Rangers boardroom battle: Douglas Park consortium winning the battle for Ibrox...

[alexscottislegend 2,318]

It's my birthday today. If this is confirmed could be the best present I could wish for. The wife gave me aftershave...

[der Berliner 3,743]

We are due some good news indeed. Again, the common supporter is handed a rather unsatisfying spectator's role, exploited by the various journo vying for attention with every scrap of info they can grab.

[MoodyBlue 0]

Andy Newport ‏@AndyNewportPA 2m2 minutes ago

 

Robert Sarver expected to respond to board's rejection of his £20million takeover bid later this afternoon

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

It's my birthday today. If this is confirmed could be the best present I could wish for. The wife gave me aftershave...

Maybe she's telling you something

[MoodyBlue 0]

Sarver out:

 

RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC

 

("Rangers" or the "Company")

 

 

 

Statement of intention not to make an offer under rule 2.8 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers

 

 

 

It was announced on 8 January 2015 that Robert Sarver had made a revised proposal to the board of Rangers that may or may not lead to an offer being made for the Company by Robert Sarver (or a vehicle to be established and controlled by him). It was announced by Rangers this morning that the board of the Company had rejected that revised proposal on the basis that they felt it unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming, and that therefore the board did not intend to hold the general meeting that would be necessary to implement the proposal. The board did not make any counter proposal.

 

 

 

Robert Sarver today announces that as a result of the board's failure to provide a counter proposal or to engage in any meaningful negotiations with him, he does not now intend to make an offer for Rangers.

 

 

 

Robert Sarver commented:

 

 

 

"I'm disappointed the Rangers board has rejected my revised offer, which addressed the club's immediate and long-term needs. Clearly the current directors have a different path they want to go down. I hope for the sake of the club and the fans, who've been very warm and supportive towards me, that it works out. I wish the club and fans the best of luck. If they want my support in the future, then they only have to ask."

[Rangersitis 0]

Didn't even need a YANKS GO HOME banner.

[ian1964 10,720]

Lifted from FF:

 

 

 

Valley Bluenose Valley Bluenose is online now

Five Star Poster

 

Join Date: 29-07-2006

Posts: 9,341

Default Proof Llambias is Ashley's Appointment

With thanks to hippo94735 who mentioned this on another thread.

 

We all heard Somers explanation at the AGM that Llambias had gone through a competitive selection process and Llambias assertions that he had no links to Ashley.

 

At the time I thought they were getting their defence to the SFA charge in early.

 

However, a release to the Stock Exchange on 3 Nov suggests/confirms they haven't a leg to stand on and also confirms that Ashley has 'used up' one of his appointments:

 

http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regula...ws_article/411

 

From that:

 

The Board of Rangers announces that it has appointed Derek Llambias as a non-executive director. He was nominated as a director of its choice by MASH Holdings Limited pursuant to its agreement to withdraw its requisition for a General Meeting, as set out in the announcement dated 27 October 2014. Mr Llambias has been acting as a consultant to the board of Rangers since 28 October 2014.

Edited January 12, 2015 by ian1964

[govan_derriere 3]

Another email sent to the Nomad & Aim Regulation

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

RIFC, Director’s duties, ER2 and QCA guidelines

 

As a shareholder in Rangers International Football Club, I write to you again to express my concerns regarding the directors of Rangers International Football Club.

 

As you are already aware smaller quoted companies listed on AIM are expected to “follow, as a minimum, the ‘Corporate Governance Guidelines.”

 

Under guideline 10, shareholders’ needs and objectives, “Vested interests should not be able to act in a manner contrary to the common good of all shareholders”

 

On 3 November 2014, “the Board of Rangers announced that it has appointed Derek Llambias as a non-executive director. He was nominated as a director of its choice by MASH Holdings”

 

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12136731.html

 

Subsequently, Mr. Llambias was appointed Chief Executive Officer on 19th Dec.

 

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12190732.html

 

 

At the Rangers’ AGM on 22/12/14

Chris Graham of the Union of Fans wants to know if Llambias is contracted elsewhere, if he is in the paid employ of another.

Llambias assures the floor that he is not being paid by Sports Direct - or Mike Ashley.

 

At 11:40 am http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/2014-rangers-agm-recap-live-4851852

 

Now this may well be true, but bear in mind that Llambias was nominated as a director of its choice by MASH Holdings on November 3rd. So, does Mr. Llambias not operate on behalf of Mash Holdings?

 

Now, consider this article published on 9th January in the Scottish Daily Mail,

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2902782/Rangers-regime-scored-huge-goal-axing-dissenter-Norman-Crighton-conference-call.html

 

“Mike Ashley called the shots despite owning just 8.92 per cent of the shares in Rangers”

 

“To the outside world, Ashley’s goal appeared to be to protect the lucrative Rangers merchandising contracts which poured millions into the coffers of Sports Direct. His trusted lieutenants Derek Llambias and Barry Leach were brought in and became influential.

 

So much so that, weeks before his appointment as chief executive was confirmed to the stock market, Llambias was the man who instigated the dismissal of Crighton during a conference call which became heated following more awkward, unwanted questions.

 

To an outsider, Crighton’s questions would have seemed logical — necessary even. They were concerns any shareholder or non-executive director with the broader interests of the club might ask.

 

But the broader interests of Rangers were no longer what was at stake two weeks before Christmas. What mattered by then were the interests of Ashley and Sports Direct.”

 

 

If I may remind you about Aim rule 16 for Nomad

 

A nominated adviser must act with due skill and care at all times.

 

And also ask you to re-examine the suitability of Mr Llambias as a director of RIFC under ER2.

 

Has Mr Llambias operated on behalf of Vested interests?

 

Has Mr Llambias acted in a manner contrary to the common good of all shareholders?

 

“What mattered by then were the interests of Ashley and Sports Direct.”

 

 

The article published by the Daily Mail leaves little room for doubt!

 

 

 

I have asked you on several occasions before when best practice QCA guidelines and Aim rules for Nomad will be applied to directors of RIFC?

 

To my untrained eye, it is difficult to understand why ER2 has not already been applied.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

govan_derriere

(Shareholder in RIFC)

Edited January 12, 2015 by govan_derriere
links updated

[der Berliner 3,743]

A bit of rumour / info from FF, not least since news are running rather slow today

 

Was told by genuine link to T3B that there is money there to see out the season plus pay Ashley his £3M back and he takes his men off the board, that apparently is what the consortium were going to offer I take it his men being Leech & Llambias , maybe Sommers could be useful for a couple of weeks, regarding the " normalising" of the merchandise deal. No Money for new manager till next season but new share issue before start of next season if deal goes ahead.

[trublusince1982 243]

A bit of rumour / info from FF, not least since news are running rather slow today

were going to offer?