Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

So what? How many times do the mods need to tell people they won't have this kind of comment about other sites on their board?

 

Even allowing for the 'refugee' status of a good few posters, it's just rude. You wouldn't go into someone's house on Hogmanay and pish in the corner, would you? It's their board, it's their rules, don't like it, don't post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read somewhere else that in this new "in house" share issue, existing shareholders can "only" buy as many shares as they already own. As in: if you hold 1 share, you can buy another 1, if you have 1m, you can buy another million, then perhaps scoop up any that have not been taken up. Is that correct?

 

No, it is wrong. RIFC is not issuing 81m new shares. And only the under writer can scoop, a bit like a dog walker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? How many times do the mods need to tell people they won't have this kind of comment about other sites on their board?

 

Even allowing for the 'refugee' status of a good few posters, it's just rude. You wouldn't go into someone's house on Hogmanay and pish in the corner, would you? It's their board, it's their rules, don't like it, don't post.

 

It's amazes me how many hours, those complaining about other boards, spend trolling them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? How many times do the mods need to tell people they won't have this kind of comment about other sites on their board?

 

Even allowing for the 'refugee' status of a good few posters, it's just rude. You wouldn't go into someone's house on Hogmanay and pish in the corner, would you? It's their board, it's their rules, don't like it, don't post.

 

Settle down Andy, never knew that was the case here. There is something quite toxic about that site which is a shame as it used to be a decent forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they have six million and king has thirteen million lump together and buy the blinking club otherwise go away and stop building up the supporters hopes

 

I quote from Jackson's column this morning: "it will require the approval of a board which, up until now, has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep such well-meaning investors at arm’s length in order to cling on to control."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote from Jackson's column this morning: "it will require the approval of a board which, up until now, has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep such well-meaning investors at arm’s length in order to cling on to control."

 

... you would want to know at which point "acting in the best interest of the company" comes into play. They haven't done that for years, but this appears only to be a "guideline" rather than a rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.