John Greig and John McLelland have resigned

[pete 2,499]

With the tax case coming up?

 

No matter who took it over it will be administration so yes.

[chilledbear 16]

Did they make an offer?

 

Were they in the running?

 

Would they have been able to fund the players brought in?

 

You know Murray would never have contemplated the scenario.

[ian1964 10,720]

THE former finance director of Rangers spoke of his “concern” for the club yesterday, after winning a court order to freeze £300,000 of its assets.

 

The ruling takes to more than £3 million the amount which has been ringfenced as security to cover claims against Rangers by the taxman and two members of the Ibrox board who have left since a takeover by Craig Whyte earlier this year.

 

Rangers – who yesterday withdrew “all co-operation” with the BBC over what it claims is a “negative attitude” towards the club – did not even turn up at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to contest Donald McIntyre’s application for an arrestment order.

 

It was granted by Lord Hodge, the same judge who last month had frozen £480,000 at the request of Martin Bain, the former chief executive, and had said there was a “real and substantial risk” of insolvency if HM Revenue and Customs won a case against the Scottish champions.As he left court, McIntyre, 52, said: “I think Lord Hodge’s decision speaks volumes, as does the fact that Rangers did not turn up to defend the case. I am sad at the current circumstances at the club, and I am concerned for the club.”

 

He declined to elaborate on his “concern”.

 

Only 24 hours earlier, club legend John Greig and former chairman John McClelland had stepped down as non-executive directors, citing exclusion from club affairs following the takeover.

 

Whyte paid a nominal £1 to succeed Sir David Murray as owner in May, and Bain and McIntyre were suspended. Both have subsequently resigned – McIntyre only last week – having deemed their contracts to have been repudiated, and have raised actions against Rangers. Bain is suing for £1.3 million, and McIntyre is claiming £300,000.

 

HMRC has two cases against Rangers. One involves £4.2 million, and an arrestment for £2.3 million has been allowed in it. The second totals £49 million, and was the claim to which Lord Hodge attributed a real and substantial risk of insolvency, were it to go against Rangers.

 

In yesterday’s hearing, Stuart Buchanan, for McIntyre, said Rangers had been given formal notice of the hearing but the club had indicated they would not be appearing.

 

McIntyre’s claim was mainly for breach of contract and the loss of his £120,000-a-year post, but he also sought compensation for damage to his reputation because of the suspension.

 

“His position is that there is not and never has been any basis for the suspension. Any assertions made against him are completely unfounded, from his perspective. It is a matter that has given great anxiety to him,” said Mr Buchanan.

 

“Mr Whyte spoke personally to Mr McIntyre back in May to say the matter in relation to his employment would be resolved quickly. We have no knowledge of anything happening at all.”

 

McIntyre had provided the club with the names of seven people he believed could help in any inquiry into his conduct. They included former owner Murray, Greig and McClelland. He understood that none of the seven had been approached.

 

“This is a professional man, a chartered accountant suspended from his position as finance director, who has made every effort to co-operate with Mr Whyte and every effort has been rebuffed. He has been kept hanging for five months for some sort of progress to be made to clear his name, but that has never happened,” added Mr Buchanan.

 

“Effectively, he was kept on a hook, waiting for something to happen. He repeatedly made enquiries about progress in relation to any investigation and disciplinarly matters... there has been no response at all. It has been reported that he had been suspended, that there was no way back for him and that he was ‘finished at Gers’, but it has all been done at a distance through the press.”

 

Lord Hodge said the circumstances of McIntyre’s application for an arrestment order were broadly similar to those put forward by Bain, and the judge was satisfied that another order should be granted. “I consider the sum of £300,000 to be not unreasonable,” added Lord Hodge.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/european/concern_for_rangers_as_mcintyre_pushes_club_s_frozen_assets_to_3m_1_1917537

[GovanAllan 0]

You never voiced this concern when you were the finance director and making the big bucks ya bawbag.

[ian1964 10,720]

CRAIG WHYTE last night expressed his "shock and surprise" at Rangers legend John Greig quitting the club and insisted he would always be welcome at Ibrox.

 

And as BBC Scotland prepare to air a programme described by the club as “a prejudiced muck-raking exercise“ on the millionaire businessman's controversial take-over of the SPL Champions Whyte rejected private and public claims being made against him as "complete rubbish".

