chilledbear 16 Posted July 8, 2013 Author Share Posted July 8, 2013 Perhaps a stoopid question. Why would Cenkos give up an annual retainer, for doing very little ? All because of Easdale ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Yes another NOMAD has been lined up they're a necessary evil required by the AIM market. The NOMAD is supposed to police the company they sponsor which is as big a conflict of interest as could be imagined and one of the reasons US authorities take such a dim view of AIM. The NOMAD gets a nice annual retainer and other fees not the kind of thing they do lightly, the last company I'm aware of that got dumped by their NOMAD was non other than the Merchant House Group of Craig Whyte fame though they were thought to have secured the services of Allenby Capital of Imran Ahmad fame Merchant House Group were delisted before Allenby did any work on their behalf. AS far as I'm aware Allenby won't be the ones to replace Cenkos. It won't have any immediately noticeable effect for those who hold shares, Cenkos also held warrants in regards to RIFC shares one wonders if they have decided they hold no value. Don't be surprised if this isn't painted as RIFC replacing Cenkos. Right, so there technically isn't an immediate issue if Cenkos dump RIFC, but you think the question as to WHY they would do so points towards some sort of issue? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Right, so there technically isn't an immediate issue if Cenkos dump RIFC, but you think the question as to WHY they would do so points towards some sort of issue? In a word, yes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 In a word, yes. So, what would it mean if Cenkos have decided the warrants you speak of hold no value? I did ask for an idiot proof explanation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 So, what would it mean if Cenkos have decided the warrants you speak of hold no value? I did ask for an idiot proof explanation. The warrants give them the right to purchase shares at a specific price at at a specific future date (a bit like share options). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 It would be prudent and helpful to have knowledge of such options held by Cenkos they must be noted and regulated somewhere, also the significance of the six month agreement in the IPO. "The Company and Cenkos Securities have entered into orderly market agreements with certain other Shareholders for a period of 6 months from Admission" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 It would be prudent and helpful to have knowledge of such options held by Cenkos they must be noted and regulated somewhere, also the significance of the six month agreement in the IPO. "The Company and Cenkos Securities have entered into orderly market agreements with certain other Shareholders for a period of 6 months from Admission" Try reading the f*&king prospectus. Cenkos have warrants entitling them to purchase 1% of RIFC at a strike price of the issue price + 10% i.e 77p. It doesn't take Einstein to fathom Cenkos are not going to pay a premium of 50% to purchase shares in RIFC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Try reading the f*&king prospectus. Cenkos have warrants entitling them to purchase 1% of RIFC at a strike price of the issue price + 10% i.e 77p. It doesn't take Einstein to fathom Cenkos are not going to pay a premium of 50% to purchase shares in RIFC. I did where do you think the six month reference that you avoided came from, 1% you are a drama queen. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I did where do you think the six month reference that you avoided came from, 1% you are a drama queen. But unlike the paragraphs above and below that doesn't relate specifically to the warrants does it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) But unlike the paragraphs above and below that doesn't relate specifically to the warrants does it? That will be the 1% or perhaps you allude to some nefarious shenanigans plotted by Cenkos to affect control of Rangers, you don't think Daniel Stewart and Company:eek2: are complicit as well do you, drama at its worst or even best. Edited July 9, 2013 by reaper 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.