Frankie 8,182 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Who is actually running the club on a day-to-day basis? Ali Russell I assume but how involved is Whyte himself? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If the story is true then it's concerning that Whyte is, yet again, being accused of hiding major business decisions from fellow directors. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Who is actually running the club on a day-to-day basis? Ali Russell I assume but how involved is Whyte himself? It appears that it's being run in similar way as it was when Murray was a director. Murray would be driving the day-to-day decisions but the implementation was carried out by Bain. It seems that Whyte and Russell have the same set-up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 It appears that it's being run in similar way as it was when Murray was a director. Murray would be driving the day-to-day decisions but the implementation was carried out by Bain. It seems that Whyte and Russell have the same set-up. I don't think that is particularly healthy and the lack of talent on the board is a real concern. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Is there not any kind of obligation to have King on the board considering the share-holding he has? No, there would generally be no such obligation. I had always presumed that there was a legal agreement in place that gave King a right to a directorship as part of his investment, but that may not be the case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Why do the media still insist that the Ticketus money if £24.4m....when Whyte has stated its nearer £20m??? There was mention of a repayment of around £9.5m in June that was eventually made into a £3m repayment (I think). Perhaps the original receipt was £24.4m which was reduced to nearer £20m? This would fit in with both the press reports and Whyte's statement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,283 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 You seem to believe the media when it suits. You did read my remark about pinchs and cups of salt? Matter of fact, I tend to believe the words of Whyte as posted on the homepage and the Rangers supporters group's websites more (sic!) than what I read in any sort of press or media release. If you take this removal of King as an example, the whole way it is presented essentially oozes of antipathy towards Whyte ... when exactly how many people know how King and Whyte get along which each other? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If I was an investor in our Club at the moment, I would not wish to be legally connected to it as it entered administration, insolvency, bankruptcy or be associated with a massive tax debt. In fact, be connected to it in any legal way whatsoever. That's my immediate feeling on seeing this. Anyway, when did we start believing what we read in this rhag ? How did they find out this "information"? If I was involved with Rangers at the moment. I would be feeding this rhag with as much misinformation as I could dream up ! Just saying. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 You did read my remark about pinchs and cups of salt? Matter of fact, I tend to believe the words of Whyte as posted on the homepage and the Rangers supporters group's websites more (sic!) than what I read in any sort of press or media release. If you take this removal of King as an example, the whole way it is presented essentially oozes of antipathy towards Whyte ... when exactly how many people know how King and Whyte get along which each other? The loss of King doesn't overly concern me. While I thank the guy for his previous investment into the club (£20million is not to be sniffed at), his own background and contribution were questionable at best. The same goes for Alastair Johnston, Bain, Paul Murray et al. However, we seem to be lacking any sort of respectable replacement for these guys. We need people with demonstrable business experience to help take the club forward. We do not appear to have that and no matter our opinion on Whyte that is a real worry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 If you take this removal of King as an example, the whole way it is presented essentially oozes of antipathy towards Whyte ... when exactly how many people know how King and Whyte get along which each other? It's a fair point, but when you take into account the comments of McClelland and Greig when they left, a picture starts to emerge. I don't think that the main issue is that King has left, but rather Whyte is leaving himself with a very limited board. Look at Celtic's board - their non-execs include the Chief Exec of BT, an ex-MP, Group President Europe of the Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation and an ex-Home Secretary (if he is still on the board) and others. We've got Andrew Ellis. 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.