Here here is an extract:
As you will know MASH has requisitioned a general meeting of shareholders of Rangers International Football Club Plc (Rangers Plc) to be held as it considers that there are various matters that are of importance both to Rangers Plc and its group companies and to its shareholders, that should be discussed with the new Board of Rangers PLC (the New Board). Some of those matters are clear from the various questions set out in the Notice of General Meeting dated 26 May 2015, but MASH thought that it would be helpful, after consulting with Sports Direct, to provide some further background and context as follows:
Delisting from AIM:
MASH was surprised and concerned as to the speed with which, following the general meeting held on 6 March 2015, Rangers Plc was delisted from AIM.
MASH had relied upon Mr. David King’s various public statements that there was a NOMAD willing to come in to act for Rangers Plc (subject to the customary checks). Clearly, at some stage in the NOMAD appointment process, it became clear to the New Board that the potential NOMAD was not satisfied with its investigations of Rangers Plc.
The key question is when exactly did this happen and what steps did the New Board take as part of normal contingency planning to consider alternative NOMADs and engage with the AIM Regulator so as to ensure that the AIM listing was preserved?
Crucially, did the New Board leave it all to the very last minute and were then left with no viable alternative? The consequence of what happened is that Rangers Plc no longer has a public listing, nor is it subject to the AIM regulatory rules which is all the more important in circumstances where the new Chairman of the New Board has, as is a matter of public record, been prosecuted for and admitted liability in respect of various criminal offences in South Africa, resulting in the payment then of approximately £44 million to cover liabilities and fines in South Africa.”
I have highlighted some of the above words in bold for ease of (future) reference.
Next, I would like to post an extract from the notification to the Alternative Investment Market of Celtic’s recent interim results. [NB I can’t tell you how brilliant it is not to have to pander to liquidation lies by referring to ‘club’ and ‘company’ for once. I can say ‘Celtic’ and we all know what I mean!]
To quote one part of the report:
“Our report has been prepared in accordance with the terms of our engagement to assist the company in meeting the requirements of the rules of the London Stock Exchange for companies trading securities on AIM and for no other purpose.”
And now I refer you to today’s RIFC interim results:
I am not in a position to comment on the results in detail, and have no wish to blog about them. However, I will note that there is no Independent Review Report attached to them.
As we have seen, back in June 2015 MASH holdings were concerned enough about RIFC not being “subject to the AIM regulatory rules” to call an EGM.
From a purely business and investment point of view you can see that today’s RIFC report might have looked somewhat different had RIFC not been delisted from AIM.