GovanAllan 0 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well we should on Wednesday been reported on FF that the RST are having a meeting with him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 As has been said, we know next to nothing about Whyte and these people. I do assume that this is the case with many football clubs all over Britain, not just us. I doubt that Whyte has any greater obligation to sate our curiosity about his background than we would have presenting our background to the public. It is a sinister tendency these last few years to assume the worst and expect even worse, rather than to wait and see. So far since his take-over, the only ones who have failed us were the players during the first few weeks of the season ... or rather, before the latter actually started. The handling of the sackings of Bain and MacIntyre surely has to be classed as a failure? Not being able to prevent the arrestment of monies by HMRC, Bain and possibly MacIntyre surely is a failure? Being sued by your Solicitors and needlessly running up further expense surely falls into the failure category? The constant changing of legal representatives is surely a sign of failure too? The apparent reneging on the "guarantees" in the Shareholder Circular is surely a sign of failure? The failure to settle the "wee tax case" despite written undertakings to do so is surely a sign of failure? The farcical events that unfurled in the transfer window is surely a sign of failure? The apparent imminent "insolvency event" (totally irrespective of the "big tax case") well if that's not a failure what is? Bit of a pattern developing there, no? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) As has been said, we know next to nothing about Whyte and these people. Yes, we know nothing about Whyte, which is a good reason to question him (regarding what's going on) in itself, is it not? I do assume that this is the case with many football clubs all over Britain, not just us. If clubs all over the UK (or even Europe) happen to be owned by people with virtually untraceable business backgrounds, that's really no concern of ours when it comes to questioning our club's owner/s is it? I doubt that Whyte has any greater obligation to sate our curiosity about his background than we would have presenting our background to the public. I don't think anyone expects Whyte to reveal his full background. People just want to know what the REAL plans are at Rangers FC. For example, why has a whole board of directors either been removed or forced to remove themselves without any new board being appointed? It is a sinister tendency these last few years to assume the worst and expect even worse, rather than to wait and see. So everyone should just keep quiet and not ask questions or discuss the various situations unfolding? I can see it now... new SNP campaign called "Wait And See" that criminalises speculation, presumption and open discussion. What's really sinister is the treatment (and planned treatment) of Rangers fans! Edited October 18, 2011 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Why should people not be suspicious or at least wondering what's going on when the board of directors now consists of Craig Whyte and a couple of hands-off non-execs rarely seen? Didnt say they shouldnt Zappa, just sait it doesnt NECESSARILY mean they should. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Didnt say they shouldnt Zappa, just sait it doesnt NECESSARILY mean they should. Exactly because Whyte could appoint a new board of directors any time now and we'll all be in happy happy time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Why should people not be suspicious or at least wondering what's going on when the board of directors now consists of Craig Whyte and a couple of hands-off non-execs rarely seen? He owns the whole company so it is his prerogative to do as he pleases, within the Companies Act restrictions. Under section 152 of the 2006 Companies Act a private company must have at least one director and a public company must have a minimum of two. So, right there, there is nothing untoward in only having two directors as a public company. Do you actually know what the role of Non-Executive directors is ? They are not always hands-off directors and some can have significant input into the running of the business. According to Nedexchange (Non-Executive Directorship Exchange) they "A non executive directorship is an appointment to the board of a company on a part time basis. The work of a non executive director generally involves attending some board meetings and company functions, with the aim of providing experienced, intelligent advice to the company board, the chairman or management.". Just because they are non-execs doesnt mean they dont have valuable input and it also doesnt mean they are "hands-off". He is well within his legal rights to have just the one fellow director and whatever he desires by way of non-execs. My point being, should we really be suspicious just because Whyte decides he doesnt want to have more than the minimum number of directors ?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Exactly because Whyte could appoint a new board of directors any time now and we'll all be in happy happy time. Or he may not.... and will still be legal and above board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Well we should on Wednesday been reported on FF that the RST are having a meeting with him. Which is true, I got an email to that effect from RST... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 He owns the whole company so it is his prerogative to do as he pleases, within the Companies Act restrictions. Under section 152 of the 2006 Companies Act a private company must have at least one director and a public company must have a minimum of two. So, right there, there is nothing untoward in only having two directors as a public company. Do you actually know what the role of Non-Executive directors is ? They are not always hands-off directors and some can have significant input into the running of the business. According to Nedexchange (Non-Executive Directorship Exchange) they "A non executive directorship is an appointment to the board of a company on a part time basis. The work of a non executive director generally involves attending some board meetings and company functions, with the aim of providing experienced, intelligent advice to the company board, the chairman or management.". Just because they are non-execs doesnt mean they dont have valuable input and it also doesnt mean they are "hands-off". He is well within his legal rights to have just the one fellow director and whatever he desires by way of non-execs. My point being, should we really be suspicious just because Whyte decides he doesnt want to have more than the minimum number of directors ?? I'm no expert on this Craig, but it looks as though Whyte is the ONLY executive director at Rangers now. Is that ok? (yes, I know John Greig and John McLelland were non exec's) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 the directors of the club had responsibilities towards the shareholders, and principally the majority shareholder. Murray holds the main responsibility and everyone else are just bit players. In no way are they all equally liable. I disagree with this BD. In the eyes of the law the Directors have a responsibility to every shareholder regardless of the shareholding. Legally they are equally culpable, again regardless of how much power SDM wields. If there was a class action lawsuit against the club's Board of Directors they would almost invariably be held jointly accountable. The "minority board members" wouldnt be in a position to plead neither ignorance nor lack of power. We all know that in the practical sense that SDM was all powerful. But that certainly is no defence for the other directors. 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.