PDA

View Full Version : Easdale's Role



CGC
29-01-2015, 15:00
We've been told that a condition of acceptance of T3B's loan was to be the retention of Easdale on the board. With his proxy for 26% he could still significantly influence things without being a board member. If the bad guys (Somers, Leech and Lambias) anticipated that a subsequent EGM would lead to their removal and good guys being installed why were they so keen to see only Easdale retained?

davieb1973
29-01-2015, 15:02
My opinion,spy in the camp.

james belushi
29-01-2015, 15:04
And he's proxy for BPH and MH. Both of which Fat Mike I think will have a stake in.

isawthat
29-01-2015, 15:08
In my humble opinion we should keep him on the board, hold him responsible for every shady deal done these last three years,mand humiliate him after every board meeting.

The only problem is, he is so thick, he might not even notice.

BlueNoseCairns
29-01-2015, 15:11
They are petrified of BPH and MH losing their grip. Wonder why?

barrymoped
29-01-2015, 15:15
It has been reported by Dave King previously when he tried to invest £16mill that Sandy Easedale would have supported him as long as both he and James kept their positions, they are clearly desperate to hang on as a status symbol, I believe someone claiming to be his cousin has stated as much on another thread previously. What I do t get is, they must know their time is up at the EGM otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to blackmail the 3Bs with their loan conditions earlier in the week. So with this in mind why don't they publicly switch sides as long as they save their skins? It would remove all doubt over the result of the EGM and also allow them to keep their much coveted board positions.

CGC
29-01-2015, 15:16
They are petrified of BPH and MH losing their grip. Wonder why?

And why would the current board of Ashley's cronies be willing to give up their own places but be so keen that someone representing BPH and MH keeps his place? It's almost as if ...

Marsh
29-01-2015, 15:16
He's nothing more now than a winning vote in the board room.

The board needs new members and would have been. Leech and lambias, plus some from the good guys or at the very least neutrals like wallace and nash. They were trying to keep power in the board room even after the EGM. Ashleys 2 are protected from loan agreements. If easdale survived it left a 3-2 majority for MA.

glasgowguy87
29-01-2015, 15:18
He's nothing more now than a winning vote in the board room.

The board needs new members and would have been. Leech and lambias, plus some from the good guys or at the very least neutrals like wallace and nash. They were trying to keep power in the board room even after the EGM. Ashleys 2 are protected from loan agreements. If easdale survived it left a 3-2 majority for MA.

No they aren't, they can be voted off by shareholders just like any other director can.

CGC
29-01-2015, 15:23
No they aren't, they can be voted off by shareholders just like any other director can.

But wouldn't there have to be another General Meeting for this?

I think the plan is that if they are voted off at the EGM they are instantly reinstated or other stooges installed as per the conditions of the new £5m loan. Therefore another General Meeting would be required to get rid of the new ones.

buster
29-01-2015, 15:25
The role of Easdale is mainly a front and IMO the real power behind proxy block decisions/strategy comes from within said proxy block of a strategic and deliberate 26%.

A good part of this block have probably been involved since the beginning, I'd say certainly those with the power. Their main goals are protecting their own interests which will include onerous contracts put in place back in 2012, keeping good guys out of the boardroom, more especially control and preventing forensic accounting that seeks to expose any wrongdoing.

glasgowguy87
29-01-2015, 15:27
But wouldn't there have to be another General Meeting for this?

I think the plan is that if they are voted off at the EGM they are instantly reinstated or other stooges installed as per the conditions of the new £5m loan. Therefore another General Meeting would be required to get rid of the new ones.

Llambias and Leach would not get automatic reinstatement. Ashley would presumably be able to nominate another 2 directors to replace them but they would not be granted automatic seats on the board. The current board at the time of the nomination would have to approve of his appointments or Ashley will need to call his own EGM and put it to a shareholder vote.

awaiting news
29-01-2015, 15:32
But wouldn't there have to be another General Meeting for this?

I think the plan is that if they are voted off at the EGM they are instantly reinstated or other stooges installed as per the conditions of the new £5m loan. Therefore another General Meeting would be required to get rid of the new ones.

But, if the 3B had taken up the offer on the table to keep Easedale then (theoretically), their loan would have been accepted along with 1 or 2 board positions for them. Hence no conditions on a second Ashley loan and post-EGM board featuring 4-5 good guys. The timeline doesn't work.

