Jump to content

 

 

Has the boards left hand been introduced to the right hand???


Recommended Posts

From the initial Robert Sarver rejection:

While the Directors welcome Mr Sarver's approach, they believe that, notwithstanding the current financial difficulties, the proposal does not adequately value a controlling interest in the Company and accordingly the resolution to approve the placing is unlikely to achieve the 75% majority required. The Directors do not intend to hold the General Meeting which would be necessary to implement the proposal.

 

From todays rejection of the revised bid:

The revised proposal by Mr Sarver was similar to his first proposal in the respect that it sought a placing of 100 million shares (to be priced at 20p in this proposal) ("Placing") which, would require the approval of shareholders (at least a 75% majority) at a general meeting. The Board of Rangers rejected the first proposal from Mr Sarver on 6 January on the basis that the Board felt it unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming. Following receipt of the revised proposal from Mr Sarver, the Board has sought the views of a number of major shareholders on this revised proposal and has reached the same conclusion, namely that the resolution to approve the placing is unlikely to achieve the 75% majority required. Accordingly, once again, the Directors do not intend to hold the General Meeting which would be necessary to implement the revised proposal.

 

Can it REALLY be that difficult to maintain the same reasoning???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Annoucements from RIFC are seldom clear and informative statements for the market.

 

They have often been used to further mislead and confuse.

Given the general MO and behaviour, we have grown used to expecting such even in market annoucements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Board of Rangers rejected the first proposal from Mr Sarver on 6 January on the basis that the Board felt it unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming BECAUSE the proposal does not adequately value a controlling interest in the Company

 

 

I agree the board are guilty of malfeasance and incompetence and their statements usually poor and inconsistent, but in this case it seems to me that the statements are compatible. You can even put them together, insert the word, "because" and you end up with a fairly logical statement...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.