alskoosher

I take it everyone is familiar with rule 2 of the TOP code sub 2.6 being particularly relevant, there again perhaps people aren't aware of it.

No I was pretty clear between a rights issue here which is private and a public issue. which is of course self explanatory and requires a nomad and a listing.

Yes I was being 100% accurate.

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse, there I leave it.

Why are you changing the narrative, I quite clearly stated Public issue and addressed the Rights issue earlier.

Correct, that is why there will be no public issue, we have neither a listing nor a NOMAD. No stick required.

Isn't the proposed issue a rights issue for selected existing shareholders enabling purchase of future share issues shares at a discount. Isn't a NOMAD and all that goes with it required for any public offering ?

Y’day was absolutely turgid again, got the points and in this case that is all that matters.

Strangely some ITK are claiming that tomorrow’s presser has nothing to do with investment.

2-0

Pretty sure SG showed yesterday that he is more than a match for the press, he controlled them and ran the narrative in the direction he wanted to go, looks like the days of being trampled by the press are finally over, at least from the manager's office. I have the feeling that he is going to be a tremendous success for us, so much so that I going to place a bet on us winning the league next season, I believe he will bring experienced players who may be nearing the end of their careers, but still well above anything this league has to offer, also with some promising youngsters too.

Why would they have resigned to make way for anyone, is there suddenly a limit on the number of directors we can have.

Recently announced director Barry Scott, a Hong Kong-based businessman, has also been afforded the same title in the club’s ‘People with Significant Control’ register with Companies House. In the document, it is stated that “The person has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the company.”

They are prohibiting Laird from making any offer, king has to make it as he was ordered to by the court and he must produce evidence of cleared funds from a 3rd party.

Interesting development. https://Rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/paul-murray-and-barry-scott Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) notify the resignation of two directors, Mr Paul Murray and Mr Barry Scott. Paul has been a director since March 2015 and played an important role at that time in helping oust the previous Board and restore the Club to the hands of those who have its best interests at heart. Paul has served with distinction as a director since that time and all at Rangers are very grateful for his efforts. We look forward to welcoming him again as a supporter. Barry joined the Board more recently and his enthusiasm and drive were welcome. The Board knows it will continue to enjoy his support and appreciates the commitment he has shown to the Club.

I have absolutely no interest in your feelings, kosher or otherwise.

You can change the thread title all you like interdict was sought and granted. PETITION DEPARTMENTUNSTARRED MOTIONSP418/18 Pet: The Panel on takeovers and mergers for interdict – Dentons

Of course it isn't, that is why TOP applied for and received interdict, however you have it your way.

CoS grants interdict, as title Regulator gets court orders forcing Dave King to make £11m Rangers shares bid with cleared funds http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16197753.Regulator_gets_court_orders_forcing_Dave_King_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_with_cleared_funds/

I am going to leave this here, king has consequences to face and face them he will. The process of interdict is quasi criminal, and if the party who has been interdicted fails to observe the terms of the interdict, once notified of it, he is liable to summary punishment, which can include a fine or imprisonment. In a recent case before the Court of Session Paul Mackenzie was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for his repeated breach of an interim interdict and interdict obtained against him. In sentencing him the Court referred to his "wilful defiance" of the Court's orders and "that only a prison sentence would adequately mark the gravity and circumstances of the breaches". A reminder not only of the consequences of ignoring the court but also how useful the order can be in protecting rights.

I didn't come across it we use it every day or most days.You will be wiser soon enough, I have no intention of getting into any argument about a clear breach of a court order by king, he has consequences to face.

No it isn't my opinion, interdicts are sought to enforce the protection of the rights of those affected by the miscreants actions, also to enforce the consequences of not complying with a court order, amazing how many think king is above the law in any country.

So you think Txiki isn't a measure of success, how novel.

Should be specific enough Txiki Begiristain

The perception of what an interdict is and whom it protects, the TOP made it perfectly clear that they would take all measures to ensure compliance, after king failed to comply with the order.