Jump to content

 

 

Just another LSE Clarification


Recommended Posts

Clarification of a previous announcement

 

The Company removed a statement from the Club's website last week which appeared to conflict with the Notification entitled "Credit Facility of £2 million. Withdrawal of requisition for general meeting" on the Regulatory News Service dated 27 October 2014 (the "Notification"). The Directors confirm that the Notification was not misleading, false or deceptive and did not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information, pursuant to Rule 10 of the AIM Rules.

 

The article on the website was trying to clarify a point of detail to the effect that, in the context of any new director's proposed appointment by MASH Holdings Limited ("MASH") to the board of Rangers Football Club Limited, the board would, in practice, have sought to ensure that such appointee satisfied all requisite regulatory (AIM and/or SFA) requirements. The MASH facility has been repaid, and the rights have now terminated in any event.

 

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12243923.html

Edited by Frankie
Link to post
Share on other sites

The article on the website was trying to clarify a point of detail to the effect that, in the context of any new director's proposed appointment by MASH Holdings Limited ("MASH") to the board of Rangers Football Club Limited, the board would, in practice, have sought to ensure that such appointee satisfied all requisite regulatory (AIM and/or SFA) requirements.

 

It wasn't in relation to that, so more lies.

 

The MASH facility has been repaid, and the rights have now terminated in any event.

 

Can we therefore expect Llambias, as MASH's representative on the board, to resign?

Link to post
Share on other sites

not misleading, false or deceptive and did not omit anything likely to affect the import of such information, pursuant to Rule 10 of the AIM Rules

 

So why remove the notification then??? Or why not reword the notification to avoid any confusion, rather than remove it completely???

 

Also, why the need to issue another (official AIM) statement, to clarify the previous web site statement that had nothing at all wrong with it???

 

:brick::facepalm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They just look more and more incompetant

 

 

 

They are proving themselves to be the full set................ Incompetent,.... Liars...... and Incompetent Liars.

 

or

 

They are Competent (with their own and related parties interests in mind),....Calculating & Devious.....and have recently brought out the sharp stick to continually poke the support & majority of shareholders with.

 

or

 

A mix of the previous two options

Edited by buster.
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.