John Greig and John McLelland have resigned

[craig 5,199]

The way it now looks is that every single board member, be they executive or non-executive has been removed from the company by various means, some of which are potentially very costly for the company.

 

You have to question the indirect removal of these two non-exec directors because John Greig, for all his possible faults, was an ICON at Rangers. John McLelland was a highly respected businessman and well-connected person to have on the board. Who's going to replace either of these two people?

 

Those removals could be costly to the company. But, if Whyte believes he was right to get rid of those 2 individuals for the betterment of the club then he did what he had to do. Only time will tell whether they are costly or not. Now, you know as well as I do that there are many, many Gers fans who believe Bain was getting paid money for old rope. So many were happy to see him go. Now some are using that as a stick to beat Whyte with.

 

I am not saying Whyte is innocent but what I DO believe is that we should wait to see the outcome of the case before we pass judgement in EITHER direction. As of now all we have is conjecture - so I find it a bit distasteful to use it as a weapon against Whyte (not saying YOU are but some are).

 

What if it is found that Bain did indeed somehow manage to award himself an excessive salary and McIntyre approved it. And then the two of them did the same for McIntyre's contract. I am not for a second saying this is what happened as I have ZERO knowledge - but if that IS the case then Whyte is absolutely right to get rid of them.

 

Me ? I will reserve my judgement on that one until we know (if we ever do, most unlikely) just what the reasons were for removing Bain & McIntyre.

 

Everyone is at liberty to question the removal of Greig & McLelland all they like. In Greig's case, and this may sound very cold, he was a legend as a PLAYER. He was considered far from a legend or icon as a manager and likewise as a Director. Funnily enough we have had plenty of fans calling for the head of Greig et al as Directors as they are "bleeding the club dry and providing nothing for it". Now, again, we seem to conveniently use it as a weapon against Whyte being soem kind of devious character.

 

John McLelland IS (not was) a highly respected businessman and is also well connected, but he also presided over us in some dark times and, as a Director, he also appeard (I dont know for sure) to allow SDM to allmost run us into the ground for a 2nd time.

 

Let me ask you it this way..... if YOU had bought Rangers having carried out your due diligence and you felt that the previous regime were negligent in their duties and mismanaged the club to the point of almost collapse.... how long would YOU want to retain ANYONE from that previous regime ?

 

I can tell you for sure that I would keep hold of them only for as long as I needed to (i.e. until I knew what I was dealing with in terms of the club, processes, the business, all the intricacies) and as soon as I felt comfortable that I had a grasp of the job at hand..... I would be waving them goodbye too. You would, quite naturally, want to have your own trusted people in those positions.

 

Whyte has never worked with any of these Board members before so, for me, there is no surprise that he would eventually want to remove them and replace them with his own people (you dont need to replace them in job title but more in experience and knowledge).

 

I dont see that as being anything to be suspicious of him about.

 

To me it is pretty similar to any company being bought by another. The acquiring company are highly likely (though not certain) to have their own people and get rid of the acquired board.

 

I am not saying Whyte is whiter than white (pardon the pun) but, right now, I dont really see anything to be suspicious of (though, as I said, I am too trusting of people).

[craig 5,199]

You don't need to read between any lines though Craig. Look at the "company" events on the timeline since the takeover and tell me what you see or what you honestly think about it.

 

I would like to think that I am ALWAYS honest in my appraisal of things Zappa - not always right, but certainly honest.

 

As I said above, looking at the company events they dont really surprise me at all. When Whyte took over the only thing which has surprised me with these removals, and even then only slightly, is that they have taken so long.

 

It is absolutely natural, in my opinion, that he would want his own people because he will undoubtedly have people he trusts. Given he hasnt worked with anyone from the previous regime, and given the malaise of the club when he took over, it is completely unsurprising to me that Whyte would want to get rid of them. They were part of a regime (no matter how large or little they were involved in the decision making) which pushed the club to a very unsavoury place.