I was asking this question a few days ago on here and still haven't heard anything like an answer. Even if it was about ego, why would Ashley give a monkey about Easedale trying to save face.

I wonder if it is actually meaningless. It was nothing more than an excuse to reject the loan. The wigs just through in a condition that they knew the 3B would reject so that they could claim the failure of the loan was due to the 3B not accepting terms. Easedale was maybe chosen as the least loathable in the circus (to some) in a hope that it may cause some fan division.

Marsh
29-01-2015, 15:32
No they aren't, they can be voted off by shareholders just like any other director can.

This board that currently is supposed to act in the interests of shareholders has agreed to that. RFC could be opened up to legal action because of this.

From Kings request for EGM



"The resolutions do not seek to review the employment of the two executive directors presently on the board. They will merely be removed as directors.


Why 2 and not the 4, lambias, leech, somers and easdale. I think lambias and leech will be left on in some capacity to fit the loan agreement terms but will be dead in the water like smith was as chairman. Constantly out voted.

millar brand
29-01-2015, 15:33
Llambias and Leach would not get automatic reinstatement. Ashley would presumably be able to nominate another 2 directors to replace them but they would not be granted automatic seats on the board. The current board at the time of the nomination would have to approve of his appointments or Ashley will need to call his own EGM and put it to a shareholder vote.

The new Board ( ie good guys ) can also add additional directors as soon as they are in control.

glasgowguy87
29-01-2015, 15:35
This board that currently is supposed to act in the interests of shareholders has agreed to that. RFC could be opened up to legal action because of this.

From Kings request for EGM



Why 2 and not the 4, lambias, leech, somers and easdale. I think lambias and leech will be left on in some capacity to fit the loan agreement terms but will be dead in the water like smith was as chairman. Constantly out voted.

I think that is down to the fact that Llambias and Leach would be entitled to a pay off since they are executive directors whereas Somers and Easdale aren't entitled to one as they are non executive directors.

toadegree
29-01-2015, 15:40
Easdales role is looking after the interests of Green, Ahmad, Ashley and the rest of the crooks hiding behind BPH and Margarita Holdings.

radiotab
29-01-2015, 15:50
This board that currently is supposed to act in the interests of shareholders has agreed to that. RFC could be opened up to legal action because of this.

From Kings request for EGM



Why 2 and not the 4, lambias, leech, somers and easdale. I think lambias and leech will be left on in some capacity to fit the loan agreement terms but will be dead in the water like smith was as chairman. Constantly out voted.

Liambas doesn't seem the type of person who would stay if not getting his way all the time.

thecount
29-01-2015, 15:51
But wouldn't there have to be another General Meeting for this?

I think the plan is that if they are voted off at the EGM they are instantly reinstated or other stooges installed as per the conditions of the new £5m loan. Therefore another General Meeting would be required to get rid of the new ones.


Imo the loans are irrelevant the board can refuse to take them on board no matter the agreement by the wigs, it would then be up to the fat fecker to try to call an EGM to try to force the issue, I think

Kenn72
29-01-2015, 15:53
Liambas doesn't seem the type of person who would stay if not getting his way all the time.

He will do what ashley tells him to do

bearshire
29-01-2015, 16:02
Why are other shareholders able to vote in concert but not t3b and King

billy751
29-01-2015, 16:17
Easdales role is looking after the interests of Green, Ahmad, Ashley and the rest of the crooks hiding behind BPH and Margarita Holdings.

Bph and margarita is ticketus.

Marsh
29-01-2015, 16:21
Why are other shareholders able to vote in concert but not t3b and King

You'll notice their little groups don't go above the 30%.

Being accused of that and it being enforced wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Hoover up all available shares for the price in the last 12 months. It hasn't passed 35p.

weebaggy
29-01-2015, 16:28
The new Board ( ie good guys ) can also add additional directors as soon as they are in control.

And surely vote off LLambias and Leach, once loan repayments are sorted.

Valley Bluenose
29-01-2015, 16:35
Bph and margarita is ticketus.

I don't believe so - but, like you, it's just a feeling.

