Friday, 3 April 2015

Rangers' delisting: what it means


Yesterday’s confirmation of Rangers’ delisting from the LSE was inevitable from the moment on March 6th where Dave King, newly elected by the shareholders, stated that it was his personal preference:

“In a perfect world, my personal preference for the rebuilding of Rangers my choice would be not listed. But it is listed. And I’m going to say that unfortunately it’s listed.” – Dave King, March 6, 2015

We knew it was the man’s first choice not to be listed, something backed up in recent days by Paul Murray, the interim chairman.

Now that delisting has taken place, Rangers are officially off the stock exchange and no longer a Public Limited Company. So, ultimately, what does this mean for Rangers, the shareholders, and the fans?

There are negative and positive aspects to this move, so this entry is going to critique both and it is up to the reader to make up their mind how they feel.

Beginning with a positive, it saves Rangers money. Being listed saves an overhead, where not only does the company no longer have to pay a NOMAD, but the actual costs of being on the LSE themselves are gone. No more having to wait for clearance from a suit in London before a company change is approved. No more having to gain their approval to actually action a change. A private non-listed company now has power to implement change without getting permission from anyone, which saves time and money.

A negative is this also means no regulation. Being on the LSE requires strict adherence to its rules, to stock market requirements and legislation. Now Rangers are not on the AIM there is infinitely less accountability – in short, there is no one to answer to, no one to verify the legitimacy of your company’s action. And this means, to put it bluntly, a company can more or less do what it wants without any repercussion.

Back to the positives, and less dirty laundry is made public. For the past few years every single part of Rangers’ corporate governance has been played out in the public eye and LSE for the Club’s detractors to chew on. Many might argue that helped enable change, but at the same time it gave newspapers and the media a field day, checking to see the latest negative AIM announcement to use for a headline. How often would we see an LSE announcement about another loan, and then the gory headlines? Loans are not desirable, nor are any of the other nasty goings-on which fans have suffered, but it will make a change for newspapers not to have an easy negative headline to make about Rangers.

But on the negative side, obviously, no transparency. Rangers fans had a way of seeing what was going on, and it indirectly enabled change to eventually take place. That is now gone – there will be no guaranteed way of receiving accurate information about boardroom events beyond trusting the word of the directors if they choose to make something public. In short, Rangers fans basically have their eyes closed now and the occasional openings could well see illusions.

And another negative is the shareholders, especially the investment firms/hedge funds who supported King now find the sea has changed. With not being listed, their shares cannot be traded with the same ease they were before. They do not lose their value, or much of it, but now all shareholders, if they wish to sell, need to find a buyer themselves, manually. They cannot just employ a broker who takes a cut. It makes it harder for shareholders, and there can be no doubt the majority of the large ones would not have supported this move. That may even include the Three Bears.

But in more of a positive angle, it does give Rangers more power over its shares. Share value has fluctuated crazily on the LSE for the past few years, and now that they are no longer publicly tradable their value and volatility is slightly more stable. That gives the board and shareholders slightly more control that the shares are not going to bottom out in a few hours thanks to a borderline unrelated event on the other side of the world.

Rangers have announced a DSPP (Direct Stock Purchase Plan) to be implemented by Tuesday and other AIMs to be sought out over the next few weeks, including ISDX on which Arsenal trade, so time will tell where this will all take us.

As stated at the start, this is just a guide of the good and bad. Readers can make their own judgements as to whether the delist is overall a good or bad thing.


35 comments:

  1. and still, The BlueBells are Blue!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based on seeing you repeating over and over again, I pronounce you something rhyming with flautist, but of somewhat less class than James G.

      Delete
  2. It means the share price is probably about 3p.

    It means there is unlikely to be a public issue of new shares. It means it is unlikely that RIFC would get anywhere near any other exchange, the ISDX note is rubbish - you need to have 12 months working capital to apply.

    It means that we will never discover who owns Ibrox and why £278k is being paid out every month. It means loyal Rangers fans will continue to be treated like mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed manure.

    It means that despite the overwhelming evidence that this is an absolute shambles and an embarrassment, people will still decry anybody who doubts the King.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TOTAL SHIT,, AND YES WATP,,

      Delete
    2. Brer, I prefer to put it more elegantly than even you. Whyte Green and Ashley, not to mention a dozen others, have run rings round us. At least a dozen other clubs in Scotland detest us. The Stadium is a festering health hazard. Our last remaining hope is a convicted criminal. This is a time to look at ourselves and our image but more importantly to stick together, renew our vows and to remember above all that we truly are and always will be the people. WATP OK?

      Delete
    3. you're relentless attempts to undermine our club are fooling nobody. You are motivated by bitterness, envy and hatred. Try to cleanse yourself of the negativity, and live a normal life. Accepting your deviant behaviour is the first step in your rehabilitation. Good luck in addressing your problems.

      Delete
    4. On the head.

      Delete
    5. By "we" you obviously mean you and your friends from the unwashed !!?

