David Murray - The Definitive Guide to a Living Legend

[Frankie 8,151]

First off, I make no apology for deliberately using the word legend in the article title. No matter our differing opinions on the man's contribution to the club, his affect on Rangers FC over the last 20 years is and always will be worthy of rumination and argument for the next 20 years and beyond. As such, in the far off distant future, fudge and counter fudge will result in the whole era becoming more of a myth than a truth. As such, for the record, please allow me to try and dissect his time as chairman with as much objectivity and balance as I can muster.

 

David Murray was born in Ayr on 14/10/1951 and up until his purchase of Rangers was a decent rugby player and partly interested in Ayr United football team. Indeed, in the mid-80s he wanted to buy Ayr but his approach was rebuffed at that time. Apparently Ayr didnââ?¬â?¢t fancy Murrayââ?¬â?¢s impressive business credentials to improve their fortunes. I doubt theyââ?¬â?¢d make the same decision again given the chance. I also note with interest Murrayââ?¬â?¢s recent comments about people like Joe Lewis and Roman Abramovich investing in football to ââ?¬Ë?buy a profileââ?¬â?¢. Is he really suggesting he wasnââ?¬â?¢t aware of that when Graeme Souness persuaded him to get involved with Rangers?

 

No matter his intentions, in 1988 he bought Rangers FC from the Lawrence group who had owned the club for a number of years. Hence, Murray was not responsible for starting the so-called Rangers/Souness revolution despite what many fans still believe. Souness was actually brought to the club by then chairman David Holmes. These 2 men were then responsible for the return of the SPL championship to Ibrox for the first time in nearly 10 years. Indeed, despite many failing memories, Murray was not involved in the purchase of players such as Woods, Butcher and Gough amongst others. In actual fact, Murray, despite buying the club in November 1988, didn't even become chairman until June 1989. Therefore, perhaps his true 20 year anniversary is his reason for resigning.

 

After that, Murray was responsible for some of the best years our club has ever had. 9-in-a-row; attracting players such as Goram, Laudrup and Gascoigne; our incredible run in the inaugural CL season in 1992/93; superb improvements to our stadium; these are all things that can be directly attributed to our custodian. For those, he should be quite rightly lauded and loved by many fans. However, after this admiration will come criticism as I'll show later.

 

David Murray bought Rangers for Ã?£6million in 1988. The club, due to various factors, is now worth around Ã?£0-60million depending on one's viewpoint. When he sells that could yield a 1000% return on his initial investment. Of course, he has also contributed financially to the club (the share issues of 2000/2005 and the purchase of ENIC's shares for Ã?£9million in 2004); so has invested possibly as much as Ã?£80million during his 20 year tenure ââ?¬â?? but probably not as much as the Ã?£100million+ he claims. We have also spent over Ã?£200million on transfers and ground improvements such as the Club Deck ââ?¬â?? not to mention Murray Park; a training facility named in his honour. Obviously the supporters provided the bulk of the money for these investments but the money was spent which is more than can be said for boards of other clubs. This was all for the good of Rangers and more genuine reasons for us to respect Murray.

 

However, he's not the omnipotent figure many fans think he is. He's made many mistakes, not least wasting �£100 million over 3 years from 1998/99. Yes, his ambition and loyalty to Advocaat's attempt at CL success was exciting. Yes, many of us didn't harbour reservations at the time. But, he should have been much more careful. He was the custodian and he was responsible for our club. He should never have allowed ~�£80million of debt to mount up. For that he is guilty of serious mismanagement and even he acknowledges mistakes were made. What he doesnâ��t acknowledge is that weâ��re still paying for them now.

 

There are many other issues to also consider when examining the broader picture. Murray and Bain do deserve credit for being able to reduce the �£80million debt down to less than �£10million (circa 2006). Downsizing was necessary and without it we might not even exist. Thus, to still be able to compete and win 2 league titles during that time is worthy of some praise. Unfortunately, in recent times the finances appear just as problematic - so much so it appears we can't afford to buy any new players this summer as all income will go towards addressing our increasing debt.

 

With regard to playing affairs, the reappointment of Walter Smith was a ââ?¬Ë?safeââ?¬â?¢ decision after the gamble of a young foreign manager being asked to succeed with similarly minimal funds as Smith has now. Generally, Murray could claim his managerial appointments have been successes though. Smith did well in his first spell, Advocaat brought exciting football and titles; and even McLeish can point to success in the face of adversity. Paul Le Guen didnââ?¬â?¢t work (though the Frenchman was as much to blame as anyone else) and Walter's second spell has borne fruit via our wonderful UEFA Cup run and the return of the SPL League Championship to Ibrox for the first time in 3 years. Nonetheless doubts remain about just how competitive we'll be moving forward.

 

Of course not everything can be measured in pounds and pence. We�ve shown over the last 2 years that we can beat Celtic home or away and compete with some of Europe�s better teams. Those are good signs and in our haste to criticise it�s easy to overlook the positive stuff. Huge improvements in fan behaviour can also be attributed in part to Murray. Generally, fans have accepted his efforts to modernise our thinking and we have been very successful. It�s just a pity that the chairman hasn�t shown the same willingness to defend us when required. For that, much of the support rightly finds it difficult to respect a man who doesn�t always respect them.

 

Indeed itââ?¬â?¢s this strained relationship which continues to undermine the chairmanââ?¬â?¢s lasting image amongst many fans. Dialogue with the support is at its lowest ebb and the promised supportersââ?¬â?¢ representation at board level still hasnââ?¬â?¢t happened (although we're perhaps to blame for that as well to a degree). That should be addressed at the earliest opportunity. After all when Murray talks about his own investments ââ?¬â?? our greater financial (not to mention emotional) input hasnââ?¬â?¢t been rewarded with the trust to help run the club.

 

That takes us nicely to the question about who will succeed Murray in running the club. Alastair Johnston has an admirable CV and the fans who want a Rangers man in charge now have their wish - for the short-term at least. Can Johnston attract the kind of investment or new owner(s) the club obviously needs? The ongoing worldwide recession means interest will be even lower than it has been since SDM put the club up for sale 3 years ago. Who would want to buy a club with little room for manoeuvre in terms of finance with assets either siphoned off or unavailable due to long-term outsourcing? Of course Murray hasnââ?¬â?¢t ââ?¬Ë?asset-strippedââ?¬â?¢ the club but the decisions he has made in those respects have also been questionable. One only needs look at the club's balance sheet for that doubt to be validated.

 

Essentially, for the latter part of Murray�s reign, the club has stagnated and many questions remain about the short, medium and long term future of the business. Ironically, as it stands, the only person that can answer these questions is still our owner. Unfortunately, with his resignation from the board the evidence points to a man who�d rather be anywhere than leading Rangers back to the dominance we seen in the 1990s. For that�s what our club is lacking: genuine leadership; genuine ambition; genuine character and genuine hunger for success.

 

So after yesterday's news, we're not any better off regarding knowing what our club's future will be. Would Murray really have left without ensuring the club is in safe hands with a sound business plan? Just how involved will he be behind the scenes? What will Alastair Johnston's outlook be and will it differ from the man who appointed him? Where does Martin Bain fit in? Are HBOS really calling the shots?

 

To conclude, is SDM's resignation the genuine start of a new era at the club or just another illusion from a magician who's audience became too demanding even for this charismatic performer?

[Super_Ally 0]

Excellent summation of SDM's Chairmanship.

 

Strikes the right balance between the positvie and negative. Though no doubt some will not be happy with that.

 

I guess Murray stepping aside (and maybe selling the club) is what we have all been looking for. But now it is happenning it does leave me a little concerned for the short and long term future.

[maineflyer 0]

Excellent summation of SDM's Chairmanship.

 

Strikes the right balance between the positvie and negative. Though no doubt some will not be happy with that.

 

I guess Murray stepping aside (and maybe selling the club) is what we have all been looking for. But now it is happenning it does leave me a little concerned for the short and long term future.

 

In what way has he stepped aside? I thought he still owned and controlled the club.

[Zappa 0]

In what way has he stepped aside? I thought he still owned and controlled the club.

He won't be controlling it as much as you'd like to make out MF. Had he only relinquished the responsibility of his role as Chairman & stayed on as a director then that would be different, but having relinquished the responsibility of both positions, it's impossible to say how much control he'll want to have, since he could have taken much more of a back seat with significantly less responsibility just by stepping down as Chairman again.

[maineflyer 0]

He won't be controlling it as much as you'd like to make out MF. Had he only relinquished the responsibility of his role as Chairman & stayed on as a director then that would be different, but having relinquished the responsibility of both positions, it's impossible to say how much control he'll want to have, since he could have taken much more of a back seat with significantly less responsibility just by stepping down as Chairman again.

 

Get a grip. Shareholding controls companies. Directors merely have responsibility. You're swallowing the hook so deep it's sticking out your arse.

[Zappa 0]

Get a grip. Shareholding controls companies. Directors merely have responsibility. You're swallowing the hook so deep it's sticking out your arse.

You get a grip. I only suggested that he might not want to have any more control than is strictly necessary.

[Super_Ally 0]

In what way has he stepped aside? I thought he still owned and controlled the club.

 

I'm not suggesting his involvement will drop to nothing. I expect his day-to-day involvement to reduce. I also believe this will be part of a longer term strategy to extricate himself from the club.

 

I was too lazy to write that and just wrote "step aside" as it begins to allude to a more complex situation in which his involvement is reduced and will continue to be until he eventually leave. All imo.

[maineflyer 0]

I'm not suggesting his involvement will drop to nothing. I expect his day-to-day involvement to reduce. I also believe this will be part of a longer term strategy to extricate himself from the club.

 

I was too lazy to write that and just wrote "step aside" as it begins to allude to a more complex situation in which his involvement is reduced and will continue to be until he eventually leave. All imo.

 

Maybe I was lazy as well. i just don't see how anything meaningful has changed ..... except Murray is once more where he loves to be, at the centre of everyone's attention. Still in complete control of the club in every way that counts but somehow having convinced a lot of people that he has somehow "stepped aside" ...... when nothing of the sort has actually happened.

 

Old dodgy dave, he sure knows how to pull the wool. You have to admire the old goat.

[Super_Ally 0]

Maybe I was lazy as well. i just don't see how anything meaningful has changed ..... except Murray is once more where he loves to be, at the centre of everyone's attention. Still in complete control of the club in every way that counts but somehow having convinced a lot of people that he has somehow "stepped aside" ...... when nothing of the sort has actually happened.

 

Old dodgy dave, he sure knows how to pull the wool. You have to admire the old goat.

 

You are most probably right. And given the McLelland fiasco, scepticism is natural. I think it's more a case of me hoping change is afoot rather than really believing it.

[maineflyer 0]

You are most probably right. And given the McLelland fiasco, scepticism is natural. I think it's more a case of me hoping change is afoot rather than really believing it.

 

We're (nearly) all hoping he goes and the club can breathe again. Maybe he will sell and there will actually be cause to mark his passing. In the meantime, it's not an opinion, it's a point of fact that he remains in control of the club and nothing of any significance can be changed without his consent. So why the orchestrated media campaign to suggest he is stepping down? Why do it?