Rangers investors look like receiving a cast-iron imprimatur that the Financial Services Authority has declared the club ‘fit to go on the stock market’.

This will come, according to Rangers CEO Charles Green, when the FSA approves the upcoming share flotation prospectus.

Rangers’ Top Man gave the commitment on air while being questioned on STV regarding the re-emergence of former Ibrox owner Craig Whyte claiming he introduced the gritty Yorkshireman to D&P the administrators who sold all of the oldco Rangers’ assets to Sevco for £5.5 million. Amazingly Charlie, with a glint in his eye, revealed that the Ibrox property assets alone had just been revalued at £80 million.

He gave a number of assurances on controversial issues raised by the interviewer and said: ‘And all of the things that you are raising have got to be cleared.

‘So that when the Financial Services Authority approve Rangers as being fit to go on the stock market none of these questions lie unanswered’.

So this very comforting FSA ‘guarantee’ looks like another lead into gold bonanza as far as Rangers and the proposed AIM flotation is concerned, or is it?

In 2000 the FSA took responsibility for the Listing Regime which focuses on the eligibility of securities for admission to the ‘Official List’ and uses the name UK Listing Authority (UKLA) when carrying out this function.

In this role, the FSA is a securities regulator, focused on the companies which issue the securities traded in our financial markets. However, the FSA website states: ‘The UKLA does not have the power to make subjective qualitative judgements about a company’s suitability for listing’.

OK so I get that bit but what about a share flotation on the AIM Market?

Let’s go to old friend wikipedia which states: ‘The Official List is the list maintained by the FSA (UKLA) in accordance with Section 74(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the Act) for the purposes of Part VI of the Act.

‘The Official List is a list of securities issued by companies for the purpose of those securities being traded on a UK regulated market. An example of a UK regulated market is the London Stock Exchange’s Main Market.’

Right that’s the Main Market dealt with – What about the junior AIM Market, is that a regulated market?

Well the London Stock Exchange (LSE) created AIM with the objective of offering smaller companies the opportunity to raise capital on a market with a pragmatic approach to regulation.

LSE further states that AIM: ‘Under the directives that form the EU’s Financial Services Action Plan, AIM is not a Regulated Market but instead falls within the classification of a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) as defined under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004 (MiFID)’.

Wait a minute, come again! So AIM isn’t a Regulated Market but are the prospectuses of companies applying to float approved by the FSA or UKLA or even LSE?

The first bit is quite easy to answer: ‘AIM companies and Nomads are regulated by a dedicated team at the London Stock Exchange – AIM Regulation – a team of professionals including lawyers, accountants and corporate financiers’. Well to my untrained eye that seems to rule out the FSA and UKLA.

But what about the LSE? This appears to be answered by the first page of a company’s AIM application document having to state prominently and in bold type:

“AIM is a market designed primarily for emerging or smaller companies to which a higher investment risk tends to be attached than to larger or more established companies. AIM securities are not admitted to the official list of the UKLA.

“A prospective investor should be aware of the risks of investing in such companies and should make the decision to invest only after careful consideration and, if appropriate, consultation with an independent financial adviser.

“The London Stock Exchange has not itself examined or approved the contents of this document.”

Well it appears that the FSA, UKLA and LSE don’t actually vet AIM flotations and give a thumbs-up or down to the application. I know that will bring great sorrow to many of my fellow internet bampots 😦

But I cannot rest on my laurels as I may have missed vital evidence or misinterpreted what I have read and am well aware of how experienced Charlie is at floating companies.

So I think it best to have the FSA to actually confirm what the correct position is as it could have a direct bearing on whether football fans purchase shares or not. I doubt if it will affect the judgement of institutional investors who probably already know the answer to my question.

And if anyone out there does know then I will be happy to hear the answer which might set a lot of minds at rest and actually boost the amount raised for Charlie’s Rangers which I’m sure would please him.

Posted by Ecojon



Filed under Charles Green, Guest Posts, Rangers


  1. A M

    Paul, why not ask the FSA?

