Statement to Stock Exchange

[buster. 5,257]

Believe it or not I put in the phrase that you highlighted because I could see that there may well have been a reason but I was looking for someone to highlight the reasons.

 

It's possible that the Board or perhaps someone within the Board set out to deliberatly mislead shareholders and its equally possible that it was a genuine mistake.

 

One wonders if AIM will consider it a sufficiently serious matter to investigate. If they do, you may well get your answer.

 

Goal Germany!

 

Thank's for the replies.

 

Given recent history and timing, what do you think/is your gut feel ?...Misleading or Innocent Mistake.

 

If AIM investigate and they find out 'foulplay' of some kind, they don't necessarily make it public.

In fact the club could already have been investigated and fined and we don't know.

 

Disciplinary action against an AIM company

42.

If the Exchange considers that an AIM company has contravened these rules, it may take one or more of the following measures in relation to such AIM company:

♦ issue a warning notice;

♦ fine it;

♦ censure it; or

♦ cancel the admission of its AIM securities; and

♦ publish the fact that it has been fined or censured and the reasons for that action.

 

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/advisers/aim-notices/ad12.pdf

[buster. 5,257]

I don't normally comment on the print media as I don't read newspapers.

 

The point I was making was that I criticised the Sport for an inaccurate headline; but the much criticised Record got it right this time.

 

Fair enough but if you disregard the print media, then all the more reason to concentrate on the substance of the issue.

[buster. 5,257]

I can see that you have studied this in depth whereas I haven't studied it at all; so happy to leave the conspiracy theories to you.

 

What is undoubtedly correct is that there have been conspiracies wrt Rangers over the past few years.

 

The exact nature/detail of what has happened may never be known in full but it is more than reasonable to lay down facts known, make interpretations from them and open it up to the messageboard for conversation.

 

You are welcome to label it 'conspiracy theories' with a dismissive air but when many, like yourself were championing Mr.Green, I was being told that my getting on the case of Mr.Green constantly was conspiracy theories that were OTT.

[Frankie 8,662]

Unfortunately, as long as we have clear ongoing issues with corporate governance, anonymous beneficial owners, no fan engagement to speak of, no credible fan organisation and a plethora of unanswered questions about the direction of the club, 'conspiracy theories' will remain prevalent.

 

I'm not convinced the club should spend all its time fire fighting such theories but when there appears to be little done elsewhere and we're still no closer to the answers we seek then trust in the regime will remain a primary issue for the club.

 

Now, I don't blame anyone for wanting to move on from the failed Murray, Whyte and Green eras but as long as any new board continually makes the same mistakes as these eras then many more fans will also understandably be cynical enough to withhold their money.

 

That's the undeniable fact of where we are now. Can anyone really show otherwise? Or, perhaps, the real conspiracy theory is that the current or supposedly 'new' board are acting in the best, long term interests of the club.

[buster. 5,257]

Unfortunately, as long as we have clear ongoing issues with corporate governance, anonymous beneficial owners, no fan engagement to speak of, no credible fan organisation and a plethora of unanswered questions about the direction of the club, 'conspiracy theories' will remain prevalent.

 

I'm not convinced the club should spend all its time fire fighting such theories but when there appears to be little done elsewhere and we're still no closer to the answers we seek then trust in the regime will remain a primary issue for the club.

 

Now, I don't blame anyone for wanting to move on from the failed Murray, Whyte and Green eras but as long as any new board continually makes the same mistakes as these eras then many more fans will also understandably be cynical enough to withhold their money.

 

That's the undeniable fact of where we are now. Can anyone really show otherwise? Or, perhaps, the real conspiracy theory is that the current or supposedly 'new' board are acting in the best, long term interests of the club.

 

Firstly, the board are acting primariliy in the best interests of the shareholders of RIFC, the holding company.

 

These interests centre on financial gain for said shareholders of holding company.

 

The football club (a wholly owned subsidiary) is the vehicle through which most of this is channelled.

The supporters of whom are what may be regarged as the 'cash cow'.

 

We are going through a process with differing stages (see Portsmouth, Leeds, Coventry etc.).

The first 'blatant robbery' stage is over and is replaced by a more measured approach. Principally because there was no money left and the 'cash cow' was starting to ask questions.

 

We now have a board that has part of the 'first stage' ('onerous contracts' are in part still running) and part of what may be regarded as 'new' post AGM. ie. Laxey Partners. Both are using the football club as a vehicle, as or in an attempt to make money.

 

The bottomline and where they have the supporter over a barrel is that the football club, as it stands needs the blue pound to survive but every pound that goes in will essentially be divvied up between the football club and 'sp.iv interests'.

 

The other thing to remember is that in time the assets will go. No conspiracy theory, it's how these people operate.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thank's for the replies.

 

Given recent history and timing, what do you think/is your gut feel ?...Misleading or Innocent Mistake.

 

If AIM investigate and they find out 'foulplay' of some kind, they don't necessarily make it public.

In fact the club could already have been investigated and fined and we don't know.

 

I could understand a reasonable person having difficulty believing that it was an innocent mistake but without evidence of the internal procedures it's difficult to know.

 

I would be surprised if AIM didn't make a determination of "fault" public. I was involved in financial services regulation and publicity is one of the most important weapons that a regulator has at its disposal both in terms of punishing the miscreant and more importantly deterring others.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Fair enough but if you disregard the print media, then all the more reason to concentrate on the substance of the issue.

 

I didn't say I disregarded the print media; I was commenting on the front pages posted on here.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Firstly, the board are acting primariliy in the best interests of the shareholders of RIFC, the holding company.

 

These interests centre on financial gain for said shareholders of holding company.

 

The football club (a wholly owned subsidiary) is the vehicle through which most of this is channelled.

The supporters of whom are what may be regarged as the 'cash cow'.

 

We are going through a process with differing stages (see Portsmouth, Leeds, Coventry etc.).

The first 'blatant robbery' stage is over and is replaced by a more measured approach. Principally because there was no money left and the 'cash cow' was starting to ask questions.

 

We now have a board that has part of the 'first stage' ('onerous contracts' are in part still running) and part of what may be regarded as 'new' post AGM. ie. Laxey Partners. Both are using the football club as a vehicle, as or in an attempt to make money.

 

The bottomline and where they have the supporter over a barrel is that the football club, as it stands needs the blue pound to survive but every pound that goes in will essentially be divvied up between the football club and 'sp.iv interests'.

 

The other thing to remember is that in time the assets will go. No conspiracy theory, it's how these people operate.

 

I think you spoiled your argument with the final paragraph. There's evidence for your interpretation of everything else; but there's no evidence other than the non-denial re Murray Park of any intent to sell our most valuable assets. Some duff players perhaps if we could but not the stadium or training ground.