Keith Jackson:

[amms 0]

My utterly baffled why any Rangers fan wouldn't want to know the identities of people who own 15% of us. Anyone who says they aren't interested in that information needs to go and have a long hard look at themselves. After what we've been through in the last few years knowledge of our owners and power-brokers identity should be the first thing we demand.

[stewarty 1,876]

My utterly baffled why any Rangers fan wouldn't want to know the identities of people who own 15% of us. Anyone who says they aren't interested in that information needs to go and have a long hard look at themselves. After what we've been through in the last few years knowledge of our owners and power-brokers identity should be the first thing we demand.

 

Agreed. Remember the honesty and transparency stuff that was the hallmark of Green's early public statements?

[forlanssister 3,050]

If someone wants to anonymously hold shares in a company they can easily do so without us EVER finding out. And the law and business ethics are on their side for that, until they break the those rules themselves.

 

So you are saying RIFC plc are excempt from the Companies Act?

 

793Notice by company requiring information about interests in its shares

 

(1)A public company may give notice under this section to any person whom the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe—

 

(a)to be interested in the company's shares, or

 

(b)to have been so interested at any time during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the notice is issued.

 

(2)The notice may require the person—

 

(a)to confirm that fact or (as the case may be) to state whether or not it is the case, and

 

(b)if he holds, or has during that time held, any such interest, to give such further information as may be required in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

 

(3)The notice may require the person to whom it is addressed to give particulars of his own present or past interest in the company's shares (held by him at any time during the three year period mentioned in subsection (1)(b)).

 

(4)The notice may require the person to whom it is addressed, where—

 

(a)his interest is a present interest and another interest in the shares subsists, or

 

(b)another interest in the shares subsisted during that three year period at a time when his interest subsisted,

 

to give, so far as lies within his knowledge, such particulars with respect to that other interest as may be required by the notice.

(5)The particulars referred to in subsections (3) and (4) include—

 

(a)the identity of persons interested in the shares in question, and

 

(b)whether persons interested in the same shares are or were parties to—

 

(i)an agreement to which section 824 applies (certain share acquisition agreements), or

 

(ii)an agreement or arrangement relating to the exercise of any rights conferred by the holding of the shares.

 

(6)The notice may require the person to whom it is addressed, where his interest is a past interest, to give (so far as lies within his knowledge) particulars of the identity of the person who held that interest immediately upon his ceasing to hold it.

 

(7)The information required by the notice must be given within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice.

 

803

 

Power of members to require company to act

 

(1)The members of a company may require it to exercise its powers under section 793 (notice requiring information about interests in shares).

 

(2)A company is required to do so once it has received requests (to the same effect) from members of the company holding at least 10% of such of the paid-up capital of the company as carries a right to vote at general meetings of the company (excluding any voting rights attached to any shares in the company held as treasury shares).

 

(3)A request—

 

(a)may be in hard copy form or in electronic form,

 

(b)must—

 

(i)state that the company is requested to exercise its powers under section 793,

 

(ii)specify the manner in which the company is requested to act, and

 

(iii)give reasonable grounds for requiring the company to exercise those powers in the manner specified, and

 

©must be authenticated by the person or persons making it.

 

804

 

Duty of company to comply with requirement

 

(1)A company that is required under section 803 to exercise its powers under section 793 (notice requiring information about interests in company's shares) must exercise those powers in the manner specified in the requests.

 

(2)If default is made in complying with subsection (1) an offence is committed by every officer of the company who is in default.

 

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

 

(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine;

 

(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

[crucible 0]

The corporate nominee is the registered shareholder to all intents and purposes held in trust to and on behalf of the beneficial shareholder, that is the end of the trail.

 

Nothing untoward nothing criminal (unless connected to Rangers some would have us believe) an everyday business tool used by small to multi national companies.

 

 

To reiterate below, so why the mystery ? it must be true it is from the rhebel.

"Murray also revealed his legal team has secured permission to burst open the secrecy behind the club’s mysterious investor groups, Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings. It’s expected the paperwork, which should confirm the identity of the anonymous moneymen behind both camps, will be handed over to Murray and McColl’s lawyers by tomorrow".

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Ffootball-news%2Fbattle-rangers-former-director-paul-2486279&ei=D3luUo3TD8Gr0gXwu4HICQ&usg=AFQjCNFJYUbMxQyZ4n3jdyV6w_eA4KJzLQ

Edited October 28, 2013 by crucible

[amms 0]

The corporate nominee is the registered shareholder to all intents and purposes held in trust to and on behalf of the beneficial shareholder, that is the end of the trail.

 

Nothing untoward nothing criminal (unless connected to Rangers some would have us believe) an everyday business tool used by small to multi national companies.

 

 

To reiterate below, so why the mystery ? it must be true it is from the rhebel.

