EGM requisition delayed further

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Since McCollCo have provided the necessary proof then they hold all the aces and could easily say that the expense of the EGM is justified by the delays of the current Board, failure to accept the changes etc.

 

So the fact that they have not forced the issue, says quite a lot IMHO.

[andy steel 0]

Just a little sparring before the main event, in my considered and worthless opinion.

 

It's only 7 days, and anyway it gives the current incumbents a chance to sell up & bail out before the deadline, which I think is the preferred option all round.

[ian1964 10,721]

RANGERS say a deal to spare the club the cost of an extraordinary general meeting has still not been reached but talks are continuing.

 

A group of disgruntled shareholders led by Clyde Blowers chairman Jim McColl have called for the meeting in a bid to topple chief executive Craig Mather. They also want Brian Stockbridge and Bryan Smart removed from the board and their directorships handed to accountancy expert Frank Blin and former Blue Knight Paul Murray.

 

But holding such a meeting would cost the club around £80,000 and the Ibrox board has proposed that the motion lodged for discussion is instead resolved at the club’s annual general meeting, due to take place sometime in October. However, final approval has yet to be granted by the “requisitioners” and the current directors have now been given to 9 September to satisfy their concerns. The original deadline passed on 27 August.

 

A statement to the Stock Exchange read: “Progress has been made to agree a basis upon which the business of the general meeting would be included in the annual general meeting. The board wishes to reach agreement for the withdrawal of the requisition without delay but in the meantime has secured a further extension to the written commitment from the requisitioners to withdraw the requisition pending agreement being reached.

 

“If no agreement is reached by the close of business on September 9 the board will be required to send notice to shareholders by no later than September 13 to convene the general meeting.”

 

The statement added that the board had sought evidence from the requisitioners that they had sufficient shares to force the egm.

 

It is believed that neither Jim McColl nor Paul Murray responded to the request, but a shareholder named Artemis who also backed the call for the meeting did provide proof of a stake in the club.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-still-sweating-on-deal-to-avoid-costly-egm-1-3071750

[andy steel 0]

£80,000 now, is it? My word, the cost of hiring a hall is sky-rocketing!

 

I kind of like the contempt shown for Mather's stalling tactics, as well.

[der Berliner 3,744]

However, final approval has yet to be granted by the “requisitioners” and the current directors have now been given to 9 September to satisfy their concerns.

 

Ahem ... I was under the impression that the directors requested a confirmation of the required shareholding for the requisitioners to make their demands. Hence it was the board/directors who gave these chaps time. Now it looks as if the directors have been given time?

 

Artemis they say?

[Calgacus 8]

I'm not an expert, but aren't companies required to keep a register of shareholders and so would have a record of who is and who isn't a shareholder. Green was quick enough to insinuate that McColl only held four shares.

[Frankie 8,562]

I'm not an expert, but aren't companies required to keep a register of shareholders and so would have a record of who is and who isn't a shareholder. Green was quick enough to insinuate that McColl only held four shares.

 

Yeah, I think they should be well aware of who is who in that sense. However, I think the issue with the req was that some names on it didn't match the formal list which helped cause problems.

[forlanssister 3,114]

I'm not an expert, but aren't companies required to keep a register of shareholders and so would have a record of who is and who isn't a shareholder. Green was quick enough to insinuate that McColl only held four shares.

 

Yes but unless you specifically request (and pay extra) any shares bought in the market would normally be held in nominee accounts which mask beneficial ownership.

 

Strange that the same wasn't publicly asked of Blue Pitch Holdings when they put in the requisition to put Easdale on the board.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm not an expert, but aren't companies required to keep a register of shareholders and so would have a record of who is and who isn't a shareholder. Green was quick enough to insinuate that McColl only held four shares.

 

That's exactly the point, it seems some or all of the names who signed were not on the register, which may or may not be for the reason given by Frankie.

 

Extremely strange that the Scotsman do not appear to know who Artemis is, given that they are a well known investment company with £15.6Bn under management, which puts them just outside the top 20 of UK investment companies, although they are regarded as something of a "boutique" house.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Yes but unless you specifically request (and pay extra) any shares bought in the market would normally be held in nominee accounts which mask beneficial ownership.

 

Strange that the same wasn't publicly asked of Blue Pitch Holdings when they put in the requisition to put Easdale on the board.

 

One can only assume that the then existing Directors were satisfied that the requisition was in order and signed by someone with authority to act for BPH.