Rangers delist from AIM

[der Berliner 3,196]

Thursday, 02 April 2015 17:30

 

Paul Murray Statement

 

...

 

One of the platforms keen to take us is ISDX. This is an exchange that Rangers used to trade on and it is also a trading platform for Arsenal.

 

We will have a full platform set up by the end of May but have made arrangements to have a temporary facility operating by next Tuesday morning.

 

ISDX - RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC (Suspended)

 

While we all should be wary in the wake of what happened since 2011, those in power right now do what they do for the best interest of Rangers FC. That is good enough for this Bear. That it will not please all Bluenoses and they might stumble a bit on its way is to be expected, but does not change my opinion on their work.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

We all know this rumour is agenda driven nonsense. BH should stop hanging about with Celtc fans in the city.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I am less certain that the matter is as clear cut as you suggest. The prospective NOMAD had determined that the new board members were fit and proper. The Board is responsible for the running of the company and its corporate governance. Therefore, one might have expected the NOMAD to have some confidence that the new board would act properly notwithstanding what might have happened in the past with the previous board. The NOMAD also indicated that the decision was taken after discussions with the exchange. It is possible the exchange indicated that they had concerns about the listing of Rangers and this might be because of the history of the listing. But there could be additional factors such as the going concern issue relating to Rangers, the exchange not having as much confidence in the new board as the NOMAD and so on.Therefore, Murray may be correct that the history of the listing was the major factor in the decision that has been taken but it is also possible that there were other factors.

 

I'd say that much is relatively obvious.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

My understanding is that you're incorrect with regard to the T3B stuff.

 

As for King, lending money would be putting the cart before the horse. I'm sure the SFA will be made well aware of his intentions and abilities in that regard before making their decision.

 

Corporate governance is either wanted or not. Let's be consistent on that please.

 

I am sorry but I still see no reason why King should not lend the club money at this time; he's not going to sell his shares if he is not approved, or is he?

 

I any event, he declared himself confident that the SFA would find him fit and proper.

Edited April 3, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[The Deedle 0]

I've backed King and the new board all the way and still do. In fact I was originally only interested in this thread because I just wanted to know if a share issue could still be done. But I've seen this too many times now not to recognize when a director is not giving us the full story. The advantages of the listing are mostly irrelevant to me so long as investment can still be given to the club. But surely a good plan going forward and funding package would have convinced a nomad to accept us. Don't they just want to get paid like everyone else and to know you'll fulfill your end of the agreement. Maybe be wrong but all this old board and financial mess stuff isn't fully convincing here as I've read the accounts were not that bad all things considering.

 

I'm guessing if they could not convince a nomad then it must be to do with guaranteeing short term funding. All the recent talk has been about funding over 3 years instead of the front loaded version we heard earlier. I still believe the club will be run much better in the long term but this is exactly the sort of thing the new board could have done without. I know I've given my two bobs worth but its the kind of issue that lends itself to speculation as no doubt will continue to be the case.

 

The club would do well to come out with some concrete proposals so we can move on from this. Just looks to me at the moment like its going to be another cheap deal, with us fans footing the bill.

 

No point us all getting into spats on here in defending the new board, we've been through too much of this crap not to be able to expect better answers from directors now.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Dave King is a very different individual from Whyte. Yes, he's had his problems in SA but his net worth and good intentions are unlikely to be questioned in the same way Whyte's were subsequently found to be so wanted.

 

Once again, you seem to be demonstrating a worrying lack of consistency. You suggested any fit and proper reasoning for King's lack of investment so far was a feeble excuse but then said he may not be considered an appropriate associate of the club by the authorities.

 

This is either a hurdle or not. It can't be feeble one minute or a grand obstacle the next.

 

I see no inconsistency.

 

I agree that Whyte and King are very different in many respects; but that is not the point I'm making. The point is that having once been thwarted in their attempts to vet a (prospective) Rangers director, the SFA will not be thwarted again.

 

The excuse is feeble because it is not relevant to King lending the club money, he will not lose that money if he is not found fit and proper by the SFA.

 

The hurdle is indeed a big obstacle but it's an obstacle to King becoming a director; it is not an obstacle to him lending the club money.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I've backed King and the new board all the way and still do. In fact I was originally only interested in this thread because I just wanted to know if a share issue could still be done. But I've seen this too many times now not to recognize when a director is not giving us the full story. The advantages of the listing are mostly irrelevant to me so long as investment can still be given to the club. But surely a good plan going forward and funding package would have convinced a nomad to accept us. Don't they just want to get paid like everyone else and to know you'll fulfill your end of the agreement. Maybe be wrong but all this old board and financial mess stuff isn't fully convincing here as I've read the accounts were not that bad all things considering.

 

I'm guessing if they could not convince a nomad then it must be to do with guaranteeing short term funding. All the recent talk has been about funding over 3 years instead of the front loaded version we heard earlier. I still believe the club will be run much better in the long term but this is exactly the sort of thing the new board could have done without. I know I've given my two bobs worth but its the kind of issue that lends itself to speculation as no doubt will continue to be the case.

 

The club would do well to come out with some concrete proposals so we can move on from this. Just looks to me at the moment like its going to be another cheap deal, with us fans footing the bill.

 

No point us all getting into spats on here in defending the new board, we've been through too much of this crap not to be able to expect better answers from directors now.

 

Another statement of the obvious; it's clear we are not being told the whole story here.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I am not provoking you, merely referring to your own words posted inthis forum. What you did to Mr Bennett and his intentions towards Rangers FC at the time was despicable - as you have further proven with your continual diatribe against any other hnw Rangers man who has tried to help the club. It was certainly well rehearsed and premeditated, of that there is no doubt.

 

You absolutely supported the regime that damn near killed off our club - right until the bitter end. Regardless of all the evidence of wrong doing. That is not the work of a Rangers supporter, voting to kill off our club. Did you want our club dead? Because it looks like it. You have tried all you can to stop messrs King, Bennett and Murray whilst cling to the lamb's dick right to the point where it fell off.

 

Fanatical supporter of Rangers for 58 years? Actions speak louder than words.

 

You remind me of a psycopath - I cannot have her so know one else will have her. That is why I have concerns. For the fleas you mention as well.

 

I have consistently stated that I do not want King any nearer our club than I wanted S Easdale but the reason is well documented and has nothing to do with their wealth or lack of it.

 

On the contrary to what you say, actually I was in the vanguard or trying to get high net worth individuals to invest in the club, the most notable being the highest net worth person in Scotland, Jim McColl.

 

My actions as a supporter do indeed speak louder than words: I have followed Rangers from the north of Scotland (and since you mention it, nearly had MY dick frozen off in Peterhead) to the south of England and through 32 matches in 21 countries in Europe; from Shearer and Caldow to Foster and Wallace; just who exactly are you to question my loyalty to the Club.

 

Most of the rest of what you say is just utter nonsense but I'm not going to not dignify your comments or personal attacks with any further response.

[der Berliner 3,196]

I am sorry but I still see no reason why King should not lend the club money at this time; he's not going to sell his shares if he is not approved, or is he?

 

I any event, he declared himself confident that the SFA would find him fit and proper.

 

Why would he or anyone else do it unless it is or becomes necessary?

[WATP_Greg 0]

Personally I'm not overly concerned.

 

Allows people who were already against the board to take shots at them but if the statement released is correct then what were they to do.

 

If the investors are lined up regardless then this will be little but a footnote in the near future.