Jump to content

Club statement LSE.


rankbadyin

Recommended Posts

As title. Think the second 13/09/2013 should be 30/09/2013

Company Rangers Int. Football Club PLC void.gifTIDM RFC Headline Further to requisition of general meeting Released 07:00 10-Sep-2013 Number 5771N07

RNS Number : 5771N

Rangers Int. Football Club PLC

10 September 2013

10 September 2013

Rangers International Football Club plc

("Rangers", the "Company" or "Club")

Further to requisition of general meeting

Further to the announcement on 4 September 2013, the Company confirms that whilst the Board's discussions have continued with representatives of the group who requisitioned (together the "Requisitioners") a general meeting to consider the proposed resolutions ("Requisition") detailed in the announcement on 2 August 2013 ("General Meeting"), the Board is disappointed to announce that no agreement has been reached.

Unless an agreement can be reached prior to 13 September 2013, as set out in the announcement on 2 September 2013, the Company will be required to send a notice to shareholders to convene the General Meeting by no later than 13 September 2013.

Further announcements will be made as appropriate.

For further information please contact:

Rangers International Football Club plc

Tel: 0141 580 8647

Craig Mather, CEO

Brian Stockbridge, FD

Strand Hanson Limited (Nominated Adviser)

Tel: 020 7409 3494

Stuart Faulkner / Rory Murphy / Richard Tulloch

Daniel Stewart & Company plc (Broker)

Tel: 020 7776 6550

Paul Shackleton

Newgate Threadneedle (Financial PR)

Tel: 020 7148 6143

Graham Herring / John Coles / Fiona Conroy

Media House International Ltd

Tel: 020 7710 0020

Jack Irvine

http://www.londonsto...mentId=11703586

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this mean?

The Requisitioners are not prepared to give in the the Board's demand that they give an undertaking not to vote against the reappointment of existing directors at the AGM. I would suggest that this means that the requisitioners are confident of victory. If they were not, surely they would just accept the Board's compromise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting really fed up with this.

The Board seem to be being dictated to by a bunch who haven spent bugger all in the club.

Coming across as very weak and impotent now.

Instead of continual postponements and negotiations why not just call the meeting? I'll be there

These postponements give me, at least, the impression the board don't want things out in the open. Anyone else agree with me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

EGM on the cards by Friday according to the wanks in the mhedia. I've got to the point where I don't much care who wins anymore just as long as this is over and wecan forget all about EGMs and AGMs and boardroom battles a good boardroom should be like a good ref you don't notice them because they do their job efficiently and correctly. Our board is the complete opposite of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation of this relates to the vote of confidence for existing shareholders. My guess is that the board haven't got their guarantee and will be put up for the vote like all other existing and proposed board members. I now expect the board to say that the Requisitioners are costing the club money, when it could be argued that it is the board that are actually trying to protect themselves and they are responsible for the cost due to their demand for a cast iron guarantee of job safety.

The board can't be too confident that they still have the support of existing shareholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So regardless of the EGM, the AGM should be in October 100% ?

Nothing is 100% with these muppets running our club at the moment, plus there's no legal requirement to have the AGM in October and the deadline for audited accounts isn't until well into the new year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation of this relates to the vote of confidence for existing shareholders. My guess is that the board haven't got their guarantee and will be put up for the vote like all other existing and proposed board members. I now expect the board to say that the Requisitioners are costing the club money, when it could be argued that it is the board that are actually trying to protect themselves and they are responsible for the cost due to their demand for a cast iron guarantee of job safety.

Spot on. The board aren't confident enough to simply agree to a GM without some guarantees that they'll keep their jobs.

Statements like this and more delays just embarrass our board even further. If they had an ounce of dignity left, they would call the EGM and get this over and done with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on. The board aren't confident enough to simply agree to a GM without some guarantees that they'll keep their jobs.

Statements like this and more delays just embarrass our board even further. If they had an ounce of dignity left, they would call the EGM and get this over and done with.

There is nothing to stop the requisitioners convening their own GM and billing the club, so why don't they.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 28 April 2024 11:30 Until 13:30
      0  
      St Mirren v Rangers
      The SMiSA Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Main Event and Sky Sports Football
×
×
  • Create New...