bossy

Yes, Walter did cross my mind as he has earned the trust and respect of the fans. Walter has conceded that he has only a limited knowledge of the business world and this could be a negative when it comes to his credibility. You are right to suggest that the support are pleading for an honest and important message after so much that has been confusing and misleading. I am genuinely not sure what the message will be but if is one that Walter Smith would be comfortable delivering, then great.

What we need is a supporter-director with full powers (i.e. not a 'fan's rep'), initially nominated by the main supporter's groups for a specific term of office (that gives us time to set up an election structure for subsequent supporter-directors), squeaky clean and with great business credentials. Essentially, we need our own person on the inside.

I think I would prefer to wait to hear what the requisitioners have to say before drawing any conclusions.

The decision is far less severe than I expected.

However, there is a certain logic to the decision because it became quite clear that the SFA had opened a rather large can of worms here with the realisation that betting is rife amongst players. So my guess is that the SFA, by being fairly lenient, are hoping that this issue will quietly go away.

The drama queens are out in force over on FF. But, actually, the numbers in that projection are not all that horrible. The problem is not what the numbers tell us but, rather, what they don't tell us. Notably, how much of the revenue is getting syphoned off by third parties in the forms of commission, revenue sharing, etc.. The number s don't tell us if the deals negotiated by management are good for the club or good for management.

I sense a softening in the position towards Mather which might see him staying on the Board and continuing as CEO while others are removed.

And, presumably, Rangers are paying for this.

I think I am correct in saying that the case will be heard by an "Independent" Panel or Tribunal or at least there is an appeal to an independent tribunal. If you were a member of the panel and found him guilty of betting against his own team, what would you do? How much would the amount of the bet weigh in your decision?

The charges against Black are what they are although I do have a problem with Rangers effectively being punished for actions while Black was with other teams.

However, the rules being what they are and with the increasing pace of revelations about professional footballers gambling against the rules, will we see a wider investigation? Or will we see the SFA hide behind the fig-leaf of 'evidence', try to make an example of Black and take no further action against other players (unless the play for Rangers of course)?

Footballer turned journalist Gordon Parks claims he knows of several senior games in Scotland that were fixed to rake in gambling winnings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23808606?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

This can of worms is well and truly open now. The SFA may come to regret not handling this more discretely.

Totally disagree with you, anyone caught gambling should be penalised no matter what club they played for.

If that is what the rule says then you are right.

But the SFA may well have dug themselves into a hole on this one given how widespread gambling seems to be. Either you enforce the rule or you do not. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Perhaps a more sensible approach would have been to specifically remind clubs and players of the rule and let them know that it was going to be enforced. Singling one player out for punishment - who just happens to be a Rangers player - just reinforces the notion that the SFA have an anti-Rangers agenda.

I have no problem with the statement. My concern is that all three organisations are content to cheer the belligerents on from the sidelines and that nothing substantive is being done to bring the supporter-shareholders together and to leverage their 12% so that we are part of the solution at Rangers.

The crazy thing is that to begin with most people were extremely skeptical about whether their documents were genuine or not, but as time goes on it appears more and more as though everything or certainly almost everything they're releasing is genuine. Some of it it's absolutely mind-boggling as well.

Which very much points to an Ibrox insider (or maybe an ex-insider).

Their comments in the Sunday papers weren't overly nice.

 

The Easdale factor is quite interesting. Not sure what to make of their involvement at all. Certainly doesn't seem to be to make money so possibly just to increase their profile?

I am sure that McColl has a thick skin. Actions will count louder than words. I don't think any of us know how this will eventually play out but my guess (and it is a guess) is that there will be a negotiated solution.

McColl is no mug and he doesn't seem to regard the presence of Easdale on the board to be a problem. They wouldn't seem to have a lot in common. Not sure, I can figure this out. Any thoughts on what appears to be a surprising approach?

McColl will know what he is dealing with when it comes to the Easdales. They are, after all, both local to Scotland and the Easdales will know that a good relationship with McColl will be to their advantage. And McColl may also know where they have one or two skeletons buried. So my guess is that the Easdales will play nice.

