Blue and True 311 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 sounds like the current board are trying delay tacticsFek where did we hear that before.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 sounds like the current board are trying delay tacticsFek where did we hear that before.... Surely McColls group should have been prepared for this? They have now accepted a 10 day extension in total. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Surely McColls group should have been prepared for this? They have now accepted a 10 day extension in total.I hope they areThey wave the right to an EGM to save money (good idea in principle) but the longer this goes on the more damage (if their is any) could be done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillete 1,338 Posted September 2, 2013 Author Share Posted September 2, 2013 Can anyone break this down in English please?Who has held this up ? The board ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 yes.......they are saying not all the requistioners have shares in their names, game of Cat & mouse and looks like the Cat is winning this round. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,512 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Surely the validation was always going to be the next step? The next being the official agreement that the joint EGM/AGM will be confirmed as planned.Is this not just the process rather than sides getting one over on each other? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 yes.......they are saying not all the requistioners have shares in their names, game of Cat & mouse and looks like the Cat is winning this round.But they have accepted the requisition due to the 5%. McColls group are prepared to discuss further which just delays the whole thing. Would seem neither side are very confident. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankbadyin 11 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 yes.......they are saying not all the requistioners have shares in their names, game of Cat & mouse and looks like the Cat is winning this round.That depends who you think is the cat and who is the mouse, looks like the mouse agreed to another postponement a sure sign of weakness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,512 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 But they have accepted the requisition due to the 5%. McColls group are prepared to discuss further which just delays the whole thing. Would seem neither side are very confident.To me it seems the the whole thing is not delayed, its only the EGM which will be rolled into the AGM as planned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankbadyin 11 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 To me it seems the the whole thing is not delayed, its only the EGM which will be rolled into the AGM as planned.The requisitioner singular could have forced an EGM they didn't, which from everything I have read adds up to them losing the vote. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Further delay to the requisition due to those behind it still not validating their shareholding. New deadline 9 September.forgive my ignorance but what does that mean?It reads like the guys wanting this EGM don't have sufficient share to call the EGM , is that correct, or at least the assumption? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 To me it seems the the whole thing is not delayed, its only the EGM which will be rolled into the AGM as planned. If they don't agree it wont be unified. McColl has accepted two postponements so far. The AGM could be called before an EGM at this rate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,512 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 The requisitioner singular could have forced an EGM they didn't, which from everything I have read adds up to them losing the vote.but it was agreed by all that it makes sense to roll it into the AGM so why go against the previously agreed logic? maybe im wrong but to me this is just a process. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 forgive my ignorance but what does that mean?It reads like the guys wanting this EGM don't have sufficient share to call the EGM , is that correct, or at least the assumption? If you read the statement again you will see some haven't but enough have. Artemis have more than 5%. The EGM could have been called. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 Either Jack is playing a good legal game or McColl and his consortium have blown it.The greatest businessman the world has known back by everyones fav accountant...................and your suggesting they blew it dear god what next.......................a fanzine owner selling 6 month old fanzines as up to date ones Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 If you read the statement again you will see some haven't but enough have. Artemis have more than 5%. The EGM could have been called.thanks for the clarification Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 but it was agreed by all that it makes sense to roll it into the AGM so why go against the previously agreed logic? maybe im wrong but to me this is just a process.But they did not agree on the resolutions and wanted to see the requistioners stake. They have the latter but still don't agree(on resolutions so they are talking further. Neither side is confident in my opinion. McColl could have forced the EGM today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 That depends who you think is the cat and who is the mouse, looks like the mouse agreed to another postponement a sure sign of weakness.forgive my ignorance but what does that mean?It reads like the guys wanting this EGM don't have sufficient share to call the EGM , is that correct, or at least the assumption?I would love to discuss in detail the point you make, but I do not know if this post will be vetted before the EGM Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,512 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 But they did not agree on the resolutions and wanted to see the requistioners stake. They have the latter but still don't agree(on resolutions so they are talking further. Neither side is confident in my opinion. McColl could have forced the EGM today.I thought it needed 10% but again I may be wrong.It wouldn't make any sense to push for it today as that would turn off the fans/share voters and would be an unnecessary expense which no one wants. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 I thought it needed 10% but again I may be wrong.It wouldn't make any sense to push for it today as that would turn off the fans/share voters and would be an unnecessary expense which no one wants. I was told 5 then 10 then 5 ! It would make sense to push for it if you knew you would win. 80 grand is an excuse. Sell out Ibrox for 1 game and its covered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankbadyin 11 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 but it was agreed by all that it makes sense to roll it into the AGM so why go against the previously agreed logic? maybe im wrong but to me this is just a process.It is far from process if non-authorised parties have been found to have signed the requisition it could still be binned even if agreed at this moment, I think the board are playing with the alleged requisitioners Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bob 1,360 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It is far from process if non-authorised parties have been found to have signed the requisition it could still be binned even if agreed at this moment, I think the board are playing with the alleged requisitioners What makes you think this? Just the wording of the statement or something you have been told? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankbadyin 11 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 What makes you think this? Just the wording of the statement or something you have been told?If any non-authorised person has signed the requisition the sitting board are within their rights to refuse the request as improperly constituted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,512 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 If any non-authorised person has signed the requisition the sitting board are within their rights to refuse the request as improperly constituted.It seems this is more scaremongering as your stating a highly unlikely situation with no facts apart from your own presumption. It doesn't really help the situation and I don't really understand why this hypothetical scenario would be put out there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankbadyin 11 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 It seems this is more scaremongering as your stating a highly unlikely situation with no facts apart from your own presumption. It doesn't really help the situation and I don't really understand why this hypothetical scenario would be put out there.There is no presumption, McMurdo stated last week there were doubts as to the signatories of the requisition the SLE announcement today confirms that the club have not had any confirmation as to the authority of any signatory other than Artemis, pretty clear cut.The Company had requested the Requisitioners to authenticate the Requisition in accordance with section 303 of the Companies Act 2006 by providing evidence of the shares held by the Requisitioners and the validity of signatures on the Requisition. The Board has now received authentication for one of the Requisitioners, being Chase Nominees Limited a/c Artemis. 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.