calscot 0 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'd much prefer some non-execs on the board who are actually, well, businessmen. Even better would be a few without any ties what-so-ever to Rangers. Not sure if I agree with this - what would their motivation be? Probably squeezing as much money as they can out of the club before they move on. I would like people with the health and prosperity of the club at heart. Half the trouble with the last lot were that they were too afraid, unwilling or to close to Rangers to speak out when they knew the shit was hitting the fan. I think the biggest trouble there was a shareholder with 83% of the shares. With a maximum of 10% there will be plenty of board members speaking up if they have to. Another part of the trouble was that those that didn't speak up helped create the shit that hit the fan and so were part of the cover up. That can happen whether you love the club or not - but I would say is less likely if you love the club. Walter is a case in point. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 But you are compensated there by a win every time, and sometimes a good performance... Just like Queen of the South and Inverness Caley eh? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Just like Queen of the South and Inverness Caley eh? Those were cup games, I think the topic was the league... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Those were cup games, I think the topic was the league... No, my post to which you replied was in regards to games in Glasgow For some of us Glasgow is pretty remote! But you are compensated there by a win every time, and sometimes a good performance... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,310 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 For some of us Glasgow is pretty remote! Yep, even the Romans did not want to stay in the area for long ... or were much interested anyways. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 No, my post to which you replied was in regards to games in Glasgow Well you referenced my post which was talking about league games... "I think we've been generally good in the league at Ibrox and that is reflected by the high crowds at every game - I think the more open minded and less critical fans are enjoying themselves at least at home games. "Away games have probably been a lot more trying - especially when you add in the effort to actually get to some of these remote places." So I think my reply to yours was perfectly valid... Don't know why we have to nitpick though... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Don't know why we have to nitpick though... Physician heal thyself! springs to mind. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Physician heal thyself! springs to mind. Good, I hope it stays in your mind... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BoK360 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Not sure if I agree with this - what would their motivation be? Probably squeezing as much money as they can out of the club before they move on. I would like people with the health and prosperity of the club at heart. I think the biggest trouble there was a shareholder with 83% of the shares. With a maximum of 10% there will be plenty of board members speaking up if they have to. Another part of the trouble was that those that didn't speak up helped create the shit that hit the fan and so were part of the cover up. That can happen whether you love the club or not - but I would say is less likely if you love the club. Walter is a case in point. I'm taking my definition of a non-exec director from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-executive_director To fulfill that role I would rather have someone already experienced in it. Walter Smith is not that man. To me he seems more like a celebrity board member, a face known to fans to keep them happy. John's Grieg and McClelland failed as non-execs, I agree with you in that regard, but then compounded that failure after they resigned by not telling all that they knew. I am sure they loved the club, but clearly not enough to do anything about it. In essence, they put the "name" of Rangers before the "good" of Rangers. As for the promises that no one group or individual will own more than 10% of the club (or, rather, the company that owns the club), I remain sceptical. Don't these Blue Pitch people (who-ever they may be as Mr Green seems dead set on keeping their identities a secret) already own over 20%? Although I do admit that I have no idea of what happens post-flotation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 13, 2012 Author Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'm taking my definition of a non-exec director from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-executive_director To fulfill that role I would rather have someone already experienced in it. Walter Smith is not that man. To me he seems more like a celebrity board member, a face known to fans to keep them happy. John's Grieg and McClelland failed as non-execs, I agree with you in that regard, but then compounded that failure after they resigned by not telling all that they knew. I am sure they loved the club, but clearly not enough to do anything about it. In essence, they put the "name" of Rangers before the "good" of Rangers. As for the promises that no one group or individual will own more than 10% of the club (or, rather, the company that owns the club), I remain sceptical. Don't these Blue Pitch people (who-ever they may be as Mr Green seems dead set on keeping their identities a secret) already own over 20%? Although I do admit that I have no idea of what happens post-flotation. mclelland was high up in uefa. or the eca or whatever it was called that replaced the g14. 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.