BTW, could it be that McColl uses Murray here as a "red herring", knowing full well that some on the board will object to him. McColl's main aim is to get Blin on board though and he could thus "easily sacrifice" the red herring to get his prime objective. Just saying ...

No point in getting Blin on if he is in a minority.

The reason that Murray has said nothing - so far- is because McColl has told both him and Blin to keep quiet while he (McColl) handles the negotiations.

Personally, I think that Mather may well survive and keep his job. He has been cleverly sitting on the fence and he does have a significant shareholding in his own right. I also think Stockbridge might survive although I think he is grossly overpaid for what he does.

Quite clearly, Blin is welcome. It is a bit hard to say no to that kind of pedigree. Who A.N. Other might be I have no idea although I am willing to listen to offers if Rangers need me. However, I feel that Paul Murray may end up being a casualty of war here.

The big issue is who might give way. McColl clearly wants the Green camp out of Ibrox and that probably means Smart and possibly the Easedales. McColl will want to give Blin and A.N. Other a majority on the Board otherwise why bother? So I don't think this is over as yet. The bargaining has begun. Let us see where it goes.

I agree, which is why I think there is a possibility of MCollCo settling for Blin IN Stockbridge OUT.

Blin is not a Stockbridge. I doubt that he will want to be CFO. His specialisation is corporate finance and corporate recovery. He also knows how to run businesses. After all, he ran a £1.2 billion business unit at PwC. He will be looking to develop the strategy and find the finance to drive that strategy. His role, I suspect, will be as the new Chairman of the Board.

As to Stockbridge, I don't actually have a problem with him except insofar as he is overpaid and get too big a bonus for the CFO of a £20 million turnover company. But if he is willing to take a cut and follow orders then why not?

McColl will be telling investors - especially institutional ones - that if the current management is allowed to stay in place then Rangers will end up in administration again and they will lose their money. He will be pointing out that he has new management lined up who are highly respectable and have a proven track record (Blin, Murray) and who will bring the club back on an even keel and start making money. He will be admitting to them that there will need to be a cash call in return for more shares but that is the best way to safeguard their investment and get a return in the long run. He may also be hinting that he can line up new cash (King).

 

Remember, it is not unusual to have multiple cash calls in turnaround situations and that, in itself, will not surprise the investors. The key issue here is their confidence in management to bring the club back to profitability and increase the share value. That confidence is what McColl is playing on.

I wrote the above in another thread a couple of days ago. Glad to see that Richard Wilson has been paying attention.

Will the new chairman come from the existing board or will an outsider get the job?

That may depend on how they plan to deal with the EGM issue.

I think it may be a case of (2) now.

 

Obviously it's difficult to try and predict anything in this farce but if the boardroom changes are made, then it's inevitable Green's influence and share-holding will be diluted. He either waits and the price drops or he sells now at a considerable profit - just like Imran last week,

If I were Green I would be looking to extricate myself with as much dosh as possible and ride off into the sunset. He must realise that he is in an end-game scenario now.

Most board meetings I've ever been to just about everything is decided in advance and there is little genuine discussion or decision making at the actual meeting itself.

 

No sensible director would leave decisions on matters as important as this to chance "on the night".

In general this is true. But also, in general, most companies are not in the midst of a crisis, a significant challenge to Board members and possibly a split Board. I am sure Board members have been talking offline but what we don't know is if they are all talking to each other.

If he is guilty then he should be punished. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with Rangers being effectively punished for Black's actions as a Hearts player. As such, Rangers should not be liable for any of his wages during the period of any punishment and we should have the right to terminate his contract with no recourse if the length of the punishment is overly damaging to Rangers.

Are these people known Rangers Supporters or anonymous posters?

I have no idea. On FF I know a few of the more regular posters outside of the online world. I don't go on RM enough, however.

Essentially ... will the Board take a conciliatory and compromising approach to the requisition or will they choose a conflictual approach? Should be interesting.

Yep, it all comes to down personality issues. A few people will not back down on that.

And, IMHO, it is relatively few. But on RM at least they have a tendency to shout everyone else down.

Yes it might force a compromise.