trublusince1982 243 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) read that as llambias and leach on board until loan for £3m repaid. Loan reapaid from £5m loan which also means they can now nominate another two most likely the same two after the egm. does this now mean the call for the egm will need to start all over again as the two on original bill are gone? is that possible? could the same then happen again with the next loan of £5m? Edited February 4, 2015 by trublusince1982 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Clear as mud, but it's pretty clear that they're playing funny buggers again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Clear as mud, but it's pretty clear that they're playing funny buggers again. was it ever announced that leach and llambias were the two nominees they chose to appoint? or did the board appoint them and ashley still have another two up his sleeve for emergencies? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 send them back home with ashleys players 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Emphasises why they have to go. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 From Shareprophets today: Rangers FC (RFC) has still not shown a shred of evidence to demonstrate that in accepting loan proposals from Mike Ashley and rejecting other refinancings it acted in the best interests of ALL shareholders. The Ashley minions who run the Rangers board are clearly loathed by the vast majority of Rangers supporters (rightly so in view of the refusal to provide evidence) and businessman Dave King has stated today that their days are numbered. King is a colourful character having had a spit of bother with the South African tax authorities and having lost £20 million when Rangers last went bust. But he is a die-hard blue nose, unlike Ashley, and he reckons that he has the support of the 51% of shareholders needed to oust the board. And today he reckoned that the board would agree to hold an EGM this Friday, for later this month. Interestingly King also said today that current Nomad, WH Ireland and its China fraud specialist Mr Paul Shackleton, was not “fit and proper”. Since we have seen absolutely no evidence that Shackleton has provided independent advice on the proposals, has acted on the unauthorised release of news or indeed gives a flying fuck about ordinary shareholders, I agree with King on that one. King also stated that a new regime would not repay the Ashley loan at once but that there would be a “"forensic investigation" into the business dealings between Ashley and the Rangers board and if any "malfeasance" was found there would be a possibility of a claim against the billionaire Newcastle owner. King also stated that “If any individuals behaved improperly then it is important that they are held accountable." Oh joy of joys. If a forensic investigation cannot uncover any evidence that in rejecting other refinancings and accepting the Ashley loans, Rangers board took full independent advice to show that the selected course of action was in the interests of ALL shareholders that would be a breach of Section 994 of the 2006 Companies Act. I presume that Mr King would be keen that anyone breaching the Companies Act, or advising individuals who breached the Companies Act, was reported to the Old Bill with full supporting documentation as a matter of urgency. While King may not be an angel, it is hard to see how any Rangers shareholder or supporter could possibly vote at an EGM in support of the current board. All should ensure that their votes are cast in favour of regime change. Since Rangers FC's current management and WH Ireland do not give a flying fuck about ordinary shareholders they have not bothered to issue a formal response - as an AIM listed company that cared would - to Mr King's statement. - See more at: http://www.shareprophets.com/tag/section+994+of+the+2006+companies+act/#sthash.SF8EEWfR.dpuf 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I gett he impression that you'd be better off throwing your money down a drain, than investing in an AIM listed company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
govan_derriere 3 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 This 'Company statement' appears to be a breach of AIM rule 22! Provision and disclosure of information Rule 22 The AIM company must use all due skill and care to ensure that information provided to the Exchange pursuant to this rule is correct, complete and not misleading. If it comes to the subsequent attention of the AIM company that information provided does not meet this requirement, the AIM company should advise the Exchange as soon as practicable. All communications between the Exchange and an AIM company are confidential to the Exchange and its nominated adviser and should not be disclosed without the consent of the Exchange, save to appropriate advisers to the AIM company or as required by any other regulatory body or agency. Dear Sir, Are RIFC in breach of AIM Rule 22? I am a shareholder in RIFC. Today RIFC has produced a statement that leaves me totally confused! The company statement has not been made through the LSE and seems to contradict two statements made through the LSE on Oct 27th & Nov 3rd. ( See below) Has RIFC used all due skill and care to ensure that information provided to the Exchange on 27th Oct. and 3rd Nov. was correct, complete and not misleading? Has RIFC advised the Exchange that the statements made on 27th October Oct and 3rd Nov. are incorrect? Yours faithfully, govan_derriere Company Announcement . . . Further to the Company's announcement on 27 October 2014, the Company would like to clarify the position in relation to any rights of MASH to appoint directors of RFC as referred to in that announcement. The correct position is that MASH never had the right to directly appoint directors of RFC. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headli...y-announcement On 27th October, 2014, Credit Facility of £2 million http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12129094.html "the Company has invited MASH to put forward the names of 2 nominees of its choice for appointment to the Board" On 3rd November, Appointment of Director http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12136731.html "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." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWee BlueDevil 0 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Emphasises why they have to go. Totally - utter incompetence mixed with shameless self interest / preservation = one gigantic cluster f%*£k of a boardroom who are selling us all down the river!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I gett he impression that you'd be better off throwing your money down a drain, than investing in an AIM listed company. It is not the place for an inexperienced private investor, that's for sure. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.