Rangers delist from AIM

[T-1000 174]

Yes we do. AIM is requiring us to delist because we do not have a NOMAD.

Possible new NOMAD(s) will not accept us as a client because of historical governance of previous boards - according to Murray.

What else do we need to know - unless you don't believe Murray?

 

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.

[Frankie 8,150]

My understanding is that T3B are unhappy with only one place on the Board and the more so given that they have provided the most recent loan.

 

I see no reason why King lending money to the Club would be seen as adverse by the SFA; on the contrary it might be seen as evidence of good intent. The SFA "fit and proper" rules are clear and he will be judged against those. There is no governance issue here and hence no reason not to lend the Club money. It's just an excuse and a feeble one at that.

 

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.

[Frankie 8,150]

The SFA's decision on King being fit and proper or otherwise is anything but a formality.

 

One reason they will be very careful this time is precisely because Whyte's lawyers gave them the run around last time until it was too late.

 

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.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Frankie

[Bluedell 5,329]

“I have ......., ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in.

 

“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.

 

we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.” ...

 

Quite so, Mr King.

 

Surely the bit to have in bold is " the key component for any Nomad is the club itself" and subsequent events back him up completely?

[BEARGER 1,829]

My understanding is that T3B are unhappy with only one place on the Board and the more so given that they have provided the most recent loan.

 

I see no reason why King lending money to the Club would be seen as adverse by the SFA; on the contrary it might be seen as evidence of good intent. The SFA "fit and proper" rules are clear and he will be judged against those. There is no governance issue here and hence no reason not to lend the Club money. It's just an excuse and a feeble one at that.

 

DP of the 3B joined the board first later on came the loan.

 

And your point is caller.......(they have done the right thing and King has not, perhaps?)

 

My point is that the 3B accepted one place on the board (possibly with more to come). They then gave the loan to the club when it would be so easy of them to put pressure on DK to do so and/or demanded another seat or two on the board.

You must move on, Llambias ain't coming back onto the board. You were so wrong in your assessment of him and your continual sniping at the board and DK in particular has a good few of us wondering what the game is.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I would suggest that statements form this Board should be subjected to the same scrutiny as statements from the last Board.

 

So in your case you blindly accept what they have to say and refuse to accept that they tell any lies. In everyone else's case, we wait until lies are proven before disbelieving them.

 

There is no way that KingCo would put out a statement that in any way accepted any part of the blame for their inability to back up his claim to have a NOMAD in place and that the shares would not be de-listed.

Even if that was true there's a difference between not accepting blame and lying, as you were suggesting. Just because they guys you supported were proven to be liars and crooks doesn't mean others aren't.

 

I'm sorry but I can't say any more on here.

If only that were true

 

Rumours are rife that there has been a major fall out between KingCo and T3B over his refusal to provide short term finance and boardroom representation.

There are always lots of rumours, many of them started by Celtic fans or people who don't have a clue.

 

 

I am quite sure they have been very careful not to tell any lies.

That's NOT what you were suggesting earlier in the thread.

 

My understanding is that it cost approx. £500,000 to be listed on AIM and that money is now lost.

It would be an ongoing expense and therefore not having it as a cost is a saving. Expenses always are "lost".

[Tannochsidebear 2,312]

Rumours are rife that there has been a major fall out between KingCo and T3B over his refusal to provide short term finance and boardroom representation.

 

I have it on very good authority that the rumours are wrong, and have been created by anti-board antagonists who cannot accept the EGM decision. More spin and bluster from Irvine and his employers, and those of the 3names ilk. They remind me of tossers on twitter who still have a "45" twibbon 6 months after their defeat, and coincidentally i'm sure they are also usually to be found with anti-Rangers sentiments.

[Frankie 8,150]

I have it on very good authority that the rumours are wrong, and have been created by anti-board antagonists who cannot accept the EGM decision. More spin and bluster from Irvine and his employers, and those of the 3names ilk. They remind me of tossers on twitter who still have a "45" twibbon 6 months after their defeat, and coincidentally i'm sure they are also usually to be found with anti-Rangers sentiments.

 

Rumours are all well and good but when the facts tell us something very different then they should be easily dismissed by any fair-minded person.

 

Rumour: T3B unhappy about board representation

Fact: Douglas Park appointed as a director the same day as Paul Murray

 

Rumour: T3B unhappy about lack of King contribution to loan

Fact: T3B provided loan with no security and no demands about further board representation

 

Fair-minded interpretation: If they were unhappy with the status quo, they a) would not have provided a loan and/or b) they'd have attached stipulations to it after three weeks of boardroom activity post-EGM.

 

No source required.

[Tannochsidebear 2,312]

Rumours are all well and good but when the facts tell us something very different then they should be easily dismissed by any fair-minded person.

 

Rumour: T3B unhappy about board representation

Fact: Douglas Park appointed as a director the same day as Paul Murray

 

Rumour: T3B unhappy about lack of King contribution to loan

Fact: T3B provided loan with no security and no demands about further board representation

 

Fair-minded interpretation: If they were unhappy with the status quo, they a) would not have provided a loan and/or b) they'd have attached stipulations to it after three weeks of boardroom activity post-EGM.

 

No source required.

 

It is all quite simple when you think about it logically Frankie. I hope others can understand this simple summation. I would urge fellow Bears to refrain from any further attempt to introduce scumbags rumours into the fray without any evidence other than what a mate read on a Tim/Irvine inspired blog. We must be clever enough to be able to understand what is clearly mischief-making from anything with a grain of truth in it.

 

Some posters desire for our board (and/or King) to fail just to save face from a proven error of judgement is quite worrying.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

I won't go into any great detail either despite the provocation but I am going to correct you on two points and assure you on another:

 

1. I never attacked John Bennett. For reasons that are well known and well rehearsed I could not support this appointment to the Board of Rangers FC in 2012 but I have made it clear that I now support his appointment to the Board of Rangers International FC. He is a high calibre investment manager.
   
2. 
   
3. I have been a fanatical supporter of Rangers FC for 58 years.
   

 

 

Thank you for your concern for my well-being; but I can assure you that I wouldn't harm a flea never mind myself.

 

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.

 

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

 

[inappropriate stuff removed - Frankie]

Edited April 6, 2015 by Frankie