Carsons Army 4,146 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The Company confirms that notices under section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 were received from Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Colin Howell, Ian Cormack, John Graham, Lynchwood Nominees Limited, Hargreaves Lansdown Nominees Limited, Rock (Nominees) Limited, Redmayne (Nominees) Limited, Bank of New York (Nominees) Limited, Lion Nominees Limited dated 27 September 2013, and from Singer Nominees Limited dated 30 September 2013, ("Notices") together representing 5.03 per cent of the voting rights of the Company ("Notifying Shareholders"). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCDBigBear 11,009 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The full notice is on here.http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/341 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The Company confirms that notices under section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 were received from Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Colin Howell, Ian Cormack, John Graham, Lynchwood Nominees Limited, Hargreaves Lansdown Nominees Limited, Rock (Nominees) Limited, Redmayne (Nominees) Limited, Bank of New York (Nominees) Limited, Lion Nominees Limited dated 27 September 2013, and from Singer Nominees Limited dated 30 September 2013, ("Notices") together representing 5.03 per cent of the voting rights of the Company ("Notifying Shareholders"). This disruption can't go on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malvern 11,329 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 That's almost 6%, damn close run thing there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofbear 398 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 This Cnut should be banned for malicious trolling Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Army 4,146 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 This disruption can't go onAre these people trying to destroy Rangers ?Anyway, It looks like it will be another username for DeliriousDennis, He has shat in the nest again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malvern 11,329 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Jack's going to have to change his number, the rhabids will be phoning giving him a Taxi drivers tirade (or some may think that could happen). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigblueyonder 11,158 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Are these people trying to destroy Rangers ?It sure looks like it.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Army 4,146 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 This Cnut should be banned for malicious trolling He would just return with another username, He has no shame.I think we should keep him as a little pet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson's cat 744 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 You're reading too much into this. A Notice under s338 requires the support of the holders of at least 5% of the company's shares. Why bother to get it signed by 28% when all you need is 5%? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofbear 398 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 He would just return with another username, He has no shame.I think we should keep him as a little pet. Our own little pet Troll Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non_Sucumbi 876 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Are these people trying to destroy Rangers ?Anyway, It looks like it will be another username for DeliriousDennis, He has shat in the nest again.Might he go from slinging mud back to slinging guns?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,624 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 He will be looking down the back off the couch for the other 23%. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malvern 11,329 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 You're reading too much into this. A Notice under s338 requires the support of the holders of at least 5% of the company's shares. Why bother to get it signed by 28% when all you need is 5%?Read the full notice, couldn't even comply with the correct signing process for the 5.03%. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Army 4,146 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 You're reading too much into this. A Notice under s338 requires the support of the holders of at least 5% of the company's shares. Why bother to get it signed by 28% when all you need is 5%?Seriously ?????No ! Seriously ???????For weeks now, your counterpart DeliriousDennis has been quoting the figure 28%, Over and over and over, 7 and 8 times on each thread.But I am reading too much into it ????????Aye OK then ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofbear 398 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Might he go from slinging mud back to slinging guns?? Oh that's who he is - is it ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RST 19 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 You're reading too much into this. A Notice under s338 requires the support of the holders of at least 5% of the company's shares. Why bother to get it signed by 28% when all you need is 5%?Stop putting sense into their stupid threads, I was having a good laugh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristol_bnose 11 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 You're reading too much into this. A Notice under s338 requires the support of the holders of at least 5% of the company's shares. Why bother to get it signed by 28% when all you need is 5%?Must admit that's how i read it. Just get enough on to validate the notice.Not saying they have "28%" but nothing here suggests they only have 5.03% either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stfu 596 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 You're reading too much into this. A Notice under s338 requires the support of the holders of at least 5% of the company's shares. Why bother to get it signed by 28% when all you need is 5%?LMAO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stfu 596 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The Company confirms that notices under section 338 of the Companies Act 2006 were received from Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Colin Howell, Ian Cormack, John Graham, Lynchwood Nominees Limited, Hargreaves Lansdown Nominees Limited, Rock (Nominees) Limited, Redmayne (Nominees) Limited, Bank of New York (Nominees) Limited, Lion Nominees Limited dated 27 September 2013, and from Singer Nominees Limited dated 30 September 2013, ("Notices") together representing 5.03 per cent of the voting rights of the Company ("Notifying Shareholders"). Now I am really confused did Jim McColl lose his pen or something? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Army 4,146 Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 Stop putting sense into their stupid threads, I was having a good laugh.Lay off the vodka this early on a Friday and get the dishes done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang2911 423 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The Board offered to meet with the Notifying Shareholders to discuss their concerns but had not received a response. The Board then received notice of the Petition. Whilst the Company intends to strongly resist the Petition the Board intends to take all possible steps to avoid unnecessary cost and disruption to the Company. Once again the current board have tried to engage with the requisitioners only to be taken to court, remember they were happy with Frank Blin. There is only one side causing all this disruption and it is not the current board, do things properly - like signing the bloody documents - then bring it up at the AGM Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 No surrender Davie Weir Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shankillblue1 349 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Mmmmmmmmmm, I thinks it's time for mini to do the honourable thing and hang himself and his followers to go back supporting paedo fc! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
californiadreamin52 339 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 The Board offered to meet with the Notifying Shareholders to discuss their concerns but had not received a response. The Board then received notice of the Petition. Whilst the Company intends to strongly resist the Petition the Board intends to take all possible steps to avoid unnecessary cost and disruption to the Company. Once again the current board have tried to engage with the requisitioners only to be taken to court, remember they were happy with Frank Blin. There is only one side causing all this disruption and it is not the current board, do things properly - like signing the bloody documents - then bring it up at the AGMfool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me would not trust these liars who make up the current board on inch 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.