of Real Rangers Men" The seven year plan is a peach. Like the 120 (127) day review. It just kicks the can down the street to be dealt with another day. Going for seven years and tying in with 150 years was a good shout. The PR boys are really earning their corn. Well done Mr Traynor.

Stu, you simply seem incapable of understanding that "facts" and "truth" are different. It is a fact that WH Ireland resigned while the old Board were in place. It is also untrue to say it happened because the old Board were in place. Do you have trouble with facts, the truth, or both? WH Ireland stated clearly their intend to resign if King & Co won the vote. The did so when the result was known. Stu, my original assertion is that WH Ireland resigned because of King & Co were declared winners. That's the official line. WH Ireland said it, they did it, and King & Co and never denied it. As I said, go and ask a grownup. The only bone of contention is "glib and shameless" King said there was agreement to do a handover. WH Ireland have neither confirmed nor denied this. But that is a whole different issue.