BrahimHemdani

Mr King has no shortage of supporters on here, a few conscientious objectors won't go amiss.

A fitting tribute indeed.

That part of the statement is confused as to cause and effect.

Which is exactly what I said this afternoon.

“I have ......., ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. “I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself. we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.” ... Quite so, Mr King.

I've no idea who or what these people are or who they are alleged to represent.. I've no time to read blogs. Your second comment is completely mistaken. I am in favour of Park being on Rangers Board and if you regard Bennett as "moneyed" then I am in favour of him too. Although I know little about him I would support George Letham as well. I am against people who have been convicted of criminal offences such as S Easdale and D King, whether they have money or not.

I've read alot about this Jack Irvine character over the past several months but aside from apparently being the Easdales' spokesperson I really know nothing about him, nor am I interested in him quite frankly. Interesting that you regard me as "dangerous" to whom or what if I might enquire? Oh and your right about one thing; my opinions are not for hire.

My understanding is that it cost approx. £500,000 to be listed on AIM and that money is now lost. It will cost money to be listed on another market and Rangers will still need a corporate advisor.

I'm saying that there is more to this than is included in the statement. I am quite sure they have been very careful not to tell any lies.

Rumours are rife that there has been a major fall out between KingCo and T3B over his refusal to provide short term finance and boardroom representation.

I would suggest that statements form this Board should be subjected to the same scrutiny as statements from the last Board. There is no way that KingCo would put out a statement that in any way accepted any part of the blame for their inability to back up his claim to have a NOMAD in place and that the shares would not be de-listed. I'm sorry but I can't say any more on here.

We can indeed but I'm sure you would agree it's far from ideal. See also #85.

It's not dross, mate, it is a fact, you just put it another way. Buying and selling shares is no different from any other asset, there is a price at which one party offers to sell and a price at which another party is prepared to buy. But let's compare the market for houses with a full or even AIM listing, where most anyone can offer to sell and most anyone can offer to buy; with a situation where you can only offer to sell and the other party can only offer to buy through private introduction equivalent to a " a matched bargain trading facility " in this example. Under which method would you expect to obtain a better price for your asset?

4 March 2015 That was corporate speak for WH Ireland's opinion that King (and possibly P Murray) would not be regarded as "fit and proper" and therefore would not be acceptable as directors under AIM Rules. Apparently, whichever firm or firms that were approached recently considered that the current directors and Mr King were "fit and proper". So there is a difference of opinion here and we will never know the answer. Secondly if you read the statement closely: it is, somewhat surprising that given the high standing of the new Board, the were not able to convince any prospective NOMAD they they could overcome Lastly, if that was indeed the issue, one wonders why any prospective NOMAD embarked on the process since the failings and complaints were indeed highly publicised.

What anyone is prepared to pay for them in a restricted market.

That statement is a matter of opinion and one that I for one would certainly dispute.

The first point was a question and the emboldened quote that you highlight was merely mirroring the jibe at me by Dave P to whose post #15 I was replying. So far as I am aware up to this point in time, King has not lent or invested any money in the Club. I supported Llambias because of his cost cutting agenda which was necessary; naturally if I had known about the terms of the loan deals I would not have supported him; and indeed have said that he and Leach (if involved) should be held to account for those transactions and that the deals at least in respect of Bigirimana and Ferguson should be repudiated. Upon enquiry, I do not believe there was ever any realistic prospect of King being acceptable under AIM rules and there were also questions over P Murray. Therefore I stand by my opinion that King either made a serious error of judgement or deliberately deceived in terms of his intentions. I agree that the word "guilty" is emotive and accept your admonition in that respect.

That's a good point and an equally good question. There are also restrictions on the amount of non traded shares that may be held in a Unit Trust e.g. River & Mercantile and other vehicles, if indeed any are allowed at all. I would need to research that a bit to clarify. It may also act to reduce the value of the said shares.

I am not holding myself out as an expert in this area but it's my understanding that share trading off any recognised stock exchange essentially would be by private bargain and I don't see that as helpful to a (hopefully) expanding company. Regulatory restrictions are there for a purpose one of which is to allow shareholders to complain if the said rules are broken.

I agree that this is something that should only be contemplated from strength not weakness. However I cannot see any move to restrict the free trading of the Company's shares as positive.

Institutions will buy shares in companies where they see a profit to be made. If the Plan is successful there is no doubt that there is a profit to be made and if the new Board turn out to be better than their recent predecessors then the chances of that happening are greatly enhanced are they not?

Whilst we may not know the full reasons for the inability to find a new NOMAD it is reasonable to suggest that King's past record is at the very least a contributory factor. He was free in his criticism of WH Ireland's actions; by his apparent inability to find a replacement when he suggested one was already lined up, he leaves himself and the new Board open to similar charges. Any attempt to spin this as something positive for the Company rather than King himself is misplaced to say the least.

If KingCo +T3B are willing and able to provide all the finance that Rangers require to meet the new 7 Year Plan which is several times the £10m or so that will be raised in the rights issue, then it would indeed be to his advantage to delist but it is this suggestion that is at best futile and at worst delusional. In this regard, King is guilty of either a severe error of judgement or blatant deception in regard to the appointment of a NOMAD and the de-listing of the company if that should come to pass.

It would be a severe blow to King's credibility since he rubbished the previous Nomad's concerns about his ability to qualify as a director under AIM rules and suggested he would have no difficulty appointing a new Nomad should he take control at the club. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-egm-go-ahead-planned-5273207

A Listed Company is one whose shares are traded on the principal stock exchange of the country concerned, in the UK that is the London Stock Exchange (LSE). An Unlisted Company is a bit of a misnomer because it just means it is not listed on the principal stock exchange; but as with Rangers its shares may be listed/traded on another market e.g. the Alternative Investment Market (AIM). The AIM market has less stringent rules than the LSE but the corollary is that the companies whose shares are traded there are likely to be riskier e.g. small companies, start ups, or again, as with Rangers - turn around, or perceived turn around or so called special situations. Examples might be new management (sic) or new products. Anyone can buy or sell listed or unlisted shares. This should not be confused with a private company whose shares are generally held by a small group of individuals or family and usually not traded on any recognised stock exchange. It has been suggested that KingCo + T3B may wish to take the company private to restrict future share purchases and indeed sales to those who they consider worthy of such facilities. When I bought my Rangers shares in 1983 I believe I am correct in saying it was a private limited company and the only way to acquire shares was in a matched bargain with a willing seller. My stockbroker knew that I wanted Rangers shares, which were quite prized and difficult to acquire at the time. He phoned me one day to say he had someone willing to sell 100 at a certain price and they were mine if I was willing to pay that price, which of course included his "turn" and commission.