    Write to them saying you’re a prospective buyer of Rangers shares and are a bit nervous, as football shares have often been a bad investment.

    However, Charles Green has said if the “…Financial Services Authority approve Rangers as being fit to go on the stock market” then you’ll be much more relaxed about it.

    I think the FSA would be interested in them potentially being used as leverage to make prospective investors more comfortable with the risk if, in fact, there is no such approval process from them.

  2. TheBlackKnight TBK


    The interview was on Scot Night on STV

  3. dom

    I thought the green interview was on stv?

  4. mick

    great read ecojon and you explianed the market system well there for us to understand ,if its a aim its unregulated and means the aim market is not the best place to put your hard earned cash ,this is why dodegy gezzers like green play there

  5. mick

    beeb = the rest of scotland soccer team and stv= sevco green team

    its the beeb v stv for viewing figures on the matter

  6. A couple of months ago on Phil’s blog someone was writing about the continuation of club/company and he pointed us to a link which seemed to be a company prospectus for The Rangers. When I received the link I only had my phone available and the clarity was not great. After trying to read the chaps point, I had a squint around the prospectus and came to the figures page, at the top of the list it had purported total assets at either £113 million or £103 million, it was difficult to make out but it was definitely a nine figure sum starting with 1. When I got to my computer that evening I tried the link and the prospectus had been taken down. It looked very interesting too, had a small swearing fit. It was there and I was not in the Twilight Zone.

    • ecojon

      @ hawkeyethegnu

      Was the £113 million not the Rangers property vale figure?

      • No, the heading ran something like

        The Rangers Football Club Ltd
        Total Assets – (the nine digit number starting with 1).
        It was at the top of a list of other monetary information. It was difficult to read on my blackberry, so decided to wait until I could get online with my computer, then it was gone. Honest. I will try to look back on Phil’s blogs to give you a date, but may take a wee while.
        It definitely was not property sale figure of that I am certain.

      • I have found the date and the post with address. It is Phil’s blog ‘Club and Company’ dated 25th of August this year and is on a posting by EFFanning. It was next day I noticed it was missing and commented on this on his blog on the 27th. When you go to address now there is a computerspeak message about URLs whatever they are. I know it was a nine digit number before the decimal point as I remember counting them to see what ball park the number was in and it definitely started with the numeral 1. Now you know all I know. I hope it helps. Good luck

        • Adeste Fideles

          can’t find the original pdf, but there’s a few sites that have some screenshots of it. try this one http://cybertims.net/index.php/news/item/112-greens-proposals-to-the-sfa-document

          • This is similar to the page I saw, but it was more of a itemised list. Description to the left and amounts on the right. Maybe 6-9 items. But it looks as though I may have picked it up wrong and maybe it was property portfolio since the figures do look similar, but I don’t usually make mistakes like this (I’m a bit of nit-picker I like to be as accurate as possible, but since I only posted ‘total assets’ a day after I had noticed the document missing, this may be where my error may have crept in), I apologise, if I have mislead anyone, it was truly unintentional.
            I don’t think it is the same page, but since the figure looks similar I must admit my mistake. But still it is some figure to be boasting about at around the time Duff and Phelps were trying to explain why they undervalued their evaluation of what Rangers were worth at the time of sale to Green. Remember the excuse was that it could take two years to sell Ibrox and that this wait would eat into any practical profit.
            Sorry ecojon, thanks to Adeste Fideles

  7. ecojon

    The interview was on Newsnight STV Wednesday 17/10 at 10.30pm and it’s on STV iplayer and well worth watching as there are a few gems on it and sadly a very inexperienced journo who was totally overawed by chico.

    What made me decide to write the piece btw was the amount of Bears I saw on fan forums afterwards saying that if it was backed by the SFA then they would invest.

    I always thought that the only ‘actual’ regulation in AIM was a rather weak self-regulation which largely rested on the Nominated Advisor (NOMAD) carrying out their role professionally. They are paid by the applicant company so even if professional have pressures on them I would think.

