chilledbear 16 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The Company confirms that it has today drawn down the sum of £5 million from the credit facility agreement entered into between SportsDirect.com Retail Limited (SD) and Rangers Football Club Limited (RFC) and has repaid the loan of £3 million to RFC provided by Mash Holdings Limited (MASH). As a result of this repayment, all rights of MASH to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company and RFC have now lapsed. SD has the right to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company, but has not currently exercised this right. Further to the Company's announcement on 27 October 2014, the Company would like to clarify the position in relation to any rights of MASH to appoint directors of RFC as referred to in that announcement. The correct position is that MASH never had the right to directly appoint directors of RFC. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8461-company-announcement 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 so Mash doesn't have the rights to nominate 2 directors but Sports Direct do oh good...that's all right then 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Further to the Company's announcement on 27 October 2014, the Company would like to clarify the position in relation to any rights of MASH to appoint directors of RFC as referred to in that announcement. The correct position is that MASH never had the right to directly appoint directors of RFC. So when the club issued the statement saying "Under the terms of the Facility MASH has the right to appoint up to 2 directors on the board of directors of RFC" they lied. More correctly, Somers and Shackleton , who put their names to the statement lied and misled the market. This seems to be consistent theme, that the board of RIFC issue statements that contain lies and none of the regulatory authorities seem to bother. Action should be taken to safeguard the rights of all the shareholders. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 All rights of MASH to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company and RFC have now lapsed. SD has the right to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company, but has not currently exercised this right. The correct position is that MASH never had the right to directly appoint directors of RFC. What??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 sooooo, MASH have already had their nominations appointed to the Board, and now SD can nominate 2 directors. There is also no mention that MASH's appointed directors will have to stand down in favour of SD's nominations. Therefore MA could have 4 people on the board doing his bidding.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 All rights of MASH to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company and RFC have now lapsed.SD has the right to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company, but has not currently exercised this right. The correct position is that MASH never had the right to directly appoint directors of RFC. What??? They are contradicting themselves one paragraph later. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 So when the club issued the statement saying "Under the terms of the Facility MASH has the right to appoint up to 2 directors on the board of directors of RFC" they lied. More correctly, Somers and Shackleton , who put their names to the statement lied and misled the market. This seems to be consistent theme, that the board of RIFC issue statements that contain lies and none of the regulatory authorities seem to bother. Action should be taken to safeguard the rights of all the shareholders. 'regulatory authorities' what a load of crap. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 So, are they preparing to try and appoint two new board members as soon as the current board are removed following the EGM? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,219 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Unless I am mistaken, all rights SD has on director seats, securities and whatnot go out of the window once their loan is being repaid? If that is the case, do we expect them to nominate 2 directors that might be out of the door e.g. fourteen days later? Edited February 4, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 So when the club issued the statement saying "Under the terms of the Facility MASH has the right to appoint up to 2 directors on the board of directors of RFC" they lied. More correctly, Somers and Shackleton , who put their names to the statement lied and misled the market. This seems to be consistent theme, that the board of RIFC issue statements that contain lies and none of the regulatory authorities seem to bother. Action should be taken to safeguard the rights of all the shareholders. Tom Winnifirth's podcast on Paul Shackleton reveals just what this guy is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.