ian1964 10,457 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 TIDMRFC Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (the "Company") Director change The board announces that on 23 May 2011 Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray were removed as directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. The Directors of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. accept responsibility for this announcement. END (END) Dow Jones Newswires May 24, 2011 02:00 ET (06:00 GMT) http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/dow-jones/news-detail.html?newsId=20110524SN000521 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 No big surprise. AJ had already announced he was standing down and PM had obviously been vocal in the press, plus he was initially brought on board to advise on the financing of the G51 project which ended up being largely shelved so arguably there was no point in him remaining a director. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Using the word "removed" says to me there was hostility in this action as AJ had said he was going to step down (can't remember the exact date) it also might give some sort of indication why the take over took so long. Maybe Craig Whyte didn't want to cause friction at the top of the marble staircase at Ibrox. I'm pretty sure CW did his homework on each and every board member at Ibrox, with by looking at public records, google or asking people in the trade,"What's he like" over a pint. In all IMO, although i think AJ is a good guy with Rangers at heart, they were part of this regime that got us in so much mess, so i am prepared to accept CW knows what he is doing and to 100% trust these new guys he's put in place 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Agree the use of "removed" is fairly robust for these type of affairs. "by mutual consent" or "at the request of Mr Johnson" are far more polite and are standard usages. Seems CW has cajones. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 It would be normal to use "resigned" rather than "removed", particularly as resigned would be more factually correct. However it could be that the statement was drafted by someone who does not normally get involved in such things? It's probably best not to get too hung up on the wording. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 It would be normal to use "resigned" rather than "removed", particularly as resigned would be more factually correct. However it could be that the statement was drafted by someone who does not normally get involved in such things? It's probably best not to get too hung up on the wording. I doubt the LSE or Rangers would allow an apprentice to draft such a letter. IMO with the LSE you need to be 100% straight with them with these kind of situations, esp with a high profile institution. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I doubt the LSE or Rangers would allow an apprentice to draft such a letter. IMO with the LSE you need to be 100% straight with them with these kind of situations, esp with a high profile institution. I'm not suggesting it was an apprentice, but it could be someone like Whyte himself, who I'd suggest doesn't have a great deal of experience of company secretarial matters. Removed can be taken a few ways, and perhaps it was just meaning from as a director from the statutory books of the company. They could not be forcibly removed as directors as that would take a general meeting, I believe. An alternative explanation is that we have appointed a new company to oversee the stock exchange issues and perhaps their standard wording differs from that used in the past. We don't know the real reason behind it, but there are a number of innocent ones. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'm not suggesting it was an apprentice, but it could be someone like Whyte himself, who I'd suggest doesn't have a great deal of experience of company secretarial matters. Removed can be taken a few ways, and perhaps it was just meaning from as a director from the statutory books of the company. They could not be forcibly removed as directors as that would take a general meeting, I believe. Sorry mate but i disagree. If the new Rangers are going to issue statements and make serious mistakes like this we are fucked 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Sorry mate but i disagree. If the new Rangers are going to issue statements and make serious mistakes like this we are fucked I don't see in what way a mistake has been made. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I don't see in what way a mistake has been made. you said this, " However it could be that the statement was drafted by someone who does not normally get involved in such things? It's probably best not to get too hung up on the wording." That says to me you think there's the possibility of a mistake 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.