    So I was a bit surprised at the FSA claim but as I say Charlie the expert so we’ll see.

  8. ecojon

    OOPS – should have said backed by the FSA not the SFA – don’t think many Bears would have backed that mix of initials 🙂

  9. My reading of the FSA listing rules appears to confirm that they must approve for AIM. A good read Eco.

    • ecojon

      @ Violet Carson

      I’m afraid I take the opposite view as it would appear that the FSA are talking about the Official List on the main LSE and not the AIM Market which is not a regulated market.

      But if you want to quote where you are citing from I’ll have another look. You may well be correct as, to the outsider like myself, it is a confusing arena.

      • You have probably read it, but there was an article put out last week which seems to be discussing same issue. If you Google Rangers FC/FT Alphaville. It is by Bryce Elder. I’m a dunderheid so could not take out of it what you would. Sorry to have bothered you if you have read it.

    • Looks like Charlie is trying to shortcut the system. How’s he gonnae get 3 years of accounts? When he gets to “Pay the fees” he’ll choke 🙂

      • ecojon


        Well the club hasn’t died and Green constantly refers to the fans buying shares in the club so shurly the accounts involving D&P, Cragie and Murray, would all be able to be used to cover the three years.

    • ecojon

      @ redetin

      Certainly in the LSE site there is the line which states that: ‘Register the prospectus with the UKLA’.

      However, the FSA website states: ‘The UKLA does not have the power to make subjective qualitative judgements about a company’s suitability for listing’.

      And I have yet to find any requirement by the FSA to approve an AIM prospectus.

  10. COYBIG

    No! You’re wrong Mr Ecojon! There’s no way Mr Green, the CEO of The Rangers Football Company, would make such a thing up. A man, who was specifically picked for the job because of his experience, would never go on national TV and lie, just to appease potential share holders.

    Nor would Mr Green start talking about building a shop, and moving a ticket office. When he’s been asked – Why is a new club having a share issue to raise working capital?

    Sarcasim doesn’t come across well in text, does it? 😉

    • ecojon

      @ Coybig

      Well if I’m wrong and the FSA do vet AIM applications there’s no great damage done whereas if I’m not wrong and Bears buy shares on the basis of a mistaken premise and lose their dosh at some point down the line then they will be unable to blame the FSA although that might not exempt the SFA 🙂

      As to who else they might blame would depend on whether a replacement ‘Dear Leader’ was in place at that time.

      However I am sure any error on my part or that of Mr Green will be a genuine mistake.

  11. I have been looking further into this and my head hurts. The UKLA and FSA are to all intents and purposes the same (as you said I believe), but I cannot find a specific ‘we cover or do not cover AIM’ . I don’t have more tme now, sorry, but I will pursue. In any case I am not sure it matters as the prospectus should be clear.

    • ecojon

      @ Violet Carson

      Ah well I’m not sure about how much they are the same as the UKLA are only UKLA it seems when involved in the listing function. Of course if the prospectus states that it is approved by the FSA that would provide the answer.

      However, I am then drawn to the statement which must be included in the application form as one of the pars reads: “The London Stock Exchange has not itself examined or approved the contents of this document.”

  12. nowoldandgrumpy


    AIM is owned and operated by the London Stock Exchange in its capacity as a Recognised Investment Exchange under Part XVIII of the UK’s Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). AIM therefore falls within the definition of a Prescribed Market under FSMA 2000 and is subject to the UK market abuse regime. Under the directives that form the EU’s Financial Services Action Plan, AIM is not a Regulated Market but instead falls within the classification of a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) as defined under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004 (MiFID).

    • ecojon

      @ nowoldandgrumpy

      But do the FSA approve an AIM prospectus?

      • nowoldandgrumpy

        I would say no.

        • ecojon

          @ nowoldandgrumpy

          I will award my self one thumbs-up on your post 🙂

          • nowoldandgrumpy

            Maybe to quick with my answer:

            FSA – Financial Services Authority. The FSA is responsible for approving a Prospectus published by a company
            seeking admission to AIM or by a company which is on AIM. The FSA acting as the UK Listing Authority is also
            responsible for admission to the Official List.

