the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Indeed it says much about the people involved when they post 3 names rumours 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Indeed it says much about the people involved when they post 3 names rumours Sorry, GS I have no idea who or what is meant by "3 names". The rumour came to me from a source in the city. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 That's hilarious 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Yes, I read that FS. Are you suggesting that JPJ are providing their services to Rangers for free? No I'm suggesting it's no great loss losing the AIM listing and the cost of an alternative market will be a lot less. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 No I'm suggesting it's no great loss losing the AIM listing and the cost of an alternative market will be a lot less. But it's an additonal expense that we could do without is it not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Yes, thank you for that; but I would respectfully suggest that some ambiguity remains. The sentence clearly refers to the NOMAD and no NOMAD = no AIM listing. However, the sentences: clearly refer to AIM. So I would submit that it is not clear whether or not AIM would have re-listed the shares if a new NOMAD was appionted or not. Also as, I said earlier, and at least one other poster appears to consider, my information is that this was not the whole picture. BH I think you are repeating what I said above, i.e. if we have no NOMAD we voluntarily request delisting. These sentences do not refer to AIM. I would say that they present a dilemma for the company, Rangers, in complying with AIM rules. In other words, AIM does not have a problem in that their rules are clear, the problem lies with Rangers being unable to comply with AIM rules. It is up to Rangers to present an acceptable record such that a NOMAD feels that they can represent us in the AIM market. Since Rangers cannot convince a NOMAD to represent us then the problem wholly lies with Rangers and not the AIM market. To whom that responsibility falls on has yet to be proved conclusively, but the indications that we have seen over the past three years would appear to be clear. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 But it's an additonal expense that we could do without is it not? It'll be cheaper than maintaining the AIM listing. We spent far,far longer on the PLUS market (and its predecessor) than we did on AIM. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-board-facing-legal-battle-5450368 ... "Investor Kieran Prior is also upset and has even named the Nomad he claims the club tried and failed to appoint in recent weeks – Cantor Fitzgerald, who failed to respond to requests for a comment from Record Sport." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Sorry, GS I have no idea who or what is meant by "3 names". The rumour came to me from a source in the city. As I posted yesterday to no reply it's a bizarre rumour when Douglas Park was appointed as a director within hours of the EGM result. Did you point that out to your source? Douglas' group have board representation and while I'd hope there was some healthy competition of ideas with King and Murray, the suggestion they'll have fallen out over less than a million pounds given their solid reasoning for King not being able to commit to the short-term loan seems rather exaggerated to me. Let's be clear: King has yet to be confirmed as fit and proper (apart from an as yet unknown NOMAD). As such if King put money into the club or acted as a director then it may be the case the SFA would hold the club accountable. That's why King hasn't been involved so far which also suggests that corporate governance is now a priority instead of something we play fast and loose with. It's that risk and flouting of rules that ultimately caused AIM to delist us and anyone attempting to say differently is making mischief for reasons only known to themselves. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-board-facing-legal-battle-5450368 ... "Investor Kieran Prior is also upset and has even named the Nomad he claims the club tried and failed to appoint in recent weeks – Cantor Fitzgerald, who failed to respond to requests for a comment from Record Sport." While some of his points are valid (and I'd agree the club should be more open on their contact with CF and AIM) I'm not sure how legal action will help club. Prior and some of the critics on here may be equally better contacting AIM and WHI for why they allowed the situation to fester for so long in recent times. 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.