Call for AGM to be delayed.

[Young Bob 1,360]

Sick of these wanks. How long is this going to go on for ie AGM's getting delayed?

If they lose it aint. However they might go for an EGM after the AGM. I would say its best to get King on the board as soon as possible and let him sort it out. Murray has stated he will walk away if King doesn't want him.

[North Rd 2,860]

So in theory today could be the end of Minico ?

Or.................

Rumoured they have a case, and the Board will lose this one.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

If they lose it aint. However they might go for an EGM after the AGM. I would say its best to get King on the board as soon as possible and let him sort it out. Murray has stated he will walk away if King doesn't want him.

Has king not already said Murray won't be joining him? Thats even if King gets on the board. Fuck me why the fuck is nothing is straight forward with us.

[Big Al 55 9,275]

So in theory today could be the end of Minico ?

I don't really see it being about minico, at least it shouldn't be.

I see it about shareholders having the right to vote who they want to be on the board. It's just extremely unfortunate IMO they chose Paul Murray to front it for them.

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

AGM can't be delayed, Bawburst told us so on a thread yesterday.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

Or.................

Rumoured they have a case, and the Board will lose this one.

That's no what I asked - in theory of this goes against them it could be the end yes?

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

I don't really see it being about minico, at least it shouldn't be.

I see it about shareholders having the right to vote who they want to be on the board. It's just extremely unfortunate IMO they chose Paul Murray to front it for them.

I don't think anyone with proven lies and smears and as destructive as them deserve the chance of our club

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

That's no what I asked - in theory of this goes against them it could be the end yes?

In theory it could, if they decide to give it up or lose any backing that they have.

Alternatively, they could try and fight it out with an EGM to follow shortly after the AGM. I could not see them getting the support required to do this though.

[North Rd 2,860]

That's no what I asked - in theory of this goes against them it could be the end yes?

Yes........

[Big Al 55 9,275]

I don't think anyone with proven lies and smears and as destructive as them deserve the chance of our club

This has nothing to with Paul Murray. That's a fortunate or unfortunate side show...depending on your viewpoint.

The current board should not be able to dictate to the other shareholders who constitutes the board. I appreciate not all the signatures were properly authenticated and that puts them in an extremely poor position.

It is not a dictatorship.

[North Rd 2,860]

Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 2m

On @PressAssocSport: Richard KeenQC also claims RFC board may hve broken law by not telling shareholders of requisitioners bid to join board

[Carson's cat 744]

That's no what I asked - in theory of this goes against them it could be the end yes?

No. They could request an SGM. Alternatively, they could wait to see what King decides to do if he becomes chairman. Remember, King stated that he has his own ideas about who might add value to the Boardroom. Some commentators have assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that he is referring to PM. What is fairly certain, though, is that after he has made a significant investment, King will want his men (or at least people he can trust) in the Boardroom, because he intends to continue to live in South Africa.

[bawsburst 1,381]

Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 2m

On @PressAssocSport: Richard KeenQC also claims RFC board may hve broken law by not telling shareholders of requisitioners bid to join board

4/10/2013

the Petitioners have also confirmed that if their arguments succeed in relation to the validity of the s338 notices, the Petitioners agree that the Annual General Meeting should proceed to take place on 24 October 2013 as long as their proposed resolutions are circulated as soon as reasonably practicable after the hearing concludes and before the date of the Annual General Meeting. The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on 24 October 2013.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

This has nothing to with Paul Murray. That's a fortunate or unfortunate side show...depending on your viewpoint.

The current board should not be able to dictate to the other shareholders who constitutes the board. I appreciate not all the signatures were properly authenticated and that puts them in an extremely poor position.

It is not a dictatorship.

It's not quite a dictatorship it's politics

If you have any leverage (in this case badly administered paperwork and signatures) then one side is entitled to use that as leverage

[peter ritchie 12]

Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 2m

On @PressAssocSport: Richard KeenQC also claims RFC board may hve broken law by not telling shareholders of requisitioners bid to join board

Blah blah fucking blah.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

4/10/2013

the Petitioners have also confirmed that if their arguments succeed in relation to the validity of the s338 notices, the Petitioners agree that the Annual General Meeting should proceed to take place on 24 October 2013 as long as their proposed resolutions are circulated as soon as reasonably practicable after the hearing concludes and before the date of the Annual General Meeting. The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on 24 October 2013.

