Statement to Stock Exchange

[der Berliner 3,249]

we all do because they admitted it in the 1200 day review

 

they are proven liars.

 

Indeed. only that the word "they" refers to different people. Green's reign ended some time ago, at least before Wallace, Nash and Co. entered the fray and had a first, at least half-professional look at proceedings and how the club was run. You would have expected that at least Somers knew about the parting gifts for Stockbridge though.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Here is a reply about "any of that".

 

When accounts are published are they signed off on the page where the numbers/balance sheet ends or at the end after the relevant information (notes) that are added after the actual financial statements ?

 

Your post seems to stretch into 'damage limitation'.

 

 

Funny how this statement to the LSE was made and the latest Stockbridge 'affair' came to light once ST renewals were collected.

 

I suppose it is arguable that the entire Accounts are incorrect because there is an error in the signed statement but I think that is stretching things a bit far.

 

So long as the figures are accurate then I don't think there is a major issue with the accounts; embarrassing as it is for the Auditors in particular.

 

It seems to me that everything flows from the exercise of the option and someone somewhere woke up to the fact that it wasn't in the notes to the accounts. Unless you are suggesting that Stockbridge deliberately delayed exercising the option until a significant number of ST renewals had been achieved; I don't see that the two are connected. However, before you say it; I would concede that there may have been an agreement behind the scenes although it's hard to see why Stockbridge would want to do the Club any favours.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The "yellow press" !!

 

Tabloids are tabloids and they will always headline accordingly, sometimes with good reason and others to sensationalise.............but do you think the last few years have been generally exaggerated or have the media in general failed to grasp the fullextent of the ongoing nightmare in a timely manner ?

 

It's all very well you and Mr.Hemdani criticising the media but perhaps in part this is the easy route to forgetting your own serious fundamental misjudgements along the way. I'd say what the support might be better off doing is trying to learn from their own mistakes rather than flagging up the supposed 'baddies' of eg. The Daily Record,...who many told us (including the club) were 'not to be listened to'.

 

 

note 30: could some kind soul who isn't ignored by DB quote this post so as he has the option to read it, thank's !

 

For the benifit of Mr.Hemdani........... This note (30) is part of the post.

 

I can only reiterate:

 

The headline in the Record is correct, the headline in the Sport is nonsense.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I would hope someone is investing and I'm not sure I trust the club to do it.

 

A Freudian slip perhaps?

[buster. 4,808]

I suppose it is arguable that the entire Accounts are incorrect because there is an error in the signed statement but I think that is stretching things a bit far.

 

So long as the figures are accurate then I don't think there is a major issue with the accounts; embarrassing as it is for the Auditors in particular.

 

It seems to me that everything flows from the exercise of the option and someone somewhere woke up to the fact that it wasn't in the notes to the accounts. Unless you are suggesting that Stockbridge deliberately delayed exercising the option until a significant number of ST renewals had been achieved; I don't see that the two are connected. However, before you say it; I would concede that there may have been an agreement behind the scenes although it's hard to see why Stockbridge would want to do the Club any favours.

 

So you concede that the current board alongside Stockbridge, may have been deliberately misleading the support and the markets.

 

You ask why Stockbridge would want to do the club (RIFC) any favours.

1. Because the club were complicit to a degree in how things were played and he benefited.

 

2. Because the contacts that helped finance the purchase of assets and have previously employed BS elsewhere (pre Rangers) are still involved (eg. Blue Pitch/Margarita) .... ie. a network of sp.ivs that he will want to keep in with and may still be benefitting from.

 

It is useful to look into the background of 'players' involved, their tie-ins as it helps illustrate the CONTINUATION from June 2012 to the present boardroom (including major influences).

[buster. 4,808]

I can only reiterate:

 

The headline in the Record is correct, the headline in the Sport is nonsense.

 

I would say that diverts us from the important issues surrounding yesterdays regulatory notice.

[buster. 4,808]

Further to post 45.

 

 

Without going in deeply I'm getting at the continuation

 

(May 2012)

Rizvi / Green&Co

 

(Today)

Rizvi / Morgan (declared rep. for the mysterious as per Houssami/BPH) / Green in shadows / Easdale .

 

 

 

 

IMO Rafat Rizvi (RR) was one of the initial people behind Green and the raising of the money to purchase the assets. ie. behind at least one of the mysterious groups eg. Margarita.

 

Deloitte said in May 2012 that they wouldn't touch anything with RR involved. He had to be hidden/ behind offshore company (layers).

