BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) I think you mean renegotiate and not 'renogiate'... Actually nevermind, that's needless pedantry and something that a dislikeable individual would partake in Never said paying back the loan wouldn't release the securities. Both resolutions are PR - but giving MA his cash back won't get us to a position that will see us earn appropriate income from our retail deal. Mine was a typo now corrected but as you say pedantry, perhaps, I'm well known for it Expensive PR though, what was the estimate for an EGM inc all the paperwork, lawyers fees, staffing Ibrox etc? Edited May 27, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 You don't think these are relevant questions which need answered ?As a shareholder I want them answered. I was under the impression a NOMAD was in place after the EGM. I thought King or Murray had already answered the NOMAD issue, no ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WATP_Greg 0 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Mine was a typo now corrected but as you say pedantry, perhaps, I'm well known for it Expensive PR though, what was the estimate for an EGM inc all the paperwork, lawyers fees, staffing Ibrox etc? I stand by my statement Alan MASH has the right to call the EGM and doesn't foot the bill so its not that expensive for them. Surely you can see that and aren't being disingenuous. You are known for that too! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,678 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I thought King or Murray had already answered the NOMAD issue, no ? Didn't they say they'd one lined up following the EGM ? And I do not recall de-listing being mentioned pre-EGM either 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Why would the directors require "moral authority"? Do they not occupy the moral high ground already? With the fans perhaps, but not necessarily if it went to court. This way they can point to doing what the shareholders want. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 King is a proven liar, so I would take anything he says with a very large pinch of salt. And I guarantee you are a proven liar too, as all of us are. I bet not one of us hasn't told a lie before. You may despise King being a liar but he who is without sin should cast the first stone, would that be you ? Is he the right person for the Club ? Time will tell. Should we ban any proven liars from owning our Club ? Would be hard as we wouldn't have any owners at all. I find it amusing that you cant wait to brand King a proven liar yet staunchly defended both Llambias and Leach who were quite clearly doing Ashley's bidding despite their own claims to the contrary. Hypocritical ? I would say so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,028 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Didn't they say they'd one lined up following the EGM ?And I do not recall de-listing being mentioned pre-EGM either There is quite a bit of detail in the public domain already regarding the reasons for the de-listing. You can argue that it should have been expected, and you can argue that perhaps this was the plan all along, but any pretence that it matters to anyone but Ashley and GreenCO, is deluded. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,678 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 There is quite a bit of detail in the public domain already regarding the reasons for the de-listing. You can argue that it should have been expected, and you can argue that perhaps this was the plan all along, but any pretence that it matters to anyone but Ashley and GreenCO, is deluded. So you think it was perfectly acceptable what they did? FWIW I believe we'd have a better chance of getting the promised openness & transparency as a listed PLC rather than one that isn't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,028 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 So you think it was perfectly acceptable what they did?FWIW I believe we'd have a better chance of getting the promised openness & transparency as a listed PLC rather than one that isn't. A listing on AIM doesn't bother me. It's a bit of a Casino and has a poor reputation overall. I accept that the board is working to re-List elsewhere, and I'm also happy with the explanation of the scorched earth policy of the previous board and NOMAD which forced the issue. There may be a bit more detail provided at the EGM, but unless the facts as explained already are materially different (my gut feel is this isn't the case), I am happy with the current direction of travel. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,678 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 A listing on AIM doesn't bother me. It's a bit of a Casino and has a poor reputation overall. I accept that the board is working to re-List elsewhere, and I'm also happy with the explanation of the scorched earth policy of the previous board and NOMAD which forced the issue. There may be a bit more detail provided at the EGM, but unless the facts as explained already are materially different (my gut feel is this isn't the case), I am happy with the current direction of travel. Forced what issue ? De-listing ? You're missing my point - They said they'd a NOMAD lined up. They clearly didn't 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.