Frankie 8,150 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 The first point was a question and the emboldened quote that you highlight was merely mirroring the jibe at me by Dave P to whose post #15 I was replying. So far as I am aware up to this point in time, King has not lent or invested any money in the Club. I supported Llambias because of his cost cutting agenda which was necessary; naturally if I had known about the terms of the loan deals I would not have supported him; and indeed have said that he and Leach (if involved) should be held to account for those transactions and that the deals at least in respect of Bigirimana and Ferguson should be repudiated. Upon enquiry, I do not believe there was ever any realistic prospect of King being acceptable under AIM rules and there were also questions over P Murray. Therefore I stand by my opinion that King either made a serious error of judgement or deliberately deceived in terms of his intentions. I accept that the word "guilty" is emotive and accept your admonition in that respect. King and Murray were considered fit and proper. The club was not by the exchange so the NOMAD turned down the full-time position. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Aha ... There is no reason why delisting should adversely impact on the value of the Company's shares RFC That statement is a matter of opinion and one that I for one would certainly dispute. Edited April 2, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 RST Statement on Delisting: https://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-statement-on-aim-delisting/ The Rangers Supporters Trust (RST) notes the Rangers board's RNS announcement on delisting from the AIM market. It is unfortunate that the company is having to delist because of the mismanagement and, at times, malicious neglect of previous directors and Nomads of the company. It is clear that some who remain supportive of the previous regime are attempting to portray this issue as being a broken promise by the new board. We do not adhere to that view and do not believe it stands up to any sensible scrutiny. We are entirely satisfied that the new board has done everything it could to maintain the AIM listing and we are happy that they did not in any way mislead shareholders by stating that they had a Nomad willing to work with them. It was made clear by the new board that any Nomad's involvement would be subject to due diligence on the company itself. In fact, we are aware that more than one Nomad was willing to clear the current and prospective directors as fit and proper. The only barriers to a continued listing have been the reputational damage done by the complete absence of corporate governance of previous boards and the reluctance of the AIM regulator to allow a new Nomad to take position. The AIM regulator has watched a succession of boards wreak havoc on the club, and allowed previous Nomads to neglect their duties. It is, in our opinion, ironic that at the point where there are finally credible people in the Rangers boardroom they decide to take action. If they wished to remove the company from AIM they should have done so at the point of the transition from Daniel Stewart to WH Ireland. Previous company directors must now be held to account for their disgraceful actions and we will be making that a priority for this organisation along with further significant investment in the club. We do not believe that the delisting will impact the RST or other interested parties' ability to invest in Rangers and we look forward to discussing the practicalities of that with the new board very soon. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 I wonder what Ashley & the remaining Institutional investors course of action might be now ?? hopefully he will sell up and fuck off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Well what are they worth then? The same as they were yesterday 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Upon enquiry, I do not believe there was ever any realistic prospect of King being acceptable under AIM rules and there were also questions over P Murray. So you are saying that the Club's Statement contains a lie? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Well what are they worth then? What anyone is prepared to pay for them in a restricted market. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Rangers have only been registered on AIM for 15 years of our 143 year existence , I first bought shares privately in 1983 , it made no difference then and will make absolutely no difference going forwards , there has been no end of rubbish written about this on forums and mischief making aplenty , some who know better should be ashamed of themselves . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 What the Ashley regime did previous to the King taking over has left a deluge of historical toxicity for the club. I'm in the cleaning business,, in most occasions you have to strip a job down to the bare bricks, to give a place a thorough clean out. I see the club being delisted on the AIM, as part of the detoxing process for the club . I am also a shareholder, this doesn't unduly worry me, the club might get back on AIM one day, can't say it bothers me either way. A few years down the line if or when we get back on the AIM, with the new board we will be far healthier and cleaner. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 What anyone is prepared to pay for them in a restricted market. They will pay what ever the agreed price is between the seller and prospective buyer , and well you know , stop talking absolute dross mate , you should know better , in fact you do know better 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.