            Prospectus – a company applying to AIM must produce a prospectus if there is an offer of shares to the public.
            The FSA must review and approve the prospectus. Most AIM fundraisings are therefore structured as Placings to
            avoid this requirement. Recent changes to two of the exemptions from the requirement to produce a prospectus
            may lead to a change in market practice. The threshold for fundraisings which require a prospectus has been
            increased from €2.5 million to €5 million. Offers of shares made to less than 150 persons per member state will
            also not require a prospectus.

            • ecojon


              It’s unfortunate that the comment: ‘The FSA is responsible for approving a Prospectus published by a company’ doesn’t seem to tie-back to the actual FSA Rule. I’ve tried to look at the exceptions but beyond my grey matter tonight and will have a go tomorrow but I reckon might be easier just asking FSA to confirm.

              I don’t know if you saw the separate bit about the AIM Application Form not needing to be approved by FSA whch I thought was where the actual hard info was provided as distinct from the marketing side in a glossy prospectus.

              And then we go back to the other conundrum I have been raising for some time: If this is a £20 million flotation what happens to the 22+ million shares already issued to the original investor consortium.

              Does that mean we have a potential £42 million shares in Rangers – mick touches on this below – or is it only the original investor 22+ million which have to have been traded privately as they are issued and paid previously but if this is the case what company are these shares currently in? Could they then end-up as a non-public placement as mentioned in the AIM guide? And why is that such a big attraction as opposed to issuing a prospectus as it seems to suggest there are pitfalls with a prospectus.

            • Project Walliams

              Prospectus – a company applying to AIM must produce a prospectus if there is an offer of shares to the public.

              Isn’t that the point? – the shares were to be offered to T’rangers family, not the public.
              And the other point – CG mentioned 9,000 expressions of interest in the prospectus. At most 8,000 of those will ‘invest’. Raising at best £5mil. Will there be institutional investors? Given the lack of companies knocking at the door, there is some doubt in that. If so the initial investors will barely cover their initial investment and may not be able to withdraw. The cupboard will remain bear.
              Some time between christmas and new year someone will have to grasp the nettle – SFL3 income with SPL expenditure till 2013; SFL2 income with SPL expenditure till 2014; SFL1 income with SPL expenditure till 2015.
              Unless drastic measures are taken, by the time T’Rangers get back into the SPL they will be servicing the same £20mil debt they had accrued when this omnishambles first kicked off.
              The only thing that’ll save them then would be a new owner with wealth off the radar…and a £1 to spare.


  14. mick

    what about this theroy for a wee bit of bampottery
    The Share Issue

    There are 22,670,000 shares in Sevco, owned by Charles Green and his consortium. Initial £12 million investment added to £10,670,000 of season ticket sales. The remainder of 27,330,000 new share will make up a total equity of 50,000,000 £1 shares. They then add the £ 27,330,000 income from the share issue placing an equity value of the company to £73,330,000.00. Charles Green and his consortium will own 50% which is £ 38,665,000 in share value. They will then sell their shares back to the Company. The Company will have to acquire the shares and will empty the bank to pay them.

    This would push Sevco 5088 into administration and they have cashed in covering Ticketus and Investment debt and they still own the assets. They will then sell the assets on the cheap and it’s job done.

    Charles Green was reported to the FTSE rules in 1998. Sheffield United’s Board of Directors reported him for similar misselling of their floatation. Charles Green alone has set back Sheffield United 12 years and almost bankrupted them at the time.

    Would you buy shares with this guy?

    sourced at tsfm

    • ecojon

      @ Mick

      Don’t think it was Board who complained – I think it was a shareholder Blades fan who from memory was a CA. But haven’t really found anything online to fill-in the details. It certainly was described as the most oversubscribed football flotation ever by Green I think.

