Zappa 0 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Confirmed to London Stock Exchange... Rangers International Football Club plc ("Rangers", the "Company" or "Club") Further to requisition of general meeting Further to the announcement on 22 August 2013, the Company confirms that the Board's discussions have continued with representatives of the group who requisitioned (together the "Requisitioners") a general meeting to consider the proposed resolutions ("Requisition") detailed in the announcement on 2 August 2013 ("General Meeting"). Progress has been made to agree a basis upon which the business of the General Meeting would be included in the Annual General Meeting. The Board wishes to reach agreement for the withdrawal of the Requisition without delay but is waiting for certain Requisitioners to authenticate details of their holdings pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 before being able to finalise the agreement. The Board, which is determined not to incur unnecessary cost for the Club, has therefore secured an extension to the written commitment from the Requisitioners to withdraw potentially the Requisition pending agreement as stated above. If no agreement is reached by the close of business on 30 August 2013, the Board will be required to send notice to shareholders to convene the General Meeting by no later than 5 September 2013. http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/mobile/news/detail.html?announcementId=11690470 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 (edited) So if no compromise by Friday, there will be a General Meeting [EGM] before next Thursday. Have I got that right? ''The Board wishes to reach agreement for the withdrawal of the Requisition without delay but is waiting for certain Requisitioners to authenticate details of their holdings pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 before being able to finalise the agreement.'' What does this mean? Edited August 28, 2013 by chilledbear 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 So if no compromise by Friday, there will be a General Meeting [EGM] before next Thursday. Have I got that right? No, if an agreement isn't reached and the Requisition withdrawn, they'll be required to send out notice of the EGM to shareholders by the 5th. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 ''The Board wishes to reach agreement for the withdrawal of the Requisition without delay but is waiting for certain Requisitioners to authenticate details of their holdings pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 before being able to finalise the agreement.'' What does this mean? Bill McMurdo penned this on the 25th - On that note, it has been reported that Jim McColl has four shares in the club but it appears that neither this shareholding, nor any by Paul Mini Murray and Frank Blin can be found in the shareholder register under their own names. I am not entirely sure but if these gentlemen have no shareholding in Rangers then they have no right to sign a document calling for an EGM, I believe. I’m sure the matter could be cleared up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 You'd expect everything to be in order with regard to the paperwork and legalities so perhaps an indication of MH's work to spin this delay a certain way. In saying that, this is the second delay so someone is certainly giving away some ground. However, it's for the benefit of the club so another few days won't hurt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 28, 2013 Author Share Posted August 28, 2013 It's probably just more stall tactics combined with spin in an effort to sew seeds of doubt and try to undermine the Requisition. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 (edited) ''The Board wishes to reach agreement for the withdrawal of the Requisition without delay but is waiting for certain Requisitioners to authenticate details of their holdings pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 before being able to finalise the agreement.'' What does this mean? This would appear to be a slip up by the Requisitioners. Only the requisioners themselves as shareholders can sign the requisition. If McColl, Blin, Murray or any others own shares in a nominee name (an offshore company perhaps, here we go, here we go, here we go, again) then they would have to (a) prove that they are duly authorised by said entity to sign on behalf of said entity and (b) it would have to be so stated on the requisition. In other words something like: JAMES MCCOLL (for and on behalf of Monaco Holdings sa) ................................................ (signature) I would be utterly shocked if Blin had slipped up in this way and it seems equally remiss of McCollCo's lawyers not to ask for such assurances and proofs before submiting the Requisition. It would appear that the Board's lawyers have asked the obvious question and the Requisitioners have gone, whoopsssss; so they are now on the back foot. For the avoidance of doubt I know nothing of anyone's shareholdings and Monaco Holdings sa is entirely a figment of my imagination. Edited August 28, 2013 by BrahimHemdani Inserted (b)! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 It's probably just more stall tactics combined with spin in an effort to sew seeds of doubt and try to undermine the Requisition. I think you're wrong there, Zappa, it looks like a bit of an own goal by McCollCo to me, or more like a tactical blunder early in the game, from which they can easily recover. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I'd be surprised - no astonished - if the legalities weren't in order. Really would be a schoolboy error... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I'd be surprised - no astonished - if the legalities weren't in order. Really would be a schoolboy error... Even big teams make schoolboy errors; but the statement is quite clear. Perhaps MCollCo will issue some form of clarification, no doubt downplaying it. 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.