McMurdo claiming EGM avoidance deal 'likely'

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That would surely depend on the shareholding they own and what their terms of office are (1 yr, 2 yr, 3 yr rolling etc) ?

 

Not at the first AGM, Craig, I don't think.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BH - Please tell me you didn't actually have to Google 'fud'? If you did you are a dobber! :flipa:

 

Yes I did and I am not ashamed to admit it.

 

I have also had to look up "dobber" and found that it could mean:

 

1. A wee flop penis.

   OR
   
2. 
   
3. 
   

4. a taddle-tale, person who tells on other people.

   OR
   
5. 
   
6. 
   

7. An unusually large penis prevalent in males of cypriot origin.

   OR
   
8. 
   
9. 
   

10. another word for slingshot

    OR
    
11. 
    
12. 
    

13. A dobber is not actually what people normally think it is!! Which is an old lady with a lisp by the way!
    It actually originates from 1940 finland, and just means simply 'take a left, then a right, then another left and then its just on your right'.
    Simple really

 

 

I'll settle for #3 although I am not a Cypriot, but would be equally glad to get back on topic.

[amms 0]

When they say 'in males of Cypriot origin' I wonder what they mean. That could be taken two ways...

 

I'm so pleased a thread on puritan Bill has turned into a Carry On film, that's how we should always show our displeasure at his nonsense.

[Anchorman 0]

Yes I did and I am not ashamed to admit it.

I'll settle for #3 although I am not a Cypriot, but would be equally glad to get back on topic.

 

Lol - you do realise I was having a bit of fun though?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Lol - you do realise I was having a bit of fun though?

 

No I didn't TBH, well on second thoughts I guess I did think you were poking fun at my sheltered upbringing.

 

Anyway I learnt two things tonight so that's not bad.

[forlanssister 3,050]

So having not read the requisition

 

Should it say who or what they're representing or acting for?

 

 

No it doesn't.

 

 

I think it does.

 

The six individuals are clear enough as as the five institutions.

 

[forlanssister 3,050]

BBC now reporting it.

 

Rangers board close to peace deal with four new directors

 

By Jim Spence and Chris McLaughlin

 

BBC Scotland

 

A peace deal to halt ongoing strife between Rangers' board and disaffected shareholders is close to completion, according to senior sources. The League One club are poised to add four new directors to the current five-man board and avoid what promised to be a stormy extraordinary meeting. "No-one will be leaving the board," said an Ibrox source.

 

The deal is close to being agreed and the four will be joining the board at the request of the requisitioners." The four would join the board at the request of the group of shareholders who have demanded an egm in an attempt to remove chief executive Craig Mather, finance director Brian Stockbridge and non-executive director Bryan Smart. Paul Murray and John McLelland

 

BBC Scotland understands that the four to be added would be former chairman John McLelland, former director Paul Murray, accountant Frank Blin and bus tycoon Sandy Easdale. McLelland is being touted for a return as chairman. Mather, Stockbridge and Smart would remain on the board along with present non-executive directors Ian Hart and Sandy Easdale's brother, James.

 

The group of shareholders, headed by Jim McColl, chairman of Clyde Blowers, has been in negotiations with the Ibrox board to achieve a solution that would avoid a gathering that could cost the club £80,000.

Rangers' board would prefer to have discussions on boardroom changes incorporated into the agenda for the annual meeting, which is to be held in October. However, it is understood that the deal has been struck following a stalemate in the power struggle going on within Ibrox.

 

Both factions are understood to speak for around 30% each of the club's shareholders, with neither side entirely confident of winning any vote at an egm.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23953675

 

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think it does.

 

The six individuals are clear enough as as the five institutions.

 

 

Not well up enough on this to be sure I can agree; but I would have thought that in the case of the institutions it should have named the person and capacity in which that person is signing and in the case of indiviuals if the shares are not in their names then the same is true.

 

Anyway, appears to be moot now and in my book a complete cave in by McCollCo; but perhaps they are agreeing now but not agreeing to support the others at the AGM. I doubt that as it would surely be part of a pact that they would all support each other.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Not well up enough on this to be sure I can agree; but I would have thought that in the case of the institutions it should have named the person and capacity in which that person is signing and in the case of indiviuals if the shares are not in their names then the same is true.

 

Anyway, appears to be moot now and in my book a complete cave in by McCollCo; but perhaps they are agreeing now but not agreeing to support the others at the AGM. I doubt that as it would surely be part of a pact that they would all support each other.

 

I'm sure the institutions would have more than one authorised signatory.

 

If McCollco have settled for that then they're no more than Quislings.

[simplythebest 0]

Do we have enough chairs in the boardroom for them all?