Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter

RRL Share Chat - RSS Feed

Range Resources Ltd Share Chat (RRL)



Share Price: 0.535Bid: 0.56Ask: 0.64Change: 0.00 (0.00%)No Movement on Range Res.
Spread: 0.08Spread as %: 14.29%Open: 0.00High: 0.00Low: 0.00Yesterday’s Close: 0.535


Share Discussion for Range Res. (RRL)


Thread ViewThread View
Please Login or Register to post messages
Posts per page:


lewisycymoedd
Posts: 2,173
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.65
View Thread (4)
RE: Democracy
4 Dec '14
When this sort of coup occurs, it tends to be looked at with great interest by the authorities, fellow shareholders and staff. So I am not so sure it is a done deal yet. An EGM can and should be called asap.

On the RIG poll, it was approx 60% of RIG members who wanted to keep RSR, GL and CB on BOD. And also keep latest two Aussies whilst we're on ASX and require 2 Australian nationals. M E-J was not popular at all, and was the only one voted off without Abrahams block being thrown in the mix.

My guess would be that 50% plus of shareholders who were not signed up to RIG would have been slightly more pro RSR/GL/CB than RIG members, and many RIG and non-RIG may feel aggrieved they had cards to play, questions to ask, presentations to think about. And then a couple of people disrupt events in Perth and, for whatever reason, Reikle did not have Security and police in to arrest them.
 
bountyhunter007
Posts: 1,028
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
View Thread (4)
RE: Democracy
4 Dec '14
I don't know what is this hue and cry about voting when actually most of us are not mourning demise of BoDs. In any case we were destined to doomed with current set of people, so any change is most welcome. At least now we have 50/50 chance even if we are at mercy of Abraham.
Toonman
Posts: 123
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
View Thread (4)
RE: Democracy
4 Dec '14
RIG are a collection of individual shareholders who each hold shares and each one of them can vote for or against resolutions as they so wish (or indeed not vote at all). They are not an entity and have no collective vote.

However Abrahams hold some 700 million shares and are an entity and can indeed vote the entire lot as they so wish. On the day approx 700 million votes was enough for them to have their way. The shareholders were given an opportunity to express their wishes and most of them chose not to by not voting. Those that did vote succeeded in removing most of the BOD by a majority. That's the way it works, that's the way it always has worked. I can't see how it can work in any other way. It is exactly the same principle as voting for an MP in your constituency. If there is a low turnout and someone you don't want gets in do you have the right to call for a return to the poll so that more people can vote?

As a result of the terms of the finance provided Abrahams had the right to appoint two directors, this was not a secret and we all knew that was the case. So no surprise then that they exercise the right and we now appear to be in the hands of Dave Chen and Kiki Wang. Like all of us I haven't got a clue what Abrahams have in mind, the only hope is that it involves increasing the value of our investment, rather than halving it as RSR had done. But the process has been legal and there is nothing we can do about it.
BhoyGeorge
Posts: 1,036
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
Loving Celtic's 7:30 post
4 Dec '14
Loving Celtic's 7:30 post today. Taking 'Playing the Victim' to a whole new level.

Was it just me, or did anyone else hear all the tiny violins as you read it.
lewisycymoedd
Posts: 2,173
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
View Thread (5)
RE: Six Days
4 Dec '14
What would your stance have been in WW2, Rich? King George (sic) is mooching around doing nothing, occasional visit down the East End to see damage to rigs. Let's have someone else to run GM Ltd in 1942. Who? What about King George's elder brother, Prince David - he and his American wife can reason with people, they are go-getters and focussed and can make GB great again.

For me, it is a gimme that - if you hold shares - you support BOD or management. At least on public boards. Criticise Range or other shareholders constructively - yes. Be hostile, rude, racist, uncaring and abusive - no. And, if you are not a shareholder, you can of course comment and be critical - but lack of skin needs to be openly declared.
garyn
Posts: 32,769
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
RTN
4 Dec '14
Maybe the king didn't have any clothes on :)
RichTheNewbie
Posts: 10,177
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
View Thread (5)
RE: Six Days
4 Dec '14
" If we had all supported our King these last 9 months, perhaps Range would not be in this ridiculous state."

Or not. That's just silly :p
lewisycymoedd
Posts: 2,173
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
View Thread (4)
Democracy
4 Dec '14
We have a democratic huge block of shareholders (RIG) who encourage their members to vote for the Resolutions according to conscience. And there would have been many who could not be "rs"d to vote and others who were voting both "yes" and "no" right through the card based on sentiment and bias often.

And we had a block vote from an anonymous company who own less shares than RIG membership outing our Board and putting nothing in place yet - despite what many think has been months of detailed planning.

I feel the situation shoud be challenged, another AGM take place before Christmas and vote should reflect wishes of shareholders, not just Abrahams. And, no, I have no interest other than as a simple shareholder who sits on .93p average, sees a lot of potential value in this share and is quite keen that Range ii (or what appears to now be Range iii) sheds any shadow of Range Mark i (Landaueuphoria) and has a stable and well-supported management team (BOD), and executive team (CEO, CFO, COO etc).
garyn
Posts: 32,769
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
View Thread (3)
RE: Mickdee
4 Dec '14
Crazy how they managed to do it and people actually bought - although suspect some were just in for the rise on hype and knew full well it wasn't worth that much! If you look at the size of the company who owned all of HH before selling bits off to these minnows, you had to wonder why they didn't just keep it if it was so good as they certainly had the money. Strangely posting anything along those lines tended to result in a flurry of posts to knock the comment back a few pages... :)
lewisycymoedd
Posts: 2,173
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.68
View Thread (5)
RE: CV
4 Dec '14
Quite amused by that post, bounty. Tick, tick, tick......ohhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!





Sign up for Live Prices


Home  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Careers  |  Advertise with Us  |  Sitemap  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Cookies  |  Privacy


Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.