Rangers delist from AIM

[Bluedell 5,329]

What anyone is prepared to pay for them in a restricted market.

 

We survived for years pre-Whyte with a restricted market so not sure why we can't go forward on that basis as well.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

4 March 2015

The company has been informed that its nominated adviser does not believe that it can satisfy the London Stock Exchange in relation to its NOMAD obligations in respect of the appropriateness of the company's securities to be admitted to AIM, and therefore the NOMAD has resigned as nominated adviser to Rangers with immediate effect.

 

That was corporate speak for WH Ireland's opinion that King (and possibly P Murray) would not be regarded as "fit and proper" and therefore would not be acceptable as directors under AIM Rules.

 

Apparently, whichever firm or firms that were approached recently considered that the current directors and Mr King were "fit and proper".

 

So there is a difference of opinion here and we will never know the answer.

 

Secondly if you read the statement closely:

 

Secondly, they have to be satisfied that there are no reputational and / or historical issues with the profile and nature of the Company seeking to appoint which might adversely impact on the Nomad

 

it is, somewhat surprising that given the high standing of the new Board, the were not able to convince any prospective NOMAD they they could overcome

 

the well documented failings in corporate governance and management of those who previously controlled the Company

 

Lastly, if that was indeed the issue, one wonders why any prospective NOMAD embarked on the process since the failings and complaints were indeed highly publicised.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I wonder what Ashley & the remaining Institutional investors course of action might be now ??

 

Perhaps they should be looking at themselves and regretting supporting corrupt and incompetent directors for a number of years.

 

Other than selling their shares, there's not much they can do. It's their own fault for voting for directors who have ran the company so badly that resulted in all these complaints.

[Little General 80]

4 March 2015

 

That was corporate speak for WH Ireland's opinion that King (and possibly P Murray) would not be regarded as "fit and proper" and therefore would not be acceptable as directors under AIM Rules.

 

Apparently, whichever firm or firms that were approached recently considered that the current directors and Mr King were "fit and proper".

 

So there is a difference of opinion here and we will never know the answer.

 

Secondly if you read the statement closely:

 

 

 

it is, somewhat surprising that given the high standing of the new Board, the were not able to convince any prospective NOMAD they they could overcome

 

 

 

Lastly, if that was indeed the issue, one wonders why any prospective NOMAD embarked on the process since the failings and complaints were indeed highly publicised.

 

to suggest King and directors were not fit and proper based on these charlatans statement is laughable

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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

 

It's not dross, mate, it is a fact, you just put it another way.

 

Buying and selling shares is no different from any other asset, there is a price at which one party offers to sell and a price at which another party is prepared to buy.

 

But let's compare the market for houses with a full or even AIM listing, where most anyone can offer to sell and most anyone can offer to buy; with a situation where you can only offer to sell and the other party can only offer to buy through private introduction equivalent to a " a matched bargain trading facility " in this example.

 

Under which method would you expect to obtain a better price for your asset?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

We survived for years pre-Whyte with a restricted market so not sure why we can't go forward on that basis as well.

 

We can indeed but I'm sure you would agree it's far from ideal.

 

See also #85.

[Bluedell 5,329]

4 March 2015

 

That was corporate speak for WH Ireland's opinion that King (and possibly P Murray) would not be regarded as "fit and proper" and therefore would not be acceptable as directors under AIM Rules.

 

Apparently, whichever firm or firms that were approached recently considered that the current directors and Mr King were "fit and proper".

 

So there is a difference of opinion here and we will never know the answer.

 

The answer really isn't that difficult. You can either believe an incompetent and biased Nomad that allowed incorrect statement after statement to be issued and allowed a lack of corporate governance to remain unchecked or you believe the current board.

 

Secondly if you read the statement closely:

 

it is, somewhat surprising that given the high standing of the new Board, the were not able to convince any prospective NOMAD they they could overcome

It's difficult to wipe out over 2 years of bad running when there have been numerous board changes in the past that resulted in no change to the way that the company was run.

 

 

 

Lastly, if that was indeed the issue, one wonders why any prospective NOMAD embarked on the process since the failings and complaints were indeed highly publicised.

"If" that's the issue? So you're suggesting that the statement might be untrue? Suggesting that someone's a liar just to make your point is not impressive and just comes across as being very bitter.

 

One would expect a prospective Nomad to do a detailed review and not just rely on newspaper reports and football forums.

[Calgacus 8]

Maybe the potential NOMAD didn't fancy dealing with the deluge of complaints that will emanate from sections of the Celtic Support once we get back on a proper footing. Causing trouble with regulatory bodies is part of their modus operandi. They would also be aware that their is a block of unhappy shareholders lurking in the background who might be looking to cause problems when it suits their agenda. We may well be more trouble than their annual retainer would be worth.

[Tannochsidebear 2,312]

There is definitely something not quite right with this. I might be putting 2 and 2 together here and making 5, but it seems King was never a fan of AIM, and was looking for a way out of AIM while still having to be looking keen to remain part of it to satisfy the likes of R&M whose votes he got at the EGM, votes that may have been crucial in gaining power.

 

The statement makes it too easy to blame the previous board for AIM refusing a new NOMAD, or a "reputable" NOMAD refusing the gig, but I am guessing had King really wanted to rejoin AIM, he would have found a NOMAD happy to accept the gig without any difficulty at all.

 

As long as shares can be easily traded I will be quite happy. I do not want a matched trade facility, as there is no way to buy out those in power should the need ever arise. This was a big problem in the Murray era, and is a warning we should heed. For our fans groups like RST and RF who have successfully been recruiting members to buy more shares, these shares have to be readily available, not on a matched trade basis or through expensive stockbrokers.

 

I see the RST have jumped to the defence of the board immediately with a spectacularly quick statement for a notoriously slow mechanical organisation. One would almost think it was co-ordinated! I would prefer them to have a bit more balance, while we are all happy (or should be) that the scumbags have been thrown out, we must still scrutinise our new board at every turn to ensure they dont get carried away, or take our support for granted.

 

I certainly dont go as far as some on here with shameful accusations of lying or mistrust of the new board, but this delisting was well warned to us and has come about. It may be that it is like a broken clock that is right twice a day, but it is a little unnerving when that lot get something spot on. The new board will have to sort this out within the "few weeks" timescale they have promised - we will be watching with interest.

[Frankie 8,150]

4 March 2015

 

That was corporate speak for WH Ireland's opinion that King (and possibly P Murray) would not be regarded as "fit and proper" and therefore would not be acceptable as directors under AIM Rules.

 

Apparently, whichever firm or firms that were approached recently considered that the current directors and Mr King were "fit and proper".

 

So there is a difference of opinion here and we will never know the answer.

 

Secondly if you read the statement closely:

 

 

 

it is, somewhat surprising that given the high standing of the new Board, the were not able to convince any prospective NOMAD they they could overcome

 

 

 

Lastly, if that was indeed the issue, one wonders why any prospective NOMAD embarked on the process since the failings and complaints were indeed highly publicised.

 

Seems obvious to me WHI resigned as part of Llambias's scored earth policy of the time. In effect they wanted to cause as much problems for the new regime as possible.

 

Their opinion on Dave King or Paul Murray means little to me given their disgraceful efforts while contracted to the club. The same goes for AIM if I'm honest.

 

That's not excusing King's own over-reaching but let's keep this in perspective and approach the issue with some balance.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Frankie