stewarty

Always preferred Blackthorn to Magners anyway.... Well, that's what I'm saying now anyways.

On the point of BDO, and maybe someone with Insolvency legislation knowledge could help [note to any Timmy lurkers - that means you!]? For example, oldco is in liquiidation and no longer is owner of rangers football club. Therefore, why should it recognise the fine imposed by a trade body for which it no longer has any dealings with?

Well said by Big Chuck. Wonder what BDO have got to say for themselves.

Oh dear. We don't know if he has signed or not. I agree that the likelihood of Green being involved in negotiations is relatively small. Most likely is, if we have dealt him in, its been done through Andrew Dickson and Ally.

I dont think any concerns raised by otherwise credible sources will be disregarded off hand. It will be debated and discussed here and on other forums/sites extensively.

Its easy to say that in hindsight. My guess is that, for probably a number of reasons, his appointment didn't work out. Happens all the time.

Was he though? I don't recall many having an issue with his appointment. For all that I could see, and most people when he was appointed, he certainly had the credentials and experience to carry out the Chairman role.

Agree with the sentiment but we should expect some semblance of balance from the national broadcaster. It's what they are supposed to be about.

Guess the bottom line is that sometimes people don't get along. And if there are other issues with regards to "indiscretions" then it's reasonable to be taking the steps that seem to be in motion. The issue is then about the unity of the remaining board and ensuring there are appropriate checks and balances, particularly with regards to scrutinising Green's performance. That for me will be the key concern as we can never again get into a position where an individual can ride roughshod over the rest of the Board.

The Herald's story is from the normally reliable Richard Wilson. I'd wager there's more to it than rumour.

That's all ifs, buts and unsubstantiated opinion. No SFA license means no games. Which means no income and no club. There isn't any more to it.

Seems fairly sensible to move the guy away from dealing with Celtic for a period until this dies down. Otherwise the focus is increasingly on this officer rather than addressing offensive behaviour issues.

Agreed. Gaining membership and continuing to chip away at other issues has allowed us to regain some standing. We're still a long way from being treated with the respect we deserve though.

Biggest one is income. No games = no income. Also means we are potentially having to refund ST monies. If we don't know how long it will take to resolve the issues, and our strategy relies on maintaining an SPL club infrastructure, if not a full SPL standard squad, it's not simply a case of saying; we are in the right here and we are being blackmailed. Also, cup games = revenue. Just because we didn't win the cups or do that great, doesn't mean we didn't benefit from participating. All told, the club was faced with a conundrum: stick to our guns and face having no football for a year, ad whatever that did to us. Or, accept the conditions, get back playing football and work through our issues in a robust manner We have a football team to watch because they chose the latter. Who knows what could have happened of teu hadn't.

It wasn't a simple analysis though. The risks of doing that were deemed to be worse than to not.

It was in the clubs interests to get back playing football, and to continue fighting against the numerous other agendas. There's only so much you can achieve at one time.

The decision to accept the SFA's terms was a board decision, not just Green.

I can't make sense of it either.

Okay. So what was all the chat about Green being a shyster and having surrendered about then? Seems to me that the club took a very difficult decision in the interests of getting back to playing football. The statement makes clear they were not happy with a number of things, and given it really was at the last minute as well as the way the club has stood it's ground on a number of matters since, I'm just not sure why you said what you did.

I wish life was a simple as your views seem to suggest it is. From the club statement on 27 July: Now, if this is lying down and surrendering; and given the club's numerous statements on reconstruction and other matters; my only conclusion is that you are revising history to suit your negative views of Green [Your choice]; or you have been hibernating for the last year.

"we got back playing football because green was not man enough to stand up against a conspiracy from the footballing authorities" Not man enough to stand up to the footballing authorities? Have you been in hibernation for the last year? Also, see STB's reply.

Green may well be primarily motivated by money. But him making money, and Rangers becoming a successful and sustainable football club are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Revisionism at its best. As for the IPO, Green has been almost universally praised for raising the amount he did. Most people had doubts it could be done, myself included, but he did.

Fair enough to trust someone more. But most of the reasons you've given don't stack up. Green owns around 8% shares so I'd say the amount he cares for Rangers is "rather alot". Obviously Murray has the emotional connection but I'd say they are both equally striving for the best for the club, just perhaps have different ideas as to what that should be. As for "all talk and no action", I think the IPO and getting us back playing football again is pretty significant markers of action he has taken.

Agree with a few comments on the thread. I think its important to understand the roles of a Chairman and Chief Executive here. And as Frankie has said, it is natural that there is going to be tension between the management team and Board on occassions, not least when you have a fairly conservative Chairman such as Murray, and an outspoken Chief Exec like Green. So long as disagreements are handled in a respectful and transparent manner, I don't see any issue with this. Also, if things have genuinely broken down between the pair on a personal level, that doesn't mean that they cannot work together in a professional capacity. Its the source of the information that is the interest part for me. The inner workings of the Boardroom tend to remain private. So, who has leaked this, and why?