 

Honestly ? Honestly, I would have removed everyone I could have. I would have worked WITH them until I was comfortable that I knew as much as I could about the business of the club. Basically I would manipulate them to the point that I extracted as much knowledge of the club and how it operates and functions before getting rid of them.

 

I personally see what Whyte has done as doing nothing other than something which happens regularly in business.

 

Do I wish we, the fans, were kept more informed of what is going on ? Absolutely. But what he has done with these removals/resignations, I simply dont see them as being anything other than "normal course of business" stuff.

 

But.... I dont read between those lines too well......

[craig 5,199]

He's also the second biggest shareholder which may explain the situation (then again it probably doesn't)

 

Sadly it probably doesnt. At least not to me

[pete 2,499]

There's also the remote possibility that Dave King is behind Whyte.....

 

Ha Ha that have been my thoughts all along,that Whyte is just a puppet for KING until he clears his money and tax case.

Obviously it can be a million miles wrong but it just seems to fit like a glove for me.

 

We could even have a real conspiracy to throw to Gribz and Zappa that Whyte is a puppet for Murray to clear the debt from MIH books.

[pete 2,499]

Those removals could be costly to the company. But, if Whyte believes he was right to get rid of those 2 individuals for the betterment of the club then he did what he had to do. Only time will tell whether they are costly or not. Now, you know as well as I do that there are many, many Gers fans who believe Bain was getting paid money for old rope. So many were happy to see him go. Now some are using that as a stick to beat Whyte with.

 

I am not saying Whyte is innocent but what I DO believe is that we should wait to see the outcome of the case before we pass judgement in EITHER direction. As of now all we have is conjecture - so I find it a bit distasteful to use it as a weapon against Whyte (not saying YOU are but some are).

 

What if it is found that Bain did indeed somehow manage to award himself an excessive salary and McIntyre approved it. And then the two of them did the same for McIntyre's contract. I am not for a second saying this is what happened as I have ZERO knowledge - but if that IS the case then Whyte is absolutely right to get rid of them.

 

Me ? I will reserve my judgement on that one until we know (if we ever do, most unlikely) just what the reasons were for removing Bain & McIntyre.

 

Everyone is at liberty to question the removal of Greig & McLelland all they like. In Greig's case, and this may sound very cold, he was a legend as a PLAYER. He was considered far from a legend or icon as a manager and likewise as a Director. Funnily enough we have had plenty of fans calling for the head of Greig et al as Directors as they are "bleeding the club dry and providing nothing for it". Now, again, we seem to conveniently use it as a weapon against Whyte being soem kind of devious character.

 

John McLelland IS (not was) a highly respected businessman and is also well connected, but he also presided over us in some dark times and, as a Director, he also appeard (I dont know for sure) to allow SDM to allmost run us into the ground for a 2nd time.

 

Let me ask you it this way..... if YOU had bought Rangers having carried out your due diligence and you felt that the previous regime were negligent in their duties and mismanaged the club to the point of almost collapse.... how long would YOU want to retain ANYONE from that previous regime ?

 

I can tell you for sure that I would keep hold of them only for as long as I needed to (i.e. until I knew what I was dealing with in terms of the club, processes, the business, all the intricacies) and as soon as I felt comfortable that I had a grasp of the job at hand..... I would be waving them goodbye too. You would, quite naturally, want to have your own trusted people in those positions.

 

Whyte has never worked with any of these Board members before so, for me, there is no surprise that he would eventually want to remove them and replace them with his own people (you dont need to replace them in job title but more in experience and knowledge).

 

I dont see that as being anything to be suspicious of him about.

 

To me it is pretty similar to any company being bought by another. The acquiring company are highly likely (though not certain) to have their own people and get rid of the acquired board.

 

I am not saying Whyte is whiter than white (pardon the pun) but, right now, I dont really see anything to be suspicious of (though, as I said, I am too trusting of people).

