Stock Exchange Anouncement

[buster. 4,808]

Nomad asks if we are pleased with this deal?

 

I emailed the Nomad (and AIM) on 25/1 & today expressing my concern over “leaked insider announcement” on 23rd January stating that Rangers rule out using Ibrox stadium as loan security.

 

The LSE announcement today confirms that this leaked statement is true.

 

I seek assurances that this breach of AIM Rules 11 and 17 will be dealt with as a matter of some urgency.

Those responsible need to be taken to task & the NOMAD requires to ensure that appropriate procedures are put in place in order to comply with AIM rules

 

Response today.

 

Dear gd,

 

I am sorry that I have not replied to the last few e-mails but we have been busy, and I hope that this morning’s announcement is evidence of that, and further that you are pleased with it. The announcement this morning was not belated; the arrangements were signed very late last night. “Rangers rule out using Ibrox stadium as loan security” was only speculation, although it is possible that it could be a leak of the negotiations, if you have evidence of board correspondence being leaked and the source please let me (or the Regulation team at LSE) know.

 

Yours sincerely Paul

 

Paul Shackleton

Corporate Finance Director

 

 

 

My further response

 

Dear Mr Shackleton,

 

Thank you for your prompt reply.

 

Like many other shareholders, I

consider this deal to be in breach of Section 994 of the Companies Act.

Consider the fact that attendances are down by in excess of 20K for home games. As a performance indicator what does this say about the efficacy of the current board? ER2 does not seem to register with you I'm afraid!

 

Perhaps you can explain to me why you imagine stakeholders and shareholders are pleased with a deal so heavily weighted in favour of a minority shareholder and beneficiary of already onerous contracts?

 

gd

 

Good effort GD !

 

I'm reminded of the party that those involved with the CW takeover had in London back in June 2011.

Like them, you can imagine those presently involved laughing in our faces.

 

That e-mail from Shackleton is basically taking the pish.

Edited January 27, 2015 by buster.

[pete 2,499]

it really beggars belief

 

It doesen't, they are taking the piss.

[craig 5,195]

 

... up until the facility is used and then repaid.

 

And if used but not repaid ????

[der Berliner 3,245]

And if used but not repaid ????

 

One can obviously look at the worst-case scenario, but it is not the only scenario out there.

Edited January 27, 2015 by der Berliner

[craig 5,195]

One can obviously look at the worst-case scenario, but it is not the only scenario out there.

 

Better to be prepared for ANY eventuality where this Board are concerned. Worst-case scenario is always more likely than even most-likely scenario with this lot of incompetents.

[Darthter 542]

 

And if used but not repaid ????

 

or Admin2...

[Darthter 542]

One can obviously look at the worst-case scenario, but it is not the only scenario out there.

 

How do we repay the loan, when we have no cash & we have just signed away 26% of our holding in the company responsible for our merchandise???

 

we have increased our debt & reduced our income....

[pete 2,499]

 

or Admin2...

 

Ashely main creditor.

 

Ashely doesen't need Ibrox secured he already has all assets secured.

Och I will let you keep Ibrox I will just take the rest for now.

I really do have a heart.

[Darthter 542]

I may be wrong...but,

 

If an asset is provided as security against a loan & the loan is defaulted, then the asset is sold in order to repay the debt.

However, with the floating or fixed charge over the assets, in the event of insolvency I believe these then become the property of the one with the charge ie. Ashley could effectively get ALL our assets - EVERYTHING for £2m

[Calgacus 8]

I may be wrong...but,

 

If an asset is provided as security against a loan & the loan is defaulted, then the asset is sold in order to repay the debt.

However, with the floating or fixed charge over the assets, in the event of insolvency I believe these then become the property of the one with the charge ie. Ashley could effectively get ALL our assets - EVERYTHING for £2m

 

No under a Floating Charge the assets are sold and the proceeds go to the creditors. There is an order of precedence as to who gets first bite at the proceeds of the sale