Andy Kerr statement from sunday's meeting

[Frankie 8,186]

It is all a bit confusing but I'm comfortable enough that if the independent committee find the Ellis (or other bid) a problem they will recommend the minority shareholders reject it.

 

Sure, that may not stop the sale but Ellis has already shown he won't buy a club if he doesn't have the backing of the support.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Andy Kerr SSB radio interview, rather different to what is in print regards Ellis.

 

http://www.clyde1.com/Article.asp?id=968104&spid=24537

 

 

Following the meeting, I was interviewed by Sky Sports News, Radio Scotland and Radio Clyde. I gave a factual account of the discussions and stressed the message that fans should buy season tickets and ensure that we maintain our support. I said we were all desperate for Walter to stay and that he would have some funds to strengthen the playing squad. I reiterated that the ongoing uncertainty was a big worry for fans and, the longer that continued, the more restless fans would become.

Edited May 12, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[boss 0]

Andy Kerr SSB radio interview, rather different to what is in print regards Ellis.

 

http://www.clyde1.com/Article.asp?id=968104&spid=24537

 

Following the meeting, I was interviewed by Sky Sports News, Radio Scotland and Radio Clyde. I gave a factual account of the discussions and stressed the message that fans should buy season tickets and ensure that we maintain our support. I said we were all desperate for Walter to stay and that he would have some funds to strengthen the playing squad. I reiterated that the ongoing uncertainty was a big worry for fans and, the longer that continued, the more restless fans would become.

 

It's not clear from your post whether you are saying Andy Kerr said something different on the radio to what the notes of his meeting say.

 

Having listened to the radio link above, and for the avoidance of doubt, it seems to me that Andy has been entirely consistent both in print and on radio. It's a good radio interview and it's a useful summary of the meeting.

[wabashcannonball 0]

It's not clear from your post whether you are saying Andy Kerr said something different on the radio to what the notes of his meeting say.

 

Having listened to the radio link above, and for the avoidance of doubt, it seems to me that Andy has been entirely consistent both in print and on radio. It's a good radio interview and it's a useful summary of the meeting.

 

Listen to the interview, he says something entirely different to,

 

"Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir (the enemy within) (the enemy within) and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds." Which is the first sentence in the printed article, not once is proof of funding mentioned in the interview, although Iwould have thought that would have been a mainstay of any interview, regarding the takeover, maybe I am just to auld and cynical and the fact that they were told the guy had the spondoolies simply slipped the mind...aye right...

[ascender 352]

I'm starting to feel like I'm outside of some secret clique who knows what the hell is going on, who represents who, who said what, who supports which bid etc. And for that reason, I'm out Footballing topics only for me from now on as some of the comments are so vague and obviously only going to make sense for those who are in the know.

[bmck 117]

I'm starting to feel like I'm outside of some secret clique who knows what the hell is going on, who represents who, who said what, who supports which bid etc. And for that reason, I'm out Footballing topics only for me from now on as some of the comments are so vague and obviously only going to make sense for those who are in the know.

 

Hear Hear! :spl:

[boss 0]

Listen to the interview, he says something entirely different to,

 

"Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir (the enemy within) (the enemy within) and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds." Which is the first sentence in the printed article, not once is proof of funding mentioned in the interview, although Iwould have thought that would have been a mainstay of any interview, regarding the takeover, maybe I am just to auld and cynical and the fact that they were told the guy had the spondoolies simply slipped the mind...aye right...

 

You're point is that he contradicts himself by saying nothing about something that he prints in his meeting notes? You think that anything about something would be better than nothing about anything, and everything about something would be best?

 

Wow - you've convinced me that something about everything is wrong.