      Thing about oversubscription at the level it seems to have happened is that it’s bad news and shows that number of shares and price weren’t in equilibrium and it costs the floating company money although perhaps that this was a reverse takeover might have affected the calculations as I think this was the first time it was ever done by the Shellmeister Michael Edelson with the Man Utd connections.

      Green says that 22+ million shares have already been paid and issued to consortium but we don’t know what company the shares are in. What I can’t figure out since the £20 million flotation has been mentioned is whether Rangers ends up with 42+ million shares out there or if say only 10 million shares are sold at flotation then it would be 32 million.

      Or whether the original investors flog their 22+ million shares which are then bought by the Bears.

      But Green is adamant that none of the original investors will be selling their shares so we are back to the prospectus and what will be in it in terms of answers.

  15. carl31

    Is a ‘theroy’ a theory but its with a broad Brummy accent :)?

    ..such as the ‘Theroy of Relativitoy’.?

  16. ecojon

    @ carl31

    Bed for you and that’s where I’m heading.

  17. JimBhoy

    Maybe a T was missing the The rangers, Charles Green wishes to get his dyslexic IPO through fasT…. fast as fuk so he can gtf soon after..!!

  18. JimBhoy

    Actually bollocks, the Baron is the best thing that happened to rangers imo… He fits in nicely with the previous shysters they engaged… He is the Kharma Chameleon..! No-one else to blame bar the guys who have run the club but the fans listen to the eejit Leggo and each week someone else is to blame, if he is a mouthpiece to the rangers fans…. Then you Bears are all fuck’d and deservedly so…!!!!

    It is not a football team that needs to change it is a whole culture and it pisses me off that people I know are asked to fork out in this time of poverty…. Call Chico’s bluff he says he will take up the spare, let him do that and put your money in next time when it is less suspicious, surely the s
    best course of action, not sure my rangers supporting family have made their mind up..! terrible situation but chico will fuk u all…!

  19. JimBhoy

    @Mick good detail but te thing is the rangers fans see fuk all evidence that their new saviour is corrupt and if any timmy questions his sh!t then they are the enemy.. They deserve the baron dude and i for one could not give a flying fuk..! |On a positive, is it me or have I heard a couple of rangers boys come here, scathe, listen and then understand this is a forum for all with questions and not a rangers bashing session… You know my background and my immediate relations hurt but the rangers imo need to start at the start point, lose the baggage that killed them and put a plan together that gets a great club back where they belong without the stupid aholes who have held them back…!!!!! Just my opinion.

    • cam

      whoa,,,i had u figured as a level headed bhoy!,,what has happened to bring on all this rage?,,,your top of the league,winning a treble for 10 years minimum,in the CL and you’re raging at something.Get outa this loon factory,its bad for your mental health.Think of your wee mum and calm down with all that swearing.Just leave us Bears to muddle through,,,we are still laughing.

  20. mick


    its been confirmed octypus own ticketus and zues its factual world exclusive via tommy gold lol a must listen

  21. Fisiani

    The Administators sold eveything for 5.5 million pounds.
    Green now claims that the pysical assets alone are worth 80 million pounds.
    Forgive me but is that not incompetance at best or illegal at worst.
    The stiffed creditors get nowt and Green makes a potental 74.5 million in 4 months. Anyone care to explain how this is legal?

  22. Geddy Lee.

    Oh Dear. I’m afraid I got carried away and pledged a grand to the “cause”.

    It would almost be worth it just to get a swatch at the prospectus. (Sorry Chasa)

    Anyway, it seems that Charlie realises that anything he says wil not be scrutinised by anyone in Sevcovia , and certainly there is no-one working in the Scottish media with the intelligence or will to be able to report on this pantomime with any accuracy or objectivity.

    Surely the Movie can’t be far off now.