      Delete
    6. 17:43 contribution: one of the few on here I'd attribute clarity of thinking to but faulty analysis nevertheless. Bitterness: yes, mainly against SDFM, envy, hatred, no - have lived in the Algarve for 12 years playing golf all the year round. Do 2,3, or 4 high end systems deals per year. Best recent thrills: flying my plane over Mont Blanc last October and seeing both daughters qualifying with Masters Degrees. Concede that your analysis understandable when I re-read my post, but just wanted to set things straight. I am not a Christian, and do not support any football team. My analysis though is that you guys are in a mess you will not under any circumstance ever get out of.

      Delete
    7. 17:43 again. share you thoughts on SDFM. (Rename Murray Park! Petty but pleasing). Not sure that your location, mode of travel, sibling education, religion, or affiliation explains your illogical stance on my club's rebuilding process. We will, given time, and with the correct structure in place, return to a position of prominence.
      Be assured of that! Final thought 'There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.'

      Delete
  3. Just to point Just to point out that some reports are saying that the ISDX requires members to appoint a NOMAD

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I looked this up and we sure do need a NOMAD.

      Delete
    2. A Nomad wasn't the problem. The Nomad had done the due diligence on the Board and King and was happy to take over. It was the Aim regulator who wouldn't allow it to go ahead because of the many complaints about the previous Board. That's why the club was de-listed, not because they couldn't get a Nomad.

      Delete
    3. So do you think we'll get a NOMAD for this exchange and what if we don't?

      Delete
    4. To be accepted onto the ISDX we must have a "Corporate Adviser" which is the ISDX name for a NOMAD. The Guidance Notes for a NOMAD under the AIM are identical to the notes for a Corporate Adviser under the ISDX, and these functions are performed by exactly the same firms. These definitions are at: http://www.welbeckassociates.com/resources/tips-succeeding/business/floating-aim-or-isdx-markets

      Delete
    5. As previous posters have stated, we had a Nomad. The reason we were de-listed was because of the many complaints that were received about the previous board. We WILL get a Nomad and we WILL be on the ISDX.

      Delete
  4. Hey anon get over your demons and get a life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its precisely that head in the sump thats got us all into this state skanky.

      Delete
  5. Hey Anon get over your demons and get on with your life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm a retired tax accountant (better than Porno Pete) living between Florida and the St Martin, so I'm fairly happy with my life as it is. Hope you're not getting too many inner voices, and that maybe its just due to your monthlies.

      Delete
  6. It MEANS half o fwhat YOU have just spouuted ( Anonymous at12.55) is utter bilge !......if you are going to listen to Declan pick one who KNOWS something about it ! ........may be difficult to find one i admit .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trollop, make sure you do your carbolic before you find one.

      Delete
  7. Dave knows what hes doing you dont want any of that nasty scrutiny when your working on your master plan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seems Mr King really did try but played his hand very badly. It seems he blunderbussed so many NOMADS that word got round very quickly - they all talk to each other and basically when it was seen he had a few refusals they all just shut up shop. So we might have got over this obstacle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. King said from day one that de-listing was not a problem!! Oops forgot !! Its a problem for them suit investors that have been raping rangers for the last three years though!!,,and may i add easedale and irvine !! Oops and his poodles on the "loyal" site backed oops i mean orchestrated!! By mr london based irvine!!

      Delete
  9. With the trustworthy board we now have I think it's a good thing in the short term to allow fluidity and a steady reshaping/repairing of the previous regime's mismanagement.
    By the way, quite a few posters on here appear to be timmy in disguise!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think you're smart trying to divert attention, see right through you Padraig.

      Delete
    2. Obsessed galore!! Its pathetic and sad that another clubs fans obsession grips them more than there own club!!is it a deflection thing?

      Delete
  10. stand by our board and team,,,,,we are the people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think we can sum up the delisting by considering how many other Scottish teams, or even British, are listed on an exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lets put this in a nutshell.RIFC were delisted due to the number of complaints received on the AIM.Where did these complaints come from ? That's right, the same people blaming the previous regime ! Step forward and take your bows,(You all know who you are !)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Being delisted is great news. King clearly stated it was his prefered choice . This move in my eyes is a carefully planned one to give some payback to the major shareholders who destroyed us aka easedales ,sports direct, margarita holdings etc.They are now caught in a web with few options left but to sell there shares to existing shareholders ie fans or board.Certainly the rats wont be buying anymore.
    The future is bright WATP.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It means feck-all.

    It gives the ill informed and ignorant self proclaimed business experts another chance to waffle shite they clearly know nothing about.

    Stick to the fitba.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guys take a step back, get the blinkers off and look at this as a non fan point of view. Serious issues with being delisted. We can decree Ashley, Easdale but where would we be right now if they never bailed us out... The stadium is shagged, we have next to no image rights, Murray Park is a waste of money and resource and who in their right mind at this moment want to invest in us. We blew it with thinking we were still the big boys in Div 3, should have stripped it all out and implemented a model like Hearts... We have many many years to go before we are competing at any level. Do I think King is the answer, I fear he will be another saviour that we will be burning at the cross in a short period of time!

    ReplyDelete

By commenting on this article on Ibroxnoise.co.uk, you confirm you have read and understood the site terms, conditions, and moderation parameters (provided on the home page) of doing so.