Stock Exchange Announcement

[djbroxybear 660]

22 April 2013

Rangers International Football Club plc

("Rangers" or the "Company")

Director Declaration

In accordance with AIM Rule 17 and further to the Company's admission document dated 7 December 2012, the Company confirms that in addition to the directorships disclosed in the admission document, Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge held directorships in the following companies, each of which is a subsidiary of the Company, at the time of publication of the document:

Charles Green

Rangers Retail Limited

SEVCO 5088 Limited

The Rangers Football Club Limited

Rangers Financial Services Limited

Rangers Matchday Services Limited

Rangers Media Investments Limited

Rangers Youth Development Limited

RANGERS.CO.UK Limited

Rangers Media Limited

Rangers Security Services Limited

The Rangers Shop Limited

Brian Stockbridge

The Rangers Football Club Limited

Rangers Financial Services Limited

Rangers Matchday Services Limited

Rangers Media Investments Limited

Rangers Youth Development Limited

RANGERS.CO.UK Limited

The Rangers Shop Limited

Rangers Retail Limited

Rangers Security Services Limited

Rangers Media Limited

http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exc...entId=11557259

[boss 1,941]

So we have two companies listed on the LSE both claiming Sevco 5088 Limited as its subsidiary. LSE really needs to get the finger out.

And for the avoidance of doubt, CG and BS's directorships in Rangers Media Limited has nothing to do with this redoubtable forum.

[mick1271 532]

?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Why mention BS,

[RangersFanBase 611]

Read this a couple of minutes ago. Don't really understand the point of LSE making the statement though?

[djbroxybear 660]

Why mention BS,

Could he be on his way out Ed ?

[mick1271 532]

If sevco 5088 has no assets and CG is the only director ,why not wind it up . If it was only created as a vehicle to buy us post cva ,why keep it going .I have no experience in company rules/ laws etc ,so what I have stated above may be Shite

[mick1271 532]

Why mention BS,

It shows he isn't connected to sevco 5088 (officially )

[djbroxybear 660]

If sevco 5088 has no assets and CG is the only director ,why not wind it up . If it was only created as a vehicle to buy us post cva ,why keep it going .I have no experience in company rules/ laws etc ,so what I have stated above may be Shite

Sevco 5088 was set up as a vehicle to buy the club. It stands to reason that vehicle would be under the same holding company as the rest. The reason it is still listed is because it has not yet been dissolved. The reason sevco Scotland is not listed is because it changed names shortly after the takeover. Being listed here does not say anything at all about 5088 owning assets or anything else at all.

[mick1271 532]

Sevco 5088 was set up as a vehicle to buy the club. It stands to reason that vehicle would be under the same holding company as the rest. The reason it is still listed is because it has not yet been dissolved. The reason sevco Scotland is not listed is because it changed names shortly after the takeover. Being listed here does not say anything at all about 5088 owning assets or anything else at all.

Cheers

[boss 1,941]

If sevco 5088 has no assets and CG is the only director ,why not wind it up . If it was only created as a vehicle to buy us post cva ,why keep it going .I have no experience in company rules/ laws etc ,so what I have stated above may be Shite

CG is in the process of winding it up. First notice was in the Edinburgh Gazette in January. CW tried to hijack the company. Winding up process should now continue.

[danger ranger 922]

you can still own a company and return a non working year(s), and use the company for business later. I owned a company and kept it for two years, with no business going through it before getting rid of it.

[djbroxybear 660]

Boss

why the announcement ?

Its it that Green and Stockbridge are rather belatedly declaring directorships in companies that existed at the time of the admission document but were not disclosed then.

Was it uncovered during the discussions with Green that these existed but had not been properly disclosed?

[boss 1,941]

Why mention BS,

Prospectus, Part XII, Para 7 lists directorships held by the various directors and key employees. General comment included about "other than [Rangers companies]..." Perhaps the companies above should have been explicitly noted. That's all I can make of it, which would make this a housekeeping exercise and nothing more.

[paisleyroad 894]

Thank fek we have Boss as I'm lost

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

Prospectus, Part XII, Para 7 lists directorships held by the various directors and key employees. General comment included about "other than [Rangers companies]..." Perhaps the companies above should have been explicitly noted. That's all I can make of it, which would make this a housekeeping exercise and nothing more.

Agreed. Most of these are historic companies and are in the process of being struck from the register. I can't see anything untoward in this.