I think they have reconsidered.

[Big Al 55 9,275]

It's not quite a dictatorship it's politics

If you have any leverage (in this case badly administered paperwork and signatures) then one side is entitled to use that as leverage

Semantic IMO. It amounts to the same thing. One group of shareholders (on the board) preventing another group of shareholders (we have no idea what % - 28% apparently ) from having their say.

I reiterate; what are they so afraid of?

[bawsburst 1,381]

I think they have reconsidered.

I think nay I know the Noble Lord has wondered aloud as to why they the hostiles argue against their original summary.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

It amounts to the same thing. One group of shareholders (on the board) preventing another group of shareholders (we have no idea what % - 20% apparently ) from having their say.

I reiterate; what are they so afraid of?

I don't think it means they are afraid of anything

It's going for the sure thing - if they can use it to galvanise their position why not?

If the paperwork and signatures are are incorrect then it's not their fault they don't have to concede anything to them

[gogzy 31,195]

Semantic IMO. It amounts to the same thing. One group of shareholders (on the board) preventing another group of shareholders (we have no idea what % - 28% apparently ) from having their say.

I reiterate; what are they so afraid of?

People being added to the board, that can not even fill out a piece of paper correctly maybe?

Possibly the most important piece of paperwork they have ever had to produce, and if they couldn't even get that right, what chance to they have in power at rangers

[Young Bob 1,360]

People being added to the board, that can not even fill out a piece of paper correctly maybe?

Possibly the most important piece of paperwork they have ever had to produce, and if they couldn't even get that right, what chance to they have in power at rangers

What an excellent summation. This is something the McColl/Murray group should be shown.

[Big Al 55 9,275]

I don't think it means they are afraid of anything

It's going for the sure thing - if they can use it to galvanise their position why not?

If the paperwork and signatures are are incorrect then it's not their fault they don't have to concede anything to them

But you are only of that opinion because you don't agree with those trying to be appointed. My point is its the shareholders who should vote on the appointments, and a technicality should not be allowed to prevent that.

I don't want Murray anywhere near the board, he is far too divisive.

But that's not the point. The current board have taken great strides to prevent that vote from taking place. Whilst I agree the documentation should have been completed properly. Out with those unauthorised signatories If there were enough authorised signatories, with a high enough percentage shareholding then they should still be up for appointment.

They are galvanising their position at the expense of shareholders, after all they are paid employees of the shareholding are they not?

[Big Al 55 9,275]

People being added to the board, that can not even fill out a piece of paper correctly maybe?

Possibly the most important piece of paperwork they have ever had to produce, and if they couldn't even get that right, what chance to they have in power at rangers

I agree, but you either miss my point, or choose to ignore it

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

But you are only of that opinion because you don't agree with those trying to be appointed. My point is its the shareholders who should vote on the appointments, and a technicality should not be allowed to prevent that.

I don't want Murray anywhere near the board, he is far too divisive.

But that's not the point. The current board have taken great strides to prevent that vote from taking place. Whilst I agree the documentation should have been completed properly. Out with those unauthorised signatories If there were enough authorised signatories, with a high enough percentage shareholding then they should still be up for appointment.

They are galvanising their position at the expense of shareholders, after all they are paid employees of the shareholding are they not?

I don't see why that's a bad thing re me thinking that because I don't want them near the club

I'm delighted they can't fill the paperwork out correctly if it means it invalidates their claim

[Young Bob 1,360]

But you are only of that opinion because you don't agree with those trying to be appointed. My point is its the shareholders who should vote on the appointments, and a technicality should not be allowed to prevent that.

I don't want Murray anywhere near the board, he is far too divisive.

But that's not the point. The current board have taken great strides to prevent that vote from taking place. Whilst I agree the documentation should have been completed properly. Out with those unauthorised signatories If there were enough authorised signatories, with a high enough percentage shareholding then they should still be up for appointment.

They are galvanising their position at the expense of shareholders, after all they are paid employees of the shareholding are they not?

Lets just assume the judge decides against the requistioners. Where do you expect the board to draw the line? I understand your point of view but you cant just let Murray and Co have a reckless approach. If the board wins Murray is going to look like a mug.