John Greig and John McLelland have resigned

[forlanssister 3,110]

He owns the whole company so it is his prerogative to do as he pleases, within the Companies Act restrictions.

 

He doesn't own the whole of the company (yet anyway).

 

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)

 

That too is my understanding of the current situation but hey we may both be wrong!

[Zappa 0]

That too is my understanding of the current situation but hey we may both be wrong!

 

Indeed, but unless Dave King is an executive director, then there's nobody else, is there?

[forlanssister 3,110]

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.

 

Some former directors may well have raised their concerns to be noted in the minutes, some may even have asked for independent advice, some were not even members of the board when some of the actions took place, i.e both the EBTs and the DOS schemes pre-dated MacIntyre's stint as Finance Director yet there is no doubt the excrement hit the rotating cooling device on his watch. How on earth can his culpabilty ( if indeed there is any) be calculated. It's certainly one hell of a f*&king mess and in the end the only loser will be RFC the only winner the lawyers.

[forlanssister 3,110]

Indeed, but unless Dave King is an executive director, then there's nobody else, is there?

 

I concur with you that it appears we only have one executive director and have absolutely no doubt that is the way he wants it.

[craig 5,199]

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)

 

To be honest Zappa I have very limited knowledge of the PLUS markets. I would suspect, though, that any PLUS listed companies would be considered to be "public" in the eyes of company legislation. PLUS companies are still bound by the 2006 Companies Act. Which means 1 director for private companies and 1 for public.

 

From anything I have managed to find there is no stipulation that the minimum of two directors both need to be executive. So, from what I have found, it looks like it would be legal and acceptable for one director to be executive and one to be non-executive and still qualify as having satisfied the minimum number of directors.

 

I would be happy to stand corrected as I am by no means a Companies Act or legal expert - and I have been away from the UK too long to remember for sure.

[craig 5,199]

He doesn't own the whole of the company (yet anyway).

 

Fair point. I wont profess to following the situation as if my life depended on it

 

That too is my understanding of the current situation but hey we may both be wrong!

 

Please see my previous post. It appears, at least to me, that you dont need both directors to be executive in nature in accordance with the Companies Act. Again, as I said, I could be wrong.

[craig 5,199]

I concur with you that it appears we only have one executive director and have absolutely no doubt that is the way he wants it.

 

I dont doubt it either, but if he is within the realms of what is required by the Companies Acts then he is legally permitted to do so.

 

We can be suspicious all we like, and many will be suspicious that he doesnt want anyone else as an exec director - but he can run the management of the club how he chooses, can he not ? And if he wants full remit to be the only exec director then who are we to argue against it ? There are plenty of companies that operate pretty well with just the single owner and single director.

[craig 5,199]

Some former directors may well have raised their concerns to be noted in the minutes, some may even have asked for independent advice, some were not even members of the board when some of the actions took place, i.e both the EBTs and the DOS schemes pre-dated MacIntyre's stint as Finance Director yet there is no doubt the excrement hit the rotating cooling device on his watch. How on earth can his culpabilty ( if indeed there is any) be calculated. It's certainly one hell of a f*&king mess and in the end the only loser will be RFC the only winner the lawyers.

 

They may well have and, if they did, they minimise their responsibiliy to the mess that was left. That much is true. But if they did not raise their concerns then they cant claim ignorance.

 

You are indeed correct - through all of this the only loser is RFC (and, sadly, the fans).

[Zappa 0]

I concur with you that it appears we only have one executive director and have absolutely no doubt that is the way he wants it.

 

I can't help myself from thinking the club is being wound down in preparation for administration. Everything that's happened at board level since Whyte took over points in that direction. I've noted that over the past few months there's plenty of fans saying that Whyte has no choice thanks to the previous regime and is only doing what anyone would do to prepare for losing a large HMRC tax case, but as you've pointed out, certain situations with executive directors could have been dealt with very differently and RFC money could certainly have been saved.

[forlanssister 3,110]

I dont doubt it either, but if he is within the realms of what is required by the Companies Acts then he is legally permitted to do so.

 

We can be suspicious all we like, and many will be suspicious that he doesnt want anyone else as an exec director - but he can run the management of the club how he chooses, can he not ? And if he wants full remit to be the only exec director then who are we to argue against it ? There are plenty of companies that operate pretty well with just the single owner and single director.

 

But we have over 26,000 owners not one. While strange as it seems a single director does appear satisfy the Companies Act would it satisfy Rangers Articles of Association ( and would it ever matter if it didn't)?

 

 

I can't help myself from thinking the club is being wound down in preparation for administration. Everything that's happened at board level since Whyte took over points in that direction. I've noted that over the past few months there's plenty of fans saying that Whyte has no choice thanks to the previous regime and is only doing what anyone would do to prepare for losing a large HMRC tax case, but as you've pointed out, certain situations with executive directors could have been dealt with very differently and RFC money could certainly have been saved.

 

I've absolutely no doubt that we are being wound down (and have been since the day Whyte handed over his £1) but here's the crux if we go into administration before the due process of the "big tax case" (for there are still avenues available if the verdict were to favour of HMRC) is concluded then Murray's and the previous regime become irrelevant for it will be as a result of Whyte's actions (and inactions) that finally bring us to our knees.