Donald Muir Re-election Confirmed

[Frankie 8,151]

I sure do.... Oops!

[Union City Blue 0]

Lloyds cannot sell what they do not own, all in all the opposing of Muir was a futile gesture, as it was always bound to be. The outcome was only to emphasise the strength and power of Murray's shareholding, it also showed the fans and the club pulling in different directions, the framenting of fans views could end up being the greatest stumbling block to any solution, I suggest one thing is certain, Murray will not go cheaply.

 

Muir can presumably insist - or apply great pressure towards - things being sold to recoup cash if he believes that an acceptable offer is on the table. It's believed he did just that regarding a certain big building in Bothwell Street recently... "focus on deleveraging and asset sales" anyone?

 

Your interpretation of the vote/poll is only one of a few available.

[Frankie 8,151]

I think the overwhelming vote against the re-election of Muir at the AGM yesterday (attendance of around 3000), while always going to be futile considering SDM's proxy votes, was a clear indication that the support/shareholders are somewhat concerned about Muir's appointment and used their vote yesterday to make this clear.

 

This would have re-iterated this to the bank, to MIH and to anyone else watching that the support won't be taken for mugs and can mobilise when required to ensure our voice is heard. Sure, nothing really changed per se and Muir's denial of his bank position cemented/formalised media comments previously, but the message would have been taken on board nonetheless.

 

From speaking to a fair number of fans over recent weeks, opinion on Muir is divided to an extent but there is nothing wrong with some healthy scepticism.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Muir can presumably insist - or apply great pressure towards - things being sold to recoup cash if he believes that an acceptable offer is on the table. It's believed he did just that regarding a certain big building in Bothwell Street recently... "focus on deleveraging and asset sales" anyone?

 

Your interpretation of the vote/poll is only one of a few available.

 

It is not my interpretatation it is fact, the proxy swept all before it. I see you are still seeing Muir as the bank's enforcer, despite the opposite being the case put forward. The more I read the further and further away a resolution appears, I can almost feel another Murray triumphant interview coming on, it would be par for the course.

[Union City Blue 0]

It is not my interpretatation it is fact, the proxy swept all before it. I see you are still seeing Muir as the bank's enforcer, despite the opposite being the case put forward. The more I read the further and further away a resolution appears, I can almost feel another Murray triumphant interview coming on, it would be par for the course.

 

Now that's not quite right mate. Of course the 'vote' was futile, as it was doomed to fail. No contention there. What diffference does it make to the context? You can't state as fact that the answer is "none", so let's leave it at that.

 

My reading of the Muir/Lloyds/MIH/RFC thing is that it is complicted and has been (maybe still is) fluid - you seem to paint it as very simple and static. One thing is certain to me - Muir is not there first and foremost for Rangers; that is Johnston's job and it's why he stated yesterday that he had to be a counter-weight to the wishes of MIH/Lloyds/Muir (take your pick). Can you clear this up for me if I have it wrong please?

[Union City Blue 0]

I can almost feel another Murray triumphant interview coming on, it would be par for the course.

 

Wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

But the time to judge who is "triumphant" is surely when the story ends, not when it's unfolding?

[calscot 0]

I think the overwhelming vote against the re-election of Muir at the AGM yesterday (attendance of around 3000), while always going to be futile considering SDM's proxy votes, was a clear indication that the support/shareholders are somewhat concerned about Muir's appointment and used their vote yesterday to make this clear.

 

This would have re-iterated this to the bank, to MIH and to anyone else watching that the support won't be taken for mugs and can mobilise when required to ensure our voice is heard. Sure, nothing really changed per se and Muir's denial of his bank position cemented/formalised media comments previously, but the message would have been taken on board nonetheless.

 

From speaking to a fair number of fans over recent weeks, opinion on Muir is divided to an extent but there is nothing wrong with some healthy scepticism.

 

One wonders when it's shares that count, why is voting done by a show of hands? One hand might be hold 100 shares, while the next could have 1000. Then you have one hand absent which holds millions and over 90% of the vote.

 

Basically only SDM's hand that counts. He solely decides what resolutions are passed or failed and each time it is by overwhelming majority - unless he starts to develop multiple personality disorder and starts voting some of his shares one way and some the other.

 

While using hands can give a basic straw poll of a few thousand share holders with very little influence, in this case it just seems counter productive and upsets the order of a very large meeting.

[Union City Blue 0]

One wonders when it's shares that count, why is voting done by a show of hands? One hand might be hold 100 shares, while the next could have 1000. Then you have one hand absent which holds millions and over 90% of the vote.

 

Basically only SDM's hand that counts. He solely decides what resolutions are passed or failed and each time it is by overwhelming majority - unless he starts to develop multiple personality disorder and starts voting some of his shares one way and some the other.

 

While using hands can give a basic straw poll of a few thousand share holders with very little influence, in this case it just seems counter productive and upsets the order of a very large meeting.

 

In what way is is counter-productive calscot?

[Frankie 8,151]

While using hands can give a basic straw poll of a few thousand share holders with very little influence, in this case it just seems counter productive and upsets the order of a very large meeting.

 

Disagree. As always, a majority shareholder holds all the aces but even when the small minority votes as we seen yesterday it shows a distinct lack of agreement and puts our voice across.

 

Yes, it was futile per se. Yes, it held back the meeting. But, yes, it showed active supporters displeasure (or more accurately uncertainty) with regard to Muir and his role (bank led or not).

[wabashcannonball 0]

Now that's not quite right mate. Of course the 'vote' was futile, as it was doomed to fail. No contention there. What diffference does it make to the context? You can't state as fact that the answer is "none", so let's leave it at that.

 

My reading of the Muir/Lloyds/MIH/RFC thing is that it is complicted and has been (maybe still is) fluid - you seem to paint it as very simple and static. One thing is certain to me - Muir is not there first and foremost for Rangers; that is Johnston's job and it's why he stated yesterday that he had to be a counter-weight to the wishes of MIH/Lloyds/Muir (take your pick). Can you clear this up for me if I have it wrong please?

 

It is simple, Murray's vote carried the motion, that is not hard to understand or admit. You are beginning to grasp the situation now, Muir is Murray's man and Murray's welfare will come first, notwithstanding the fact that Murray controls the outcome of any vote.

I also believe that AJ does nothing without Murray's say so, his statement yesterday had Murray all over it, lots of content little substance.