+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Scottish Football League (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Scottish Premiership (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+----- Forum: Rangers (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=131)
+----- Thread: RIFC (/showthread.php?tid=130)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 02-04-2015
And the full statement to the LSE:
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12305227.html
Interesting to note the intention to explore listing on the ISDX market instead.
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 02-04-2015
We are where we are now, i would like to think that this statement is a true reflection of what actually went on.
They would look very silly if this statement is dismissed by the LSE, But then again even if correct and proper the usual folk will have their own agenda on the matter anyway.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 02-04-2015
Hardly breeds confidence in Murray and King though, does it?
If they wanted to piss off a fairly large portion of the very people that supported them - and bought shares to do so - then this is the ideal way to do it.
If they stay delisted then it'll be much easier for them to avoid any form of scrutiny. I don't see how that can be anything but a bad idea.
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 02-04-2015
I have to agree it's not ideal for shareholders, but have they been delisted through the poor working practice of the previous board?
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 02-04-2015
That's what they're trying to say. I'm far from satisfied that's the actual case though.
Trust is an important thing to build, and I'm struggling (more than usual) to find much of it for Murray & King.
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 02-04-2015
Time will tell, starting to get some investment in the door would be a start.
It's a 2 way street if they expect us to back them through sales of season tix etc.
RE: RIFC - St Charles Owl - 02-04-2015
No one will ever know but this feels like it was Kings preferred way forward all along and he has a very convenient scapegoat in the old board and the clubs prior finances to use!! King made statements that a nomad was in place and ready to go after the EGM, that may well have been the case but as it states after due diligence has been performed the nomad has decided that he is no longer prepared to take up the position!! Seems an obvious question, but what did they find that caused them to say no way, when previous nomad was happy enough to accept???
As I said, feels like this was the desired outcome all along, and as you say Trus, the transparency has now potentially disappeared along with it!! Time for the board, and particularly King, to put his money where his mouth is and move the club forward.
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 02-04-2015
Hmm, this isn
Hmm, this isnt the best of starts. All it does is fee
Hmm, this isnt the best of starts. All it does is feed the fires that are kept well stoked by the haters.
I wonder if what we have here is the long arm of Ashley being flexed?
Hmm, this isnt the best of starts. All it does is feed the fires that are kept well stoked by the haters.
I wonder if what we have here is the long arm of Ashley being flexed?
This time it was my phone...I think.
RE: RIFC - El Car - 02-04-2015
King and Murray have been at the vanguard of a movement to discredit the company its board members and it's management for much of the past 2 years. I think it's a bit rich for them to try to say the reason for the delisting is because of reputational damage but it's nothing to do with them. Not that they're the only ones. There have been plenty of supposed fans who couldn't wait to jump on forums or run to the press to announce that they'd made complaints to AIM. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
As for whether or not this was King's plan all along, I'm not certain but I don't find it at all hard to believe. Seems he goes rather often to the 'such and such told me this thing privately but now they've gone back on their word' well. Is everyone around him really always lying while he tells nothing but the truth?
RE: RIFC - TheWorthinGer - 03-04-2015
Let's face it - the majority of press we get is bad and we are probably the most mentioned in the press AIM listed company. It wouldn't surprise me if you googled 'AIM' that Rangers and negativity would be at the top of the hit list.
However I also think financial and influential muscles are being flexed.
Still, the seeds of doubt have now been down - we'll just have to wait and see what sprouts. Maybe season ticket money should be in an escrow account until somebody invests?