 

Rangers last night imposed a ban on the TV company but ahead of the Friendly with Liverpool, Whyte pledged to battle on amidst almost constant upheaval declaring: "I feel as if I am in the eye of a storm at the moment but will fight through it because I know it will all be worthwhile in the end.

 

"Stories that I wanted rid of John Greig are just nonsense. We always got on well together and I spoke to him very recently. He did not express any problems or mention anything untoward to me. His resignation took me by absolute surprise.

 

"He is and always has been a great Rangers man and nothing will ever take away what he has achieved for this club. He has always been a terrific figurehead for us and it is disappointing to see him go at this time.

ì

Stories that I wanted rid of John Greig are just nonsense. We always got on well together and I spoke to him very recently

î

 

Rangers owner Craig Whyte

 

 

"I very much hope he stays in touch with us and comes to games. He is the greatest ever Ranger and will always be welcome at Ibrox.

 

"I also spoke with John McClelland at the weekend and again there was no indication that he was planning to resign. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised about anything in football anymore but the timing of all this is odd."

 

In an exclusive interview Whyte admitted that despite all the issues surrounding his take-over last May he still had "no regrets" about becoming the owner of Rangers and was confident the club would emerge stronger than ever before.

 

In the past six months since taking control the venture capitalist has seen eight former Board members depart, had club assets frozen, denied claims Rangers are facing insolvency, fought legal battles and continued to dispute a multi-million pound claim by HMRC which could cost anything in the region of £40m.

 

Tomorrow a BBC documentary will investigate the buy-out deal with Sir David Murray and is thought to be critical of Whyte.

 

But he remains defiant adding: "I could have seen this week far enough but I know everything will be worthwhile in the end.

 

"Taking control of Rangers was always going to be a big job and we still have a lot of things to sort out but I can assure the supporters that it will all be done."

 

Whyte will hold talks with the Rangers Supporters Trust today to try and ease their fears over the departure of the much respected Greig and give them an insight into the future direction of the club.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/278271/Craig-Whyte-says-John-Greig-welcome-but-Rangers-ban-BBC

[andrew_2010 0]

One hundred and twenty thousand pounds a year? Surely as a finance director of a poor Scottish club would recognise that is a ludicrous, unaffordable salary?!

[Bluedell 5,607]

There has been no formal notification that either Russell and Smith are in fact actually directors.

 

You are quite right. The club's website says they are on the Board of Directors and has done for several months but their appointment has not been registered within the required 14 days, so either the website is wrong and the club are misleading the fans as to who the directors of the club are, or the club are not informing Companies House of appointments and failing in their legal duty.

 

Given that resignations are being promply notified then I have to presume that the club are misleading the support.

[Darthter 542]

You are quite right. The club's website says they are on the Board of Directors and has done for several months but their appointment has not been registered within the required 14 days, so either the website is wrong and the club are misleading the fans as to who the directors of the club are, or the club are not informing Companies House of appointments and failing in their legal duty.

 

Given that resignations are being promply notified then I have to presume that the club are misleading the support.

 

According to the Shareholders statement (http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/4d/76/0,,5~161357,00.pdf), Whyte & Betts were appointed club directors upon the acquisition of the club.

[Bluedell 5,607]

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.

 

When shareholders holding over 90% of the shares are advising the directors on the direction that they wish the company to go, what decisions should the directors not have taken? I'm unclear as to where they should have said no to decisions that the majority shareholder(s) wanted.

 

I agree with the concept that you are saying, Craig, but I just don't see how it strictly applies in this case. I don't see that any of the decisions made were clearly to the detriment of the individual shareholders, particularly as it is unclear as to their objectives.

 

You and I may not have agreed where the line between on-field success and financial stability was drawn but our views may differ from other minority shareholders.

 

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.

 

Agreed.

 

We all know that in the practical sense that SDM was all powerful. But that certainly is no defence for the other directors.

 

Again, I'm unclear as to what you expect the other directors to have done differently.

[Bluedell 5,607]

According to the Shareholders statement (http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/4d/76/0,,5~161357,00.pdf), Whyte & Betts were appointed club directors upon the acquisition of the club.

 

Whyte and Betts aren't the ones in question. They definitely are directors. It is Russell and Smith that appear not to be, despite what the club's website says.