Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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???

Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by der Berliner
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.