 

There is alleged leaked correspondence between Green&Co and Rizvi from May 2012.

 

Green fronts the con to get as much money in and out as soon as possible whilst at the sametime setting up onerous contracts for continual bleed and to act as financial 'mines'.

 

Green works his ticket / becomes toxic (with CW re-appearence and exits May 2013).

 

Mysterious shareholders need representation on board to replace Green, so cue letter of requisition (May 2013) for the appointments of Chris Morgan and James Easdale..and for the removal of Malcolm Murray and Phil Cartmell.

 

9th of July 2013

MM and PC leave the board and James Easdale appointed.

Plus Strand Hanson appointed NOMAD & broker.

Note. Cenkos probably left the building because without MM they didn't want to risk their reputation further.

 

August 2013 sees Green return (uses P&M report as justification) and Daniel Stewart get their foot in the Ibrox door immediately/broker. (Green had wanted DS from the beginning/IPO but MM had vetoed it). WS (chairman) leaves as soon as CG returns.

DS get the NOMAD gig in late September and start with annoucements on Greens shares.

 

With DS on board, the sp.ivs have familiar faces near and more 'leeway'.

 

 

 

 

Note.

That Jack Irvine/MH has always been on this precise side of the fence.

eg. He briefs against Graham Wallace.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So you concede that the current board alongside Stockbridge, may have been deliberately misleading the support and the markets.

 

You ask why Stockbridge would want to do the club (RIFC) any favours.

1. Because the club were complicit to a degree in how things were played and he benefited.

 

2. Because the contacts that helped finance the purchase of assets and have previously employed BS elsewhere (pre Rangers) are still involved (eg. Blue Pitch/Margarita) .... ie. a network of sp.ivs that he will want to keep in with and may still be benefitting from.

 

It is useful to look into the background of 'players' involved, their tie-ins as it helps illustrate the CONTINUATION from June 2012 to the present boardroom (including major influences).

 

Believe it or not I put in the phrase that you highlighted because I could see that there may well have been a reason but I was looking for someone to highlight the reasons.

 

It's possible that the Board or perhaps someone within the Board set out to deliberately mislead shareholders and its equally possible that it was a genuine mistake.

 

One wonders if AIM will consider it a sufficiently serious matter to investigate. If they do, you may well get your answer.

 

Goal Germany!

Edited July 9, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I would say that diverts us from the important issues surrounding yesterdays regulatory notice.

 

I don't normally comment on the print media as I don't read newspapers.

 

The point I was making was that I criticised the Sport for an inaccurate headline; but the much criticised Record got it right this time.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Further to post 45.

 

 

Without going in deeply I'm getting at the continuation

 

(May 2012)

Rizvi / Green&Co

 

(Today)

Rizvi / Morgan (declared rep. for the mysterious as per Houssami/BPH) / Green in shadows / Easdale .

 

 

 

 

IMO Rafat Rizvi (RR) was one of the initial people behind Green and the raising of the money to purchase the assets. ie. behind at least one of the mysterious groups eg. Margarita.

 

Deloitte said in May 2012 that they wouldn't touch anything with RR involved. He had to be hidden/ behind offshore company (layers).

 

There is alleged leaked correspondence between Green&Co and Rizvi from May 2012.

 

Green fronts the con to get as much money in and out as soon as possible whilst at the sametime setting up onerous contracts for continual bleed and to act as financial 'mines'.

 

Green works his ticket / becomes toxic (with CW re-appearence and exits May 2013).

 

Mysterious shareholders need representation on board to replace Green, so cue letter of requisition (May 2013) for the appointments of Chris Morgan and James Easdale..and for the removal of Malcolm Murray and Phil Cartmell.

 

9th of July 2013

MM and PC leave the board and James Easdale appointed.

Plus Strand Hanson appointed NOMAD & broker.

Note. Cenkos probably left the building because without MM they didn't want to risk their reputation further.

 

August 2013 sees Green return (uses P&M report as justification) and Daniel Stewart get their foot in the Ibrox door immediately/broker. (Green had wanted DS from the beginning/IPO but MM had vetoed it). WS (chairman) leaves as soon as CG returns.

DS get the NOMAD gig in late September and start with annoucements on Greens shares.

 

With DS on board, the sp.ivs have familiar faces near and more 'leeway'.

 

 

 

 

Note.

That Jack Irvine/MH has always been on this precise side of the fence.

eg. He briefs against Graham Wallace.

 

I can see that you have studied this in depth whereas I haven't studied it at all; so happy to leave the conspiracy theories to you.