"Murray also revealed his legal team has secured permission to burst open the secrecy behind the club’s mysterious investor groups, Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings. It’s expected the paperwork, which should confirm the identity of the anonymous moneymen behind both camps, will be handed over to Murray and McColl’s lawyers by tomorrow".

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Ffootball-news%2Fbattle-rangers-former-director-paul-2486279&ei=D3luUo3TD8Gr0gXwu4HICQ&usg=AFQjCNFJYUbMxQyZ4n3jdyV6w_eA4KJzLQ

 

So to also reiterate, why don't you care? Why don't you want to know who owns 15% of our club after all the problems we've had with owners?

[54andcounting 0]

IT’S not every week you speak to someone on Interpol’s most wanted list. In fact, after 20-odd years writing about football for a living, this was something of a first.

 

Not that it was actually much of a conversation.

 

“Hello, Mr Rizvi,”

 

“Hello, who is this?”

 

“Keith Jackson from the Daily Record newspaper in Glasgow, I want to speak to you about your involvement in Blue Pitch Holdings.”

 

“I think you have the wrong number my friend, I would ahem (click)...”

 

“Mr Rizvi? Rafat? Hello?”

 

“BEEEEEEEEEEEP!”

 

Does this pish actually sell newspapers?

[crucible 0]

So to also reiterate, why don't you care? Why don't you want to know who owns 15% of our club after all the problems we've had with owners?

 

 

I don't care about something that is legally none of my business question is why should you care, you appear to think business law/law of the land is going to be changed to suit you or anyone else, get real.

 

Maybe some won't be happy until the SFA get sick of us being drawn to their attention and order another inquiry which we will have to pay for, you know like the one MM ordered and found nothing.

[amms 0]

I don't care about something that is legally none of my business question is why should you care, you appear to think business law/law of the land is going to be changed to suit you or anyone else, get real.

 

Maybe some won't be happy until the SFA get sick of us being drawn to their attention and order another inquiry which we will have to pay for, you know like the one MM ordered and found nothing.

 

I don't think anyone is going to change the law to suit me, that's a ridiculous and inaccurate suggestion. 'Legally' none of my business is a bizarre statement. It's legally none of my business what side McCoist picks on Saturday but I still want to know what it is. Do you really not care who owns Rangers? Don't you think that supporters should know who owns their club, we're not a normal private company after all? I can understand why you might not care who owns your local supermarket or energy company, but the football club you profess to support, you spend so much time and energy following. Really, you don't care because 'legally' it's none of your business? Tell me did you care that Whyte and Murray sold our season tickets to Ticketus, after all it was legally none of your business?

 

By the way your last paragraph is the worst strawman I've seen for months.

[crucible 0]

I don't think anyone is going to change the law to suit me, that's a ridiculous and inaccurate suggestion. 'Legally' none of my business is a bizarre statement. It's legally none of my business what side McCoist picks on Saturday but I still want to know what it is. Do you really not care who owns Rangers? Don't you think that supporters should know who owns their club, we're not a normal private company after all? I can understand why you might not care who owns your local supermarket or energy company, but the football club you profess to support, you spend so much time and energy following. Really, you don't care because 'legally' it's none of your business? Tell me did you care that Whyte and Murray sold our season tickets to Ticketus, after all it was legally none of your business?

 

By the way your last paragraph is the worst strawman I've seen for months.

 

I will leave you and that well known strawman regan to travel the dangerous road, be careful what you wish for, who knows what the end result will be. As long as you are happy with the end result of Murray going over old ground settled by MM's inquiry that will be fine them, whatever the possible outcome is.

 

"We have a legally binding indemnity given to us by the consortium at the time, fronted by Charles Green, Malcolm Murray and Imran Ahmad that Craig Whyte is not involved in any way with Rangers and that was the key requirement which the board needed to have prior to that membership being awarded. We are able to challenge the membership in the event that Craig Whyte is involved."

[amms 0]

I will leave you and that well known strawman regan to travel the dangerous road, be careful what you wish for, who knows what the end result will be. As long as you are happy with the end result of Murray going over old ground settled by MM's inquiry that will be fine them, whatever the possible outcome is.

 

"We have a legally binding indemnity given to us by the consortium at the time, fronted by Charles Green, Malcolm Murray and Imran Ahmad that Craig Whyte is not involved in any way with Rangers and that was the key requirement which the board needed to have prior to that membership being awarded. We are able to challenge the membership in the event that Craig Whyte is involved."

 

Hang about, are you saying you don't want to know in case the answer is people who shouldn't be involved or are otherwise unsuitable? You think we'd be better off with Craig Whyte owning and controlling part of the club in secret than us knowing the identity of the people who do own us? That's some twisted logic Crucible.

 

I don't personally think Craig Whyte is involved, but I still want to know who owns us, I want to know why they make some of the decisions they make and I want them to be accountable to the support. It's in the long term interests of the club that we are owned and run professionally and openly.

If that means some more pain first then so be it.