bossy

Personally, I am neutral on King. There are pros and cons to his involvement from my perspective.

But, if you look at it from the perspective of the anti-Rangers faction in Scotland, King's reappearance on the scene, unencumbered by his South African tax issues, has got to be bad news.

Here is a guy with some serious personal wealth and who has already splashed £20 million on Rangers. He is clearly very capable when it comes to running businesses and is clearly willing to splash some more of his wealth on Rangers.

And if your intent is to keep Rangers neutered then a Dave King is the last person you want to see appearing over the horizon.

Am I the only person that finds these cryptic tweets really annoying?

So far, these have all been names that have been reported in the media, which I kinda thought.....

 

everyone has been talking about Frank Blin (originally), the Christian Purslaw.....How many folk had actually heard of either of these 2 before they were mentioned in the media??? I suppose part of my point is that we get told such & such is interested & is a great guy and large number of folk simply follow that, and are convince they are the best thing since sliced bread.

 

On paper it is VERY easy to make someone look like the ideal candidate....

There are a ton of very capable businessmen out there with great CVs. But most of us have never heard of them because they are not media hogs. You have to look at their CVs and judge for yourself if you think they are competent. I have seen Blin's CV and it speaks for itself. But Blin is not alone. Take a look at the Rangers Group on LinkedIn and you will see a bunch of other Bears with pretty good CVs.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMembers=&gid=57392&sik=1382025894436

I dunno, might be the Assembly? I can't keep up with the fan bodies we have - when I want to go to a game I drive up to Govan and buy some tickets, so I don't use them much. At all, really.

It doesn't really matter. The Association, Assembly and Trust have been working very closely together for some time now. One of the few positives to come out of this whole mess.

I would like to see Frank Blin reconsider his decision to step away.

And to be fair to the Record, there are a great many Rangers fans who rely on such organs (sic) for their information. We should not assume that all Rangers fans are as well informed as the online community.

I think we all know the papers like to stir the pot with such daft terms - as do those who deliberately accept such descriptions at face value...

 

On this occasion, I think Mark has spoken pretty well - although I'd certainly take issue with PM's record.

I agree. It is the paper giving Mark these titles, not Mark himself.

While Mark is clearly in the Paul Murray camp, what he is actually says with regard to Murray in the article is that ...

"His record is there to be examined. It is now down to the fans to have a think about what they want for the club and to vote for the directors that they want.".

I don't think that is unreasonable. And I don't see anything else in what Mark has said that is unreasonable either.

Does that refer to this thread or the troubles at Rangers.

Yes

That's a fair point and throws up some question marks over him.

 

It's disappointing that there is a lack of imagination in respect of the alternatives to the current board we are being offered.

That is because, as usual, the support is standing on the sidelines cheering on the protagonists and fighting amongst themselves. This thread is a good example of this.

I don't know too much about Malcolm Murray or the situation he found himself in as Chairman. I do know that his reputation was a key factor in attracting institutional investment. We should consider that we might be needing that again in the next year or so.

I don't really have a view on either Paul Murray or Malcolm Murray or on the other two who are proposed to be on the board. But with these resignations, the board clearly needs to be rebuilt and we also need a new CEO. So, other than myself, my good friend Zappa, Boss (for the CFO position obviously) or Frankie, who do we think should be getting the jobs?

Switching sides may well be the only way for the Easdales to survive an AGM and retain their seats on the board. Even if they do switch sides and survive an AGM I wouldn't put money on them still having a single seat on either board by this time next year.

I think that the Easdales may be out of their depth. Certainly they have had success with their bus company but getting involved in Rangers is like moving up a couple of leagues. Now they are dealing with real corporate heavy hitters, people who have some serious money and people who have much more experience of wheeling dealing and planting metaphorical knives in the backs of others. It is a new world for them.

I prefer not to get too personal about this. It isn't about P. Murray or about C. Mather or the Easdales.

It is about who will give us the best corporate governance, who is going to be the most effective CEO and - crucially - who is going to be able to raise more cash from investors so that we don't go into Admin 2 when we run out towards the end of 2014.

Under Green/Mather/Stockbridge, I am not sure that we have had particularly good corporate governance. There are real questions to be asked about how much money they have taken out of the club. Mather may have been a decent CEO although it is too early to see the fruits of his labours. But many of his actions and statements towards both the requisitioners and fans have been unacceptable. When it comes to the next share issue, I don't think the current board have the ability to take that forward. Why else would they have tried to get King on-board to do it for them?

So I do think we need changes at board level and I have no problem if P. Murray is part of that change.

Zappa's right, and I apologise for going off topic myself. The important question is who got rid of Mather and Smart and why - was it the Easdales because Mather and Smart wanted King in? Did they go because they know that they wouldn't win an election to get on the Board. I get the impression that it has suited the Easdales to have Mather and Stockbridge in the firing line - stops people wondering what they are up to.

I am hearing dark rumours that it may be the Easdales switching sides and which has made Mather and Smart's positions untenable.

Purray is eminently qualified to be on the board.

I happen to agree with you. There are more than a few Bears who are qualified to sit on our Board. Most don't want it that badly but Murray clearly does. That isn't a criticism of him. In many ways it is a thankless task ... unless, of course, your primary motive is to extract personal wealth out of the club. That is clearly not the case with Murray.

Britneys behaviour tonight on BBC was scandalous. The man has no shame and no clue.

It is all he has. The man is not a journalist and never has been one. Even when he was writing for the Herald, his stuff was commentary and not journalism. All he has is gossip and opinion which he dresses up as 'information'. If there were no Rangers, he would have absolutely nothing. Inadvertently of course, we keep him in a job.

I could work hard for a place on the Rangers board but I doubt i'd be appropriate.

That is why we prefer Paul Murray over you :p

It is a shame that it had to come to this as it does not benefit anybody. The blame, however, is firmly on the board who resorted to such underhand shenanigans.

The obsession of these people borders on mental illness.

I just love this bit:

"BS - with hindsight I should have been rewarded for financial performance not football basis."

 

in other words BS, (how very apt are those initials) recognises that he should have been paid for the job he did, rather than the job McCoist did.

 

Sometimes it's hard to know where incompetence and disfunction end and corruption begins.

I never refused a bonus payment or pay raise either so unless he was deciding his own remuneration, I don't really blame BS.

I think we tend to get caught up on the detail of what people are making rather than the process of how they got there. There was clearly a culture of self-enrichment amongst some at Rangers. I think BS benefited from that but I doubt he was the instigator.

I sounds to me like King suckered Mather big time.

So we still don't know who is supplying our £2.5m of credit (if needed)? Looks like we might be needing it round about April fools day. Poetic.

I hate to think how much it will cost us.

Some people on a certain message board are not going to like this

I didn't mean the RST.

I know you didn't so sorry if I gave that impression. What I was trying to say is that i don't think CM or BS were expecting people who knew what they were talking about across the table from them.

From reading the minutes, it looks like the RST reps were pretty well prepared. I get the impression that Mather and Stockbridge were not expecting that level of professionalism across the table.

Here is the issue.

We are great at analysing the problem. But what is the action plan for fixing it?