[boss 1,941]

One new piece of information in the statement is that Sevco 5088 Limited is a subsidiary of Rangers. There is no public record of shareholders (other than the initial shareholders) until the anniversary of date of incorporation. This statement says that the share in Sevco 5088 Limited was transferred into the Rangers group at some point.

[Douglas Cameron 179]

One new piece of information in the statement is that Sevco 5088 Limited is a subsidiary of Rangers. There is no public record of shareholders (other than the initial shareholders) until the anniversary of date of incorporation. This statement says that the share in Sevco 5088 Limited was transferred into the Rangers group at some point.

This point makes me slightly nervous (as does failing to fully disclose info in the prospectus).

If secco 5088 is a subsidiary does this not at least suggest the potential for it to have acquired the business and assets and for there to then have been a hive up to sevco Scotland (now rangers)?

[boss 1,941]

This point makes me slightly nervous (as does failing to fully disclose info in the prospectus).

The paragraph in the Prospectus starts (my emboldenment):

"Save as set out below, neither any Director nor any Key Employee referred to in paragraph 2.4 above has held any directorships of any company, other than in relation to companies in the RFCL Group or the Rangers Group, or been a partner in a partnership at any time in the last five years prior to the date of this document."

If there has been a disclosure omission, the primary blame surely falls on Cenkos Securities - they are the guys that should know the rules and advise accordingly. There doesn't seem to be any intentional omission and the directorships were public knowledge in any event.

[Douglas Cameron 179]

The paragraph in the Prospectus starts (my emboldenment):

"Save as set out below, neither any Director nor any Key Employee referred to in paragraph 2.4 above has held any directorships of any company, other than in relation to companies in the RFCL Group or the Rangers Group, or been a partner in a partnership at any time in the last five years prior to the date of this document."

If there has been a disclosure omission, the primary blame surely falls on Cenkos Securities - they are the guys that should know the rules and advise accordingly. There doesn't seem to be any intentional omission and the directorships were public knowledge in any event.

Agree re Cenkos. V embarrassing for all involved in signing off on the prospectus.

In the context of the allegations regarding sevco 5088 the failure to disclose the relationship doesn't sit well with me. I would acknowledge though that after the last few years it is all too easy to jump at shadows!

[bigblueyonder 11,158]

I've just submitted docs to companies house that I'm a director of BP, I can now claim BP is a subsiduary of BigBlueYonder Oil...

[The Gas Man 190]

I've just submitted docs to companies house that I'm a director of BP, I can now claim BP is a subsiduary of BigBlueYonder Oil...

I don't suppose you are interested in buying Rangers are you, you seem to meet the past prerequisites

[The Educator 1,572]

To be honest I have no great knowledge of stocks, share and the LSE, but the more I look at this whole situation the less I see of any great consequence. As far as I can see this whole sorry business has been a ploy by CW to try and muddy the waters enough to keep himself out of the courts on the end of a fraudulent takeover charge. Why the announcement by the LSE, I don't know why, but then again it doesn't really tell us anything new does it.

Beware of CW's attempts to stay away from a cell being used by the press to create a story that doesn't really exist so that others could undermine the clubs revival. Remember the BTC, according to the same people in the press we were guilty from day one, no argument. This was again the same press who had us down as cheats who stole the league from the poor c****c, we were guilty of that as well from day one. Now look at the reality, we won the BTC and the SPL's own independent tribunal found us not guilty of cheating. The only problem we had was an administrative one that had no influence on matters were settled on the pitch and we were fined for that administrative error nothing else.

Now is not a time to listen to people who have had their hearts set on doing down the club for years, now is the time to ride out what remains of the transfer ban, buy your season ticket if you can afford one and back your club. There is much on this forum about folk with agendas on the board, the only agenda you have to worry about is the one being pushed through the usual suspects in the press to try and create doubt in the minds of the fans and those who have been looking to join as players or investor.

[mason boyne 40]

Prospectus, Part XII, Para 7 lists directorships held by the various directors and key employees. General comment included about "other than [Rangers companies]..." Perhaps the companies above should have been explicitly noted. That's all I can make of it, which would make this a housekeeping exercise and nothing more.

I think the lse statement is confirmation that cw and cronies are no where near our club or any of the subsiduaries of the holding company

[OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475]

Can someone translate this for us simpeltons?