Dave King Statement

[Zappa 0]

At the insistence of our Nominated Adviser, the Board needs to make it clear, for regulatory reasons, that the Board of directors referred to above is The Rangers Football Club Limited, the wholly owned subsidiary of The Rangers International Football Club PLC.

 

Although we welcome the support of Dave King no decision has been made to appoint him as a Director. There are regulatory matters which would need to be resolved prior to any such appointment. The Directors also expect that in the medium term future, possibly coinciding with the return to top league football in Scotland, it may be in the best interests of the Company to raise further capital.

 

However, there is no requirement for short term funding, and as such neither the Company nor RIFC are actively seeking finance. Nonetheless, we are committed to exploring a future involvement by Mr King in the Club

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5274-dave-king-statement

 

So what's really going on here folks? Any consensus or ideas?

 

Have certain parties forced Green's choice of NOMAD to block the appointment of King to RIFC PLC, just as the previous NOMAD blocked the EGM requisition at one point when a compromise agreement had been reached?

 

Or is it maybe just the case that the muppets in the boardroom made another regulatory mistake and had to back track?

[plgsarmy 111]

So what's really going on here folks? Any consensus or ideas?

 

Have certain parties forced Green's choice of NOMAD to block the appointment of King to RIFC PLC, just as the previous NOMAD blocked the EGM requisition at one point when a compromise agreement had been reached?

 

Or is it maybe just the case that the muppets in the boardroom made another regulatory mistake and had to back track?

 

Perhaps they can't speak to the press about new additions to the plc board before announcing it to the LSE.

[Zappa 0]

Perhaps they can't speak to the press about new additions to the plc board before announcing it to the LSE.

 

That's what I was thinking. So perhaps nothing to worry about other than them making yet another cock-up.

[Anchorman 0]

So what's really going on here folks? Any consensus or ideas?

 

Have certain parties forced Green's choice of NOMAD to block the appointment of King to RIFC PLC, just as the previous NOMAD blocked the EGM requisition at one point when a compromise agreement had been reached?

 

Or is it maybe just the case that the muppets in the boardroom made another regulatory mistake and had to back track?

 

A bit of everything I think. The NOMAD is obviously dancing to someone's tune. The Easdales not wanting to see their substantial shareholding diluted before their eyes. Certain parties on the board trying to down play the urgent requirement to have King aboard (the Easdales probably see the need to keep using King's name as a carrot for the fans to get them beyond the AGM now that he has been courted in public, but will gladly dump him at first opportunity).

It is also extremely contradictory in that it alludes to no new financial injection being required until we are back in the top league, but in the same breathe they state we will be down to £1m by April. Some will argue that King said the same thing about the top league, but what King actually said was that we need to act now to have it in place to be ready for the time when we are back. He actually stated that we are running out of time if we don't act.

Someone has obviously gone very cool on the King issue or never got warm and fluffy about the idea in the first place, and are flexing their muscle to show they are in charge.