Jump to content



Recommended Posts

read that as llambias and leach on board until loan for £3m repaid. Loan reapaid from £5m loan which also means they can now nominate another two most likely the same two after the egm.


does this now mean the call for the egm will need to start all over again as the two on original bill are gone? is that possible? could the same then happen again with the next loan of £5m?

Edited by trublusince1982
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Shareprophets today:


Rangers FC (RFC) has still not shown a shred of evidence to demonstrate that in accepting loan proposals from Mike Ashley and rejecting other refinancings it acted in the best interests of ALL shareholders. The Ashley minions who run the Rangers board are clearly loathed by the vast majority of Rangers supporters (rightly so in view of the refusal to provide evidence) and businessman Dave King has stated today that their days are numbered.


King is a colourful character having had a spit of bother with the South African tax authorities and having lost £20 million when Rangers last went bust. But he is a die-hard blue nose, unlike Ashley, and he reckons that he has the support of the 51% of shareholders needed to oust the board. And today he reckoned that the board would agree to hold an EGM this Friday, for later this month.


Interestingly King also said today that current Nomad, WH Ireland and its China fraud specialist Mr Paul Shackleton, was not “fit and proper”. Since we have seen absolutely no evidence that Shackleton has provided independent advice on the proposals, has acted on the unauthorised release of news or indeed gives a flying fuck about ordinary shareholders, I agree with King on that one.


King also stated that a new regime would not repay the Ashley loan at once but that there would be a “"forensic investigation" into the business dealings between Ashley and the Rangers board and if any "malfeasance" was found there would be a possibility of a claim against the billionaire Newcastle owner.


King also stated that “If any individuals behaved improperly then it is important that they are held accountable." Oh joy of joys. If a forensic investigation cannot uncover any evidence that in rejecting other refinancings and accepting the Ashley loans, Rangers board took full independent advice to show that the selected course of action was in the interests of ALL shareholders that would be a breach of Section 994 of the 2006 Companies Act. I presume that Mr King would be keen that anyone breaching the Companies Act, or advising individuals who breached the Companies Act, was reported to the Old Bill with full supporting documentation as a matter of urgency.


While King may not be an angel, it is hard to see how any Rangers shareholder or supporter could possibly vote at an EGM in support of the current board. All should ensure that their votes are cast in favour of regime change.


Since Rangers FC's current management and WH Ireland do not give a flying fuck about ordinary shareholders they have not bothered to issue a formal response - as an AIM listed company that cared would - to Mr King's statement.


- See more at: http://www.shareprophets.com/tag/section+994+of+the+2006+companies+act/#sthash.SF8EEWfR.dpuf

Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'Company statement' appears to be a breach of AIM rule 22!



Provision and disclosure of information


Rule 22

The AIM company must use all due skill and care to ensure that information provided to the


Exchange pursuant to this rule is correct, complete and not misleading.

If it comes to the subsequent attention of the AIM company that information provided does not


meet this requirement, the AIM company should advise the Exchange as soon as practicable.


All communications between the Exchange and an AIM company are confidential to the Exchange and its nominated adviser and should not be disclosed without the consent of the Exchange, save to appropriate advisers to the AIM company or as required by any other regulatory body or agency.



Dear Sir,


Are RIFC in breach of AIM Rule 22?


I am a shareholder in RIFC. Today RIFC has produced a statement that leaves me totally confused! The company statement has not been made through the LSE and seems to contradict two statements made through the LSE on Oct 27th & Nov 3rd. ( See below)



Has RIFC used all due skill and care to ensure that information provided to the Exchange on 27th Oct. and 3rd Nov. was correct, complete and not misleading?


Has RIFC advised the Exchange that the statements made on 27th October Oct and 3rd Nov. are incorrect?



Yours faithfully,






Company Announcement

. . .

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.






On 27th October, 2014,


Credit Facility of £2 million




"the Company has invited MASH to put forward the names of 2 nominees of its choice for appointment to the Board"




On 3rd November,


Appointment of Director


"The Board of Rangers announces that it has appointed Derek Llambias as a non-executive director. He was nominated as a director of its choice by MASH Holdings Limited pursuant to its agreement to withdraw its requisition for a General Meeting, as set out in the announcement dated 27 October 2014."

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.

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.