[Bluedell 5,356]

CLUB OWNERSHIP

"Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds. However, the Chairman indicated that the Board has, as yet, received no firm details of the Ellis proposals or indeed had any discussion with him. Any proposed buyer has to negotiate a purchase price with the seller and, if a bid is made, it will be reviewed by the Independent Panel (made up of five of the current Directors) who will assess the bid against a set of parameters and criteria then make a recommendation to shareholders. The panel cannot block a bid as such and with Sir David Murray being the majority shareholder, he effectively holds the call on any bid. Whilst there has been speculation about other interested parties, there has been no formal approaches other than Andrew Ellis."

 

 

Donald Muir is a member of the Rangers board, why would he be withholding details of any negotiations from his fellow board members, he is specifically barred from the steering committee that would recommend or reject any offer, nothing more nothing less. At the very least withholding relevant information, if at all true, is being less than open, or open to other interpretation, or as I suspect the "committee" is in Murray's eyes a necessary irrelevance.

 

 

The Independent Directors exclude

Mike McGill and Donald Muir who are connected to MIH, and so have a potential

conflict of interest, and Dave King and Paul Murray about whose intentions

there has been past speculation that could lead to a perception of a possible

conflict of interest.

 

Presumably Muir met Ellis in his position as a director within the MIH group and not as a Rangers director. There are certain things that he would be aware of in one position that he would not be able to reveal in another. He is not withholding any information that he has learned in his position as a Rangers director.

 

Conflicts of interest in business are common and I'm sure Muir has no problem in dealing with them in the correct manner.

[wabashcannonball 0]

You're point is that he contradicts himself by saying nothing about something that he prints in his meeting notes? You think that anything about something would be better than nothing about anything, and everything about something would be best?

 

Wow - you've convinced me that something about everything is wrong.

 

No I didn't say he contradicted himself, I simply stated a fact, no mention of confirmed funding was made in the interview, now if you wish to confirm that mention of confirmed funding was made in the interview, knock yourself out...:box:

[craig 5,199]

CLUB OWNERSHIP

"Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds. However, the Chairman indicated that the Board has, as yet, received no firm details of the Ellis proposals or indeed had any discussion with him. Any proposed buyer has to negotiate a purchase price with the seller and, if a bid is made, it will be reviewed by the Independent Panel (made up of five of the current Directors) who will assess the bid against a set of parameters and criteria then make a recommendation to shareholders. The panel cannot block a bid as such and with Sir David Murray being the majority shareholder, he effectively holds the call on any bid. Whilst there has been speculation about other interested parties, there has been no formal approaches other than Andrew Ellis."

 

 

Donald Muir is a member of the Rangers board, why would he be withholding details of any negotiations from his fellow board members, he is specifically barred from the steering committee that would recommend or reject any offer, nothing more nothing less. At the very least withholding relevant information, if at all true, is being less than open, or open to other interpretation, or as I suspect the "committee" is in Murray's eyes a necessary irrelevance.

 

 

The Independent Directors exclude

Mike McGill and Donald Muir who are connected to MIH, and so have a potential

conflict of interest, and Dave King and Paul Murray about whose intentions

there has been past speculation that could lead to a perception of a possible

conflict of interest.

 

Muir isnt part of the "Independent Panel". Seems to me that when and if Ellis makes a bid it will be to SDM with full knowledge of Muir. At that point Muir would go to the Panel and tell them what the offer is, not before.

 

The Board, in the sense above, has had a sub-committee created to review any takeover offers. So Muir, even though acting as a Board member in the negotiations between Ellis and SDM, would not be obligated to inform the Panel until such time as an offer is made.

 

1. Ellis suggests he may want to purchase club.

2. Ellis enters discussions with SDM, with Muir also privy to the negotiations

3. Ellis negotiates the price with SDM (this part covers "negotiate a purchase price with the seller")

4. Ellis makes bid

5. The "Independent Panel" are provided with the details of the offer and make a determination on whether it is acceptable.

 

All of the above seems plausible and has no necessity for Muir to inform the Independent Panel until such time as a firm offer is made.

 

The above seems perfectly reasonable to me.