John Greig and John McLelland have resigned

[craig 5,195]

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)?

 

You are more than smart enough to know that there is a big difference between owners and Directors. A single director only satisfies the Companies Act if the company is private. 2 are required for public entities.

 

And the shareholders are supposed to be protected by the fact that directors have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders (but just try telling the pension holders and ordinary employees of Enron, Global Crossing, World Com etc etc that the directors carried out their fiduciary duty).

 

But, yes, the Companies Act provides that only one (or two) directors are necessary, at a minimum. My company, for instance, have 13 directors and I would suspect that is more the norm. But having just one or two is no less legal than my company having 13.

 

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.

 

I am too trusting to see the negative in everything. Where you guys see the club being wound down I dont. I certainly wont profess to being any more right than either of you, I just am not very good at reading between lines.

[Zappa 0]

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?

[forlanssister 3,050]

You are more than smart enough to know that there is a big difference between owners and Directors. A single director only satisfies the Companies Act if the company is private. 2 are required for public entities.

 

And the shareholders are supposed to be protected by the fact that directors have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders (but just try telling the pension holders and ordinary employees of Enron, Global Crossing, World Com etc etc that the directors carried out their fiduciary duty).

 

But, yes, the Companies Act provides that only one (or two) directors are necessary, at a minimum. My company, for instance, have 13 directors and I would suspect that is more the norm. But having just one or two is no less legal than my company having 13.

 

 

 

I am too trusting to see the negative in everything. Where you guys see the club being wound down I dont. I certainly wont profess to being any more right than either of you, I just am not very good at reading between lines.

 

Sorry meant single "executive" director (apologies for causing any confusion).

 

I'd be well f*&ked if private companies needed more than one director (plus a company secretary)..

[Zappa 0]

I am too trusting to see the negative in everything. Where you guys see the club being wound down I dont. I certainly wont profess to being any more right than either of you, I just am not very good at reading between lines.

 

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.

[forlanssister 3,050]

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?

 

Save of course for Dave King, which begs the question if he cannot be removed due to some agreement when he initially invested or even connected with the divestment of Murray Sports when it appeared his holding increased slightly.

[Zappa 0]

Save of course for Dave King, which begs the question if he cannot be removed due to some agreement when he initially invested or even connected with the divestment of Murray Sports when it appeared his holding increased slightly.

 

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

[forlanssister 3,050]

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

 

LOL...that would be one for Mulder and Scully!

[Zappa 0]

LOL...that would be one for Mulder and Scully!

 

So, highly unlikely?

[Zappa 0]

You do have to wonder though because Dave King is the only key player who's still a director at the club.

[forlanssister 3,050]

You do have to wonder though because Dave King is the only key player who's still a director at the club.

 

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