Richard Wilson - Tough Decisions For Rangers Board

[chilledbear 16]

He ought to be used to the circumstances, since every board meeting for the past two months has involved discussions, sometimes heated, about his involvement in the club. The directors met last Friday to vote on the matter, only for the gathering to be abruptly brought to a halt. Had it gone ahead, Murray would have been voted off.

 

His future will not be the only item on the agenda today, but it is certain to feature prominently. For all of his obvious and heartfelt affection for the club, and his commitment to good corporate governance, Murray is a flawed chairman. With him at the helm, the board is thought to lack leadership and decisive decision-making, with much of the business of the last few months spent on internal politics â?? there was a fierce clash of personalities between Murray and Charles Green, the former chief executive â?? rather than driving the club forward. The majority of the directors, some of them reluctantly and including Walter Smith, have come to the same conclusion, but the process is not straightforward.

 

Murray would need to be replaced, although it could be an interim appointment. There are four current non-executive directors but one of them, Philip Cartmell, has only attended one board meeting. That remoteness would not suit the role. Smith has intimated in the past that he has no wish to hold the position. That leaves Ian Hart, a lifelong fan and respected business figure, and Bryan Smart, another who has an emotional attachment, but neither may be keen given the difficulties that chairing the board may bring, with much of the club's business having been carried out in public in recent months and a lack of unity amongst directors and fans alike.

 

There are good working relationships around the board table, though. On the current issues, Hart and Smith are increasingly in agreement, with Smart often also sharing similar views. Craig Mather, the chief operating officer, and Brian Stockbridge, the finance director, have also been prepared to vote in favour of moves that would bring some stability to the board. With an emergency general meeting having been requested by Blue Pitch Holdings, with four issues to be addressed â?? to remove Murray, to remove Cartmell, to appoint James Easdale and to appoint Chris Morgan â?? there is a desire to find the means to negotiate a settlement in advance that is not disruptive.

 

There are two stages to Rangers returning to a more stable, productive set-up. The first is change in the boardroom, which is likely to begin to be addressed today. Disagreements amongst directors have not always followed along 'Rangers men' and 'non-Rangers men' lines, and there have been few clear-cut points of disagreement; the subtleties and the nuances have often been lost in the rush to impose a clear narrative on events. It is more that the board has lacked strong leadership, from the chairman, and some of the dissent has been leaked. A new chairman, and perhaps a vice-chairman with a specific remit, would go some way to restoring order to the boardroom.

 

It is considered highly unlikely that Green will return, despite being the majority shareholder with a 7.8% stake. Having resigned as chief executive last month, he was allowed to remain on the board as a director until May 31, so he can participate in today's meeting.

 

The independent investigation into the level of collusion last summer between Green and Craig Whyte, the former owner â?? which was launched by Murray and carried out by Pinsent Masons and Deloitte â?? has been completed, but the results have not yet been seen by all of the directors. A detailed statement on the outcome is unlikely, but there seems little prospect of a return for Green. He remains popular with some fans, although the consensus view is that the club needs to draw a distinct line under the turbulence of the past 12 months.

 

Even if matters are addressed in the boardroom, where many of the issues have become centred on personalities, Rangers' long-term stability is likely to require a change in the balance of shareholders. As revealed in the prospects ahead of last December's Initial Public Offering of shares, members of Green's initial consortium can begin to sell their stakes in June. Green himself, as well as Imran Ahmad, the former commercial director, have to wait until 12 months have elapsed before they can trade, although lock-in agreements do often leave room for manoeuvre.

 

Dave King, the former Rangers director, has previously admitted to monitoring the situation. Even if last year's season ticket sales could be repeated, there is the likelihood that Rangers will need additional funding on or before the club's return to the top flight. King has always believed that the business model will require further investment to be successful. With the Rangers Supporters Trust, as well as individuals, having bought shares during the IPO, there is also an opportunity for the fans to take larger stakes in the club if they can work together to pool their influence.

 

The board meeting today may well begin to address some of the issues that have been troubling Rangers in recent months. There will still be other difficult decisions to be made in the weeks ahead.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/agenda-clear-but-more-tough-decisions-ahead-for-rangers-board.21208735

[Frankie 9,003]

Nothing new of note so I guess we wait until after today's meeting for a real update.

[chilledbear 16]

This would be good.

 

''With the Rangers Supporters Trust, as well as individuals, having bought shares during the IPO, there is also an opportunity for the fans to take larger stakes in the club if they can work together to pool their influence.''

 

If only!!

[der Berliner 4,308]

Additional funding ... methinks the new shirt and sponsorhsip deals will click in this summer. Anyone knows whether the deal for the naming rights is off the table?

[craig 5,199]

Additional funding ... methinks the new shirt and sponsorhsip deals will click in this summer. Anyone knows whether the deal for the naming rights is off the table?

 

We would have had revenue for these last season too - these wouldnt be considered "additional funding" unless they are at significantly higher levels than last season, and I doubt they are.

[der Berliner 4,308]

... wasn't that a split deal with the Hooped Horrors?

[craig 5,199]

... wasn't that a split deal with the Hooped Horrors?

 

Could have been. Regardless, the term that springs to mind is "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" - I could be very, very wrong but I suspect that any sponsorship deal we had in conjunction with Celtic would have been more lucrative than a standalone one, otherwise why have we (and them to be fair) been in combined deals for so long ?

 

Eg, a Rangers AND Celtic deal could net, say, 5 million a season - whilst a standalone Rangers one could net, say, 2 million a season - so we would be better off with them. Again, either way, I doubt our revenue has significