Bluedell 5,348 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 With respect Bluedell, if he is Murray's employee he is looking out for Murrays interests. With great respect, that doesn't need to be the case. I am employed by one company and am a director of another, and the 2 companies are competitors. My employers interests are not being looked after when I am acting as a director of the second company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I think you will find that Muir is a non-executive director Frankie not employed by the club, but employed by Murray, I believe his remit is to report back to Murray and monitor the Rangers boards performance, making suggestions to Murray on how the club can be, for want of a better word improved. My own take is that Muir is Murray's doppelganger at Ibrox. http://www.icas.org.uk/site/cms/download/AA/Non_Executive_Directors.pdf Eh, your link is to the ICAS paper: Non-Executive Directors Their role and responsibilities in a private company Rangers is a public company. Note to wabashcannonball: Must do better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,157 Posted February 10, 2010 Author Share Posted February 10, 2010 How did I know the boss would be the only one who would click that....? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'd picked up on it as well, but didn't want to mention it due to being chastised yesterday by MF for being "very very very petty" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Eh, your link is to the ICAS paper:Non-Executive Directors Their role and responsibilities in a private company Rangers is a public company. Note to wabashcannonball: Must do better. I am happy to confirm to you that MIH the holding companny of Rangers FC is a Private limited company. Company number: SC192523 Type of company: Private Limited Company Country of origin: United Kingdom Incorporation date: 13/01/1999 http://www.worksmart.org.uk/company/company.php?id=SC192523 I am happy to confirm to you that Rangers FC is a Private limited company. Company Type Private Fiscal Year-End June Sales (mil.) �£63.0 Employees 520 Status: Active http://www.hoovers.com/rangers-fc/--ID__103144--/freeuk-co-factsheet.xhtml 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) I am happy to confirm to you that MIH the holding companny of Rangers FC is a Private limited company. Eh, I think we are all well aware of that, thanks. You're post was about RFC. You posted: "My own take is that Muir is Murray's doppelganger at Ibrox." I am happy to confirm to you that Rangers FC is a Private limited company. Utterly wrong. Your source is guff. I'll give you a clue: The "plc" at the end of The Rangers Football Club plc" stands for "public limited company". Note for wabashcannonball: "Really must do very much better and must stop questioning boss". :box: Edited February 10, 2010 by boss 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 How did I know the boss would be the only one who would click that....? Click it? I wrote it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) I'd say that was Mike McGill's remit. I don't actually see the relevance of whether Muir is or is not an employee. Noticed that myself. I wonder if the irony dawned on wabash before posting the link? On another note, and to defend wabash to an extent, one of the purposes of a Non-Exec is to protect shareholder interest and value. And on that basis, his appointment appears to be on the basis of protecting MIH as the majority shareholder. Edited February 10, 2010 by stewarty 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Noticed that myself. I wonder if the irony dawned on wabash before posting the link? On another note, and to defend wabash to an extent, one of the purposes of a Non-Exec is to protect shareholder interest and value. And on that basis, his appointment appears to be on the basis of protecting MIH as the majority shareholder. I'd say that he was functioning as an executive director, rather than a non-exec, not that it makes that much difference. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I'd picked up on it as well, but didn't want to mention it due to being chastised yesterday by MF for being "very very very petty" Ya bastard, leave me out of it. :devil: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.