However, whilst BPH and MH are undoubtedly significant it should be borne in mind that their circa 7m shares represents just a third of Easdale's total voting block of over 21m shares.

For what it's worth BPH and MH didn't feature by name on the last shareholder register I saw a couple of moths ago - nor did the Easdales feature by name. They may well be 'wrapped up' in Beaufort Nominees circa 18m shareholding I suspect.

Other large groups include Security Services Nominees with over 13m and Bank of New York Nominees (Manchester - alarm bells!) with almost 9m. Albeit this was a couple of months ago and may have changed. Presumably these are 'groups' of investors with none holding over 3% individually or they would cross a notification threshold.

Who the f*ck are these people and how do we get them onside?

blu14evr
29-01-2015, 16:52
Why didnt the 3B&K just say 'yes' to the Easedale thing and then just vote the cvnt off anyway once the time came? I really dont understand why they continue to play in a gentlemanly fashion when their opponents are sewer rhats...

glasgowguy87
29-01-2015, 16:55
Why didnt the 3B&K just say 'yes' to the Easedale thing and then just vote the cvnt off anyway once the time came? I really dont understand why they continue to play in a gentlemanly fashion when their opponents are sewer rhats...

I think the rats wanted a legally binding agreement so that if they did vote off Easdale they would face legal action.

blu14evr
29-01-2015, 16:58
I think the rats wanted a legally binding agreement so that if they did vote off Easdale they would face legal action.

I doubt that would have been an insurmountable problem. They would just need to trump up some other reason to boot him off which was not covered by the agreement. Thats what lawyers are for....

numberoneallover
29-01-2015, 17:05
there are more threads on easdales than we have premier league titles ...

CGC
29-01-2015, 17:07
Bph and margarita is ticketus.

Why would Ashley's men on the board be so keen that Easdale was retained that they'd include it as a condition of acceptance of T3B's loan if Easdale himself was holding the proxy for Ticketus?

SomeGaveAll
29-01-2015, 17:35
Bph and margarita is ticketus.


is thats a statement or an opinion?

CHEMICALBEAR
29-01-2015, 17:50
Sleazy might not take a penny from the club directly but how much does he get from his masters? Paid for his shares sevral times over by now!!

boldvale
29-01-2015, 18:44
It has been reported by Dave King previously when he tried to invest £16mill that Sandy Easedale would have supported him as long as both he and James kept their positions, they are clearly desperate to hang on as a status symbol, I believe someone claiming to be his cousin has stated as much on another thread previously. What I do t get is, they must know their time is up at the EGM otherwise they wouldn't have attempted to blackmail the 3Bs with their loan conditions earlier in the week. So with this in mind why don't they publicly switch sides as long as they save their skins? It would remove all doubt over the result of the EGM and also allow them to keep their much coveted board positions.

All current board members MUST be run out of Ibrox, whether they change sides or not.

cw3038
29-01-2015, 18:56
Get every single one of these vermin dragged down the staircase and thrown into the gutter!!

Cyberniv
29-01-2015, 18:59
Bph and margarita is ticketus.

Do you honestly think that Ticketus would have any shares they hold in Rangers fronted by a dimwitted ex-con fraudster who threatens and lies to their customers.

defender61
29-01-2015, 19:09
Liambas doesn't seem the type of person who would stay if not getting his way all the time.

He strikes me as a spiteful ghoul who would take pleasure evicting old folk from care homes who cannot keep their payments up, his body language while fat Somers stood lying to SSN the other day was that of a smouldering vampire lord.

He fits in perfectly

awaiting news
29-01-2015, 19:26
I doubt that would have been an insurmountable problem. They would just need to trump up some other reason to boot him off which was not covered by the agreement. Thats what lawyers are for....

Proxy your votes to him would be the obvious insurmountable problem

davidwatson5
29-01-2015, 19:29
They've never got to wear a tie in public before - they like it, it makes them feel grown up and important

Buncybouncer
29-01-2015, 20:35
Eastdales role ?? ...To be remembered in folklore and lament as the very epitome of greed , arrogance and stupidity ...Someone who knows them really should have took them aside and told them that there involvment with us was completely ridiculous and way above their standing , instead look at the damage that's been done .
It makes me fxcking weep .

roaring meg
29-01-2015, 20:51
There can be no compromise with The "Enemy"