 

I agree totally with you on post 91 and 92.

[GovanAllan 0]

Ha Ha that have been my thoughts all along,that Whyte is just a puppet for KING until he clears his money and tax case.

Obviously it can be a million miles wrong but it just seems to fit like a glove for me.

 

We could even have a real conspiracy to throw to Gribz and Zappa that Whyte is a puppet for Murray to clear the debt from MIH books.

 

As some one who sees conspiracy in everything that one woke me up this morning. I thought all this would have happened months ago but as Craig says he has taken his time with some.

 

But then what does it matter after the beeb programme the world is going to end and none of this will matter.

[ian1964 10,720]

Craig Whyte was left stunned by John Greig’s departure from the Ibrox board on Monday — and could be left reeling by another court verdict by close of business on Tuesday.

 

Whyte wasn’t even given the chance to talk the Greatest Ever Ranger out of leaving the club, Sportsmail has been told.

 

The Rangers owner insists he was completely unaware that Greig and former chairman John McClelland were planning their double resignation as non-executive directors.

 

And, despite a letter of resignation being left for Whyte at Ibrox, the globe-trotting owner only heard the news when an official statement from McClelland and Greig was released to the media on Monday morning.

 

The loss of former European Cup Winners’ Cup-winning captain Greig, in particular, is a hammer blow to a regime in short supply of figures with strong Rangers links.

 

John Macmillan, secretary of the Rangers Supporters Association, said: ‘It’s all new faces in there now.

 

‘John may not have had a great influence in the overall decision-making at the club, and maybe didn’t have over the years, but there is no doubt he had some sort of say and he was always a link to the fans.

 

‘You could go to John and he would listen to you. I’m not saying he would necessarily solve the problem for you, but he would always try his best to do what he felt was right for the fans and the club.’

 

An official statement released on behalf of the pair said they had resigned because ‘since the change of ownership they have been excluded from participating in corporate governance at the club’.

 

Rangers insiders insist that, while Greig has never been hugely involved in board matters, despite being made a director in 2003, McClelland had regular discussions with Whyte.

 

The pair talked as recently as Saturday — but McClelland raised no issues of concern with the man who overcame internal opposition to buy out Sir David Murray’s controlling interest.

The double resignation comes at a bad time for Whyte, who faces seeing another £300,000 of club assets frozen today.

 

Former finance director Donald McIntyre is back at the Court of Session, arguing Rangers are under threat of insolvency as a result of outstanding tax cases.

 

Lord Hodge, having already ring-fenced £480,000 in a similar case involving former chief executive Martin Bain, could tie up even more cash by finding in McIntyre’s favour.

 

Eight board members have now departed since Whyte assumed control on May 6. Donald Muir and Mike McGill, closely associated with Lloyds Banking Group, left on the same day.

 

Former chairman Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray, who launched a rival takeover bid, were removed later that month and Bain and McIntyre both resigned from the board after being suspended. Both have launched legal action against the club.

 

The board now comprises of chairman Whyte, plus Dave King, chief operations officer Ali Russell, director of football Gordon Smith and non-executive director Phil Betts.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2050286/John-Greig-surprised-Craig-Whyte-Rangers-exit.html#ixzz1b7QtG2JD

[chilledbear 16]

It seems strange in a few ways.

 

Why now? Is it the programme on Thursday?

 

Both going at the same time. Collusion certainly. Designed to make a bigger impact, yes.

 

Has someone been having words with them?

 

I still haven't seen an official statement from the club.

[Frankie 8,552]

It seems strange in a few ways.

 

Why now? Is it the programme on Thursday?

 

Both going at the same time. Collusion certainly. Designed to make a bigger impact, yes.

 

Has someone been having words with them?

 

I still haven't seen an official statement from the club.

 

The club mentioned this on the official website yesterday and is also on PLUS I believe...

[craig 5,199]

I agree totally with you on post 91 and 92.

 

You keeping up with your medications pete ? :fish: