colinstein 294 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Former Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray fails to back current board in bid to allot new shares to external investors 06:00, 5 DEC 2015 UPDATED 07:07, 5 DEC 2015 BY GARY RALSTON MURRAY owns around a quarter of 1 percent of the Ibrox club, and failed to vote in any of the key motions at last week's AGM. SHARES 4 COMMENTS Enter your e-mail for our daily newsletter Subscribe Malcolm Murray: Arrived June 2012, left July 2013. Ex-Rangers chairman accused the Rangers board of failing the club's fans by not granting them security over Ibrox. Ex-Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray RANGERS shareholder and ex-chairman Malcolm Murray refused to back the current board in their bid to allot new shares to outside investors. Murray failed to vote in any of the key motions at last week’s AGM, including Resolution 10. It would have allowed Dave King to offer shares in the club to specific investors, rather than all shareholders at the same time. The board failed by 1.2 per cent to secure the necessary 75 per cent support of shareholders and Murray’s lack of support has raised eyebrows. He owns 200,000 shares - around 0.25 per cent of the club - and it’s believed he also holds sway over a number of minority, institutional investors. Their collective support for Resolution 10 would have seen it pushed through, but it’s understood they did not vote either. A Rangers statement said: “The directors will consider carefully shareholders views on this vote, consult (where practicable) with those who did not vote or opposed the resolution and identify the company’s next steps after that process is complete.” The move will also prevent soft loans currently provided to Rangers by numerous investors, including King and the Three Bears, from being converted into shares as planned. Murray declined to comment. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-rangers-chairman-malcolm-murray-6956074 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Did I just read "soft loans"? NB: I know that they are, but it is IMHO clear cynicism by the DR to throw it at us, after all the "soft loan" stuff with the Yahoos and Coop / Desmond became public. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Disappointed in MM here whatever the reason - opposition is only one possibility, laziness or forgetfulness are others - but 0.25% would not have been enough anyway and the bit about "it’s believed he also holds sway over a number of minority, institutional investors." is unlikely to be true in a situation where voting for a resolution would mean diluting their own investment. Edited December 5, 2015 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Did I just read "soft loans"? NB: I know that they are, but it is IMHO clear cynicism by the DR to throw it at us, after all the "soft loan" stuff with the Yahoos and Coop / Desmond became public. It isn't cynicism when they actually ARE soft loans. Soft loans is the generally accepted term for loans with no repayment terms. There isn't always a conspiracy/agenda just because you look for it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) It isn't cynicism when they actually ARE soft loans. Soft loans is the generally accepted term for loans with no repayment terms. There isn't always a conspiracy/agenda just because you look for it Nor was I implying one*, as you might have spotted right after the "NB". But try find this term in connection with any of the 3Bears' or King's loans before today ... or indeed before various people pointing at the Yahoos' soft loans when the unwashed bark up the EBT tree re financial doping and sorting integrity. * Could it be that you look for that notion in my posts though? Edited December 5, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Nor was I implying one*, as you might have spotted right after the "NB". But try find this term in connection with any of the 3Bears' or King's loans before today ... or indeed before various people pointing at the Yahoos' soft loans when the unwashed bark up the EBT tree re financial doping and sorting integrity. * Could it be that you look for that notion in my posts though? IIIRC "soft loan" was the term used by the board when they were being discussed at the AGM. Edited December 5, 2015 by Thinker 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 IIIRC "soft loan" was the term used by the board when they were being discussed at the AGM. Good good. If so, fair enough ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 3,795 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Malcolm Murray: Arrived June 2012, left July 2013. Ex-Rangers chairman accused the Rangers board of failing the club's fans by not granting them security over Ibrox. Ex-Rangers chairman Malcolm MurrayRANGERS shareholder and ex-chairman Malcolm Murray refused to back the current board in their bid to allot new shares to outside investors. Murray failed to vote in any of the key motions at last week’s AGM, including Resolution 10. It would have allowed Dave King to offer shares in the club to specific investors, rather than all shareholders at the same time. The board failed by 1.2 per cent to secure the necessary 75 per cent support of shareholders and Murray’s lack of support has raised eyebrows. He owns 200,000 shares - around 0.25 per cent of the club - and it’s believed he also holds sway over a number of minority, institutional investors. Their collective support for Resolution 10 would have seen it pushed through, but it’s understood they did not vote either. A Rangers statement said: “The directors will consider carefully shareholders views on this vote, consult (where practicable) with those who did not vote or opposed the resolution and identify the company’s next steps after that process is complete.” The move will also prevent soft loans currently provided to Rangers by numerous investors, including King and the Three Bears, from being converted into shares as planned. Murray declined to comment. How important is this? Does this mean that the club needs to give a return in cash? If so then why are we discussing perceived bias. Seems quite important to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 How important is this? Does this mean that the club needs to give a return in cash? If so then why are we discussing perceived bias. Seems quite important to me. It's an irritant more than anything else certainly nothing fatal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 It's an irritant more than anything else certainly nothing fatal. Cheers for that Forlan - but what about this claim? http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...M_voting_ban/? "SHAREHOLDERS opposing the current Rangers board are taking legal advice after it emerged they had been prohibited from voting over crucial decisions regarding the club. 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.