Rangers suspended from PLUS

[Zappa 0]

I honestly don't know what to think of it all forlan.

 

Regarding the listed/unlisted side of things, would removing the club from the exchange and just being an unlisted company mean that Whyte's shares (potentially even LARGE numbers of shares) could be traded privately without all of the other shareholders (and fans) knowing about the trades?

[forlanssister 3,114]

I honestly don't know what to think of it all forlan.

 

Regarding the listed/unlisted side of things, would removing the club from the exchange and just being an unlisted company mean that Whyte's shares (potentially even LARGE numbers of shares) could be traded privately without all of the other shareholders (and fans) knowing about the trades?

 

As far as I'm aware you are indeed correct.

[Bluedell 5,679]

I honestly don't know what to think of it all forlan.

 

Regarding the listed/unlisted side of things, would removing the club from the exchange and just being an unlisted company mean that Whyte's shares (potentially even LARGE numbers of shares) could be traded privately without all of the other shareholders (and fans) knowing about the trades?

The shareholders of the club get disclosed annually and any movements would be identified then.

[Zappa 0]

The shareholders of the club get disclosed annually and any movements would be identified then.

 

So do you think that being unlisted would be beneficial to the club, the shareholders and the fans? I suppose my real question is would fans like yourself, Craig & Boss who work in the financial industry rather the club be listed or unlisted?

Edited January 10, 2012 by Zappa
typo

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So do you think that being unlisted would be benificial to the club, the shareholders and the fans? I suppose my real question is would fans like yourself, Craig & Boss who work in the financial industry rather the club be listed or unlisted?

 

I am a financial adviser but I do not deal in shares per se; but my take on it is that this is not in the interests of shareholders because it would make trading in the shares that much more difficult.

 

I think this is very much a question of transparency; being listed even on Plus carries certain obligations e.g. publishing your accounts by a certain date, declaring previous suspensions as a Director etc. and it seems that Mr Whyte would rather not have that burden. That doesn't look like good news to me.

 

The fact that Mr Whyte owns 85% of the shares and therefore there is not much trading in any event isn't as relevant in my view as the obligations of being listed.

 

I would rather the Club was listed than private.

 

Bear in mind that the much maligned SDM owned more than 90% of the shares (stand to be corrected on that number) and he regarded it as appropriate to maintain the listing.

[Zappa 0]

I am a financial adviser but I do not deal in shares per se; but my take on it is that this is not in the interests of shareholders because it would make trading in the shares that much more difficult.

 

I think this is very much a question of transparency; being listed even on Plus carries certain obligations e.g. publishing your accounts by a certain date, declaring previous suspensions as a Director etc. and it seems that Mr Whyte would rather not have that burden. That doesn't look like good news to me.

 

The fact that Mr Whyte owns 85% of the shares and therefore there is not much trading in any event isn't as relevant in my view as the obligations of being listed.

 

I would rather the Club was listed than private.

 

Bear in mind that the much maligned SDM owned more than 90% of the shares (stand to be corrected on that number) and he regarded it as appropriate to maintain the listing.

 

Thanks for the reply BH and this pretty much mirrors my own thoughts on the situation. I can't understand how poor trading figures for the past 'X' number of months (or years) should point towards removal of the club from the PLUS listing being a good thing or the right way forward. I'm no expert though and that's why I'm asking you guys in the financial industry to give us your thoughts. I've got to say though, that other than yourself and a few others there seems to be a severe reluctance to post detailed opinions on this. I think maybe some of the guys feel as though they can't really speak their mind due their positions and maybe for other reasons such as simply not wanting to add fuel to the fire etc.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thanks for the reply BH and this pretty much mirrors my own thoughts on the situation. I can't understand how poor trading figures for the past 'X' number of months (or years) should point towards removal of the club from the PLUS listing being a good thing or the right way forward. I'm no expert though and that's why I'm asking you guys in the financial industry to give us your thoughts. I've got to say though, that other than yourself and a few others there seems to be a severe reluctance to post detailed opinions on this. I think maybe some of the guys feel as though they can't really speak their mind due their positions and maybe for other reasons such as simply not wanting to add fuel to the fire etc.

 

If you are not trading well, then not publishing or even just delaying the figures only adds fuel to the fire it certainly doesn't put it out.

 

As I said when the AGM was delayed, it is clear from what Mr Whyte has admitted that the Accounts have been delayed because Counsel's current opinion on the state of the tax case would lead the Auditors either to qualify the Accounts or or to insist on a provision being made for part or all of the debt as it stands or perhaps even to question the "going concern" basis. Therefore Mr Whyte is holding out for a "good" outcome to the case or until Counsel feels able to put a better face on it, such that the Accounts would not be qualified or that there would be a known or at least quantifiable sum involved and that a provison along those lines would not threaten the "going concern" basis.

 

I think you have to view the suggested withdrawal from the Plus market against that background.

 

I am sure you are correct about certain people because if they publish their true thoughts they may not get any more information.

[chilledbear 16]

Does the removal from the Plus market mean anything as far as holding an AGM goes?

 

When there have been changes in the past at Boardroom level etc. because of the rules, the stock exchange have had to be told [is this correct?] It has then been in the public domain.

 

Are there any rules in place where Whyte has an obligation to make public, any changes to the running of the Club?

[Frankie 8,664]

Does the removal from the Plus market mean anything as far as holding an AGM goes?

 

When there have been changes in the past at Boardroom level etc. because of the rules, the stock exchange have had to be told [is this correct?] It has then been in the public domain.

 

Are there any rules in place where Whyte has an obligation to make public, any changes to the running of the Club?

 

That's the kind of protection the lads were talking about.

 

Without such membership, I don't think there is any obligation (other than a moral one) for the majority shareholder to disclose such information, publish accounts or hold an AGM. However, in the club statement yesterday, they did say they'd continue to do this.

[Bluedell 5,679]

Does the removal from the Plus market mean anything as far as holding an AGM goes?

 

When there have been changes in the past at Boardroom level etc. because of the rules, the stock exchange have had to be told [is this correct?] It has then been in the public domain.

 

Are there any rules in place where Whyte has an obligation to make public, any changes to the running of the Club?

 

Changes of directors should still be available to the public whether the company is listed or unlisted, public or private.

 

If the club remains public after the delisting then it "must" have an AGM within 6 months of the year end. A private company must hold an AGM if 5% of shareholders request one.