    Finally, I do like their new PINK top, all for “Charity” of course (Cough Cough). Will it be available in XXXXL I ask myself. LOL

  23. mick

    maybe leggo will change his pic on blog to the new pink 1 it would well suit him and his persona lol

  24. Econ,
    I am having a run through the Allenby portfolio…..i will revert

  25. Skinny

    Prospectus – a company applying to AIM must produce a prospectus if there is an offer of shares to the public. The FSA must review and approve the prospectus. Most AIM fundraisings are therefore structured as Placings to avoid this requirement. Recent changes to two of the exemptions from the requirement to produce a prospectus may lead to a change in market practice. The threshold for fundraisings which require a prospectus has been increased from €2.5 million to €5 million. Offers of shares made to less than 150 persons per member state will also not require a prospectus – this has been increased from the previous limit of less than 100. So companies applying to AIM will be able to:
    1 offer shares to a wider group of investors; and
    2 tap retail demand where it exists,
    all without being required to produce a prospectus so long as this part of the fundraising is for less than €5 million.
    Taken from http://www.burges-salmon.com/Practices/corporate/equity_capital_markets/Publications/A_Guide_to_Joining_AIM.pdf
    which is a nicely written guide, clear and easy to understand.

    • ecojon

      @ Skinny

      I think the best thing I have found is: http://www.pinsentmasons.com/mediafiles/225081526.pdf

      However, I accept that the FSA do ‘approve’ a prospectus but I wonder if this essentially means a box-ticking exercise by and large as to what information/content must be be legally shown. As to the accuracy or completeness of that information then I am unclear as to what degree of checking is done, if any.

      But one thing I am certain of is that the the FSA don’t approve an actual Flotation.

      It is also rather worrying that: ‘The FSA will continue to allow omission of information from a prospectus where it considers the disclosure of such
      information would be contrary to the public interest, seriously detrimental to the issuer, or where the information is of minor importance’.

      The ‘minor importance’ seems acceptable but the other two headings? I am always wary when ‘Authority’ becomes a secret arbiter of public interes and if there is something in a prospectus that is seriously detrimental to the issuer then doesn’t the share purchaser have a right to know what it is as it could possiblt have a serious effect on their holding should it emerge at a later date. So the FSA might ‘approve’ a stripped-out prospectus but would the prospective investor?

      Then there is the whole area of exemptions but I think we have to wait and see what happens to the original investors shares to come to a concrete conclusion.

  26. COYBIG

    A very interesting blog:


    Especially this wee bit:

    “Sevco 5088 Ltd is an English Company, formed by Field Fisher Waterhouse. 35 Vine Street, London, EC3N 2AA, incorporated on 29.03.2012.

    Field Fisher Waterhouse are the Solicitors of Octopus, owners of Ticketus.”

    So, does anyone know if that’s true?

  27. Jono

    Maybe Charlie is desparate to get cash to pay of Whyte’s floating charge….just when you though it was safe…..Craigie is back…

  28. Econ
    Having been stimulated by Econjons focus on Imram Ahmed I commented last week about his previous company Hoodless Brennan who were pretty notorious for boiler room tactics on AIM and Plus market shares. I was not suggesting any such situation with Rangers although in fairness the tactics of boiler rooms are to attack and pressurise private investors. There is usually never any institutional involvement in these situations for obvious reasons ie the institutions are not usually stupid. Rangers fans, I am sure, are not stupid either, although they want to believe badly. Boiler rooms use hooks on people such as greed, pressure, threats etc and “believe badly” could be considered a hook in my opinion.
    We have all been following the insane antics of Charles Green as he attempts to get Rangers fans believing in him. I do not have to name all his quotes otherwise I would be rivalling Tolstoy. I will quietly mention that it must have been difficult for Chic to first get involved with Zeus in february as he claims when i note that Imran only joined Zeus in April!
    Imran left Hoodless Brennan to form Allenby Capital and had 80% of the share capital having invested £200k. He was quoted at the time as “wanting to do things differently”. A fair enough comment given the reputation of twice FSA fined Hoodless Brennan. So I thought I would have a look at the Allenby portfolio and measure its success. Firstly however I was interested why Imran had sold his company. Companies house now reveals the two new joint owners of Allenby as being HB Markets PLC and Appleby Trust Jersey……..HB is short for Hoodless Brennan…..and Coybig revealed yesterday that Mr John Patrick Brennan was on the board of Simply Stockbrokers who are handling Rangers internet share dealing. I conclude therefore that Imran and Hoodless Brennan are still associated and working with each other.
    Before i list the portfolio i have to say that I have tried to obtain the starting share positions on the portfolio and the latest traded position today. These companies are all AIM penny shares and have had plenty of advisers so Allenby are not responsible for some of the drastic figures I am going to detail. I mention dilution a lot in this portfolio and it basically means that when a company needs cash it has to create new shares to sell thus diluting the existing shareholders. Rangers are a classic example in that the company has circa 22m shares with a value (set by Chic!) at £20m. He needs to create another 22m shares to raise cash (for what ever purpose) thus diluting the existing shareholders. On a general positions lots od dilutions are bad news as this means the companies need CASH and have to sell more shares to keep going or in a more positive view acquire or invest.
    I will start off with the Allenby quoted portfolio-:

    3D DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING Health Care Equipment
    & Services 3DD
    Technology, Hardware and
    Equipment AFC
    AVIA HEALTH INFORMATICS Software & Computer Services AVIA
    BRADY EXPLORATION Natural Resources BRDY
    Support Services EMR
    EVOLVE CAPITAL Financial Services EVOL
    GEM BIOFUELS Food Producers & Processors GBF
    Alternative Energy IKA
    IPSO VENTURES Financial Services IPS
    LED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS Technology, Hardware and
    Equipment LED
    Support Services MEDI
    MERCHANT HOUSE GROUP Financial Services MHG
    Support Services MBO
    MONEYSWAP Financial Services SWAP
    Technology, Hardware and
    Equipment MWE
    Technology NASA
    Alternative Energy PPS
    Media RHM
    RTC GROUP Support Services RTC
    Technology, Hardware and
    Equipment SEV
    Metals & Mining SML
    Mining SNRP
    TEJOORI Investment Services TJI
    TRICOR Technology TRIC
    Oil & Gas Producers UEN
    Metals & Mining VML
    Technology XGT

    3D Diagnostic Imaging no profits ever recorded, share dilution of 3x floated at 6p now trading at 0.125p
    AFC Energy never profitable, shares diluted 3x. Placing in 2008 at 11p per share and currently trading at 35p
    Atlantic Coal never made a profit in seven years, 10x share dilution. Placed by Hitchens (ex employer of Chic) at 2p currently trading 0.305p
    Avia Health Informatics no profits ever recorded, shares heavily diluted, raised start monry at 60p now trading at 7.5p
    Brady Exploration no profits ever recorded, heavy share dilution, raised original funding at 115p…this is a long story. This company used to be called Capscon…do not go there!
    Cellcast made a maiden profit last year for the first time since its inception in 2005. The really interesting thing about this company was that they announced that their brokers name had changed from HB (Hoodless Brennan) to Allenby……….A name change!!! Very odd and a matter of public record via Reuters News Service. Oh yes the shares are diluted 3x and their profit was the first in seven years. The original placing price in 2005 was 75p. Todays price is 1.05p
    Emprassario Group Profitable company, share dilution 2x, current price 23p original placing price of 28p in 2009.
    Evolve Capital Well this one will be good! No profits since 2008 inception. Raised capital at discounted rate of 5p in 2010..the price at the time was 1.75p! This company owned a majority shareholding in the infamous Astaire Securities who were heavily fined by the FSA for share misuse regarding one of their clients……WORTHINGTON NICHOLLS PLC…..remember Craig Whytes pension fund fiasco………conclusion of course that all these players Whyte, Imran, Hoodless Brennan and Astaire are all linked… indisputable!
    Gem Biofuels No profits ever since inception, share dilution, placed originally at 12.5p trading today at 1.38p……….hang on stop press Share is SUSPENDED
    Global Lock Safety International Fairly profitable, current share price 4.5p, originally placed at 13p
    Ilika no profits since inception since 2010, current price 38.5p, original placing price of 51p
    IPSO Ventures no profits since inception in 2007, shares diluted 3x, currently trading at 1.55p and originally placed at 85p
    Jellybook 2011 floatation at 10p now trading at 5.08p
    LED International Hugely unprofitable in four out of the last five years. Share dilution 4x. Floated at 10p now trading at 0.295.
    Medilink Global This company was suspended this year for three months for late filing. Current share price at 1.75p, was floated at 18p
    Merchant House Craigiebhoys own company, never made a profit in seven years, share dilution of 10x trading at 0.0425…. Dying any time now.
    Mobilityone marginally profitable, no share dilution, currently trading at 3.50p originally floated at 12.5p
    Money Swap entered AIM in 2011 at 5p now trading at 2.75p
    MTI Wireless Edge profitable Israeli company entered AIM in 2006 at 39p, currently trading at 5.75p
    Nasstar one annual profit in seven years, placing in 2008 at 28p now trading at 11.62p
    Niche total disaster now cancelled on AIM
    Noventa seven years of losses, share dilution 2x, share price on float was 8p, now trading at 3.38p
    Palace Capital share dilution x2 , suspended last year. Placing in 2011 at 2.25p currently trading at 2p.
    Proton Power Systems no profits since inception in 2006, share dilution 30x, float price in 2008 was 80p
    Resource Handling Management profitable company trading at 15p after floatinf in 2008 at 10p………….RESULT!
    RTC Group I did not know that rangerstaxcsae had floated although as you can see anything is possible on AIM! Seriously this company is undiluted and reasonably profitable. It is trading at 14p having floated at 85p
    Servision modestly profitable, shares diluted 3.5x trading at 4.12p having floated in 2006 at 21.37p
    SML Heavy loss in first year, started trading at 5p and now at 4.5p
    Tejoori BVI based company with staggering losses over seven years. Cannot find the float price although this stock was trading at 100p in 2008. Currently 0.50p
    The Weather Lottery no profits in seven years, dilution of 10x, floated at 8p now trading at 0.125p
    Tricor this is a company with a history of boiler room claims against it. Leo Knifton, well known in the art was a director here. The company has a history of suspensions, law suits against directors and has a share dilution of 300x….not a misprint.
    Urals hugely unprofitable company, share dilution of 4x with a float price of 190p and currently at 4.88p with lots of very angry investors
    Vane Minerals no profits in seven years, share dilution of 3x. Floated at 12p now trading at 0.865
    XG technology There are three companies with similar names here. Floated last year at 0.25$ currently trading at 0.35p

    Well there you have it. Welcome to Imrans World………………………a complete semi regulated disaster are full of the same people turning the ordinary punter over almost without exception.
    Please Rangers fans ask the right questions based on as much information as you can get. The decision is yours although i do not personally think that your team have a great record here.

  29. COYBIG


    “and Coybig revealed yesterday that Mr John Patrick Brennan was on the board of Simply Stockbrokers who are handling Rangers internet share dealing.”

    Just to be clear, I read it on another site. So you should check and make sure it’s 100% true, just to be sure. 😉

  30. lordmac

    hi PAUL how does there share deal work out, if they raised 20million what percentage of the club does this represent 50% 45% 40%
    the reason i ask this is. That somewhere there is a guy or guys put in 22million or they put in 5.5 and are to get double with my accountant skills to me it looks like there are 4 guys that put in £1 million 375,000 EACH AND THE raised A figure of £5.5 they now get x times four giving us a price of £22million
    i take it this is like ticketus money here waiting here once again on the fans to buy the shares, so as these investors get there promesed dividend, and that they all walk away with 5.5 million each if this is to happen
    do the then 20 million of share holders get 100% of the club as the payed the investors of, as like they way tickutus payed of Lloyd’s
    what is in it for 20 million investors against what the £5.5 investors received or could it be once more tickitus payed the 5.5 million to try and recoup its initial loss once again and could tickutus actually have been Zeus capital all along. hope you get the just of this Paul.

  31. Thomas

    RTC Twitter last night. Rangers guilty verdic.
    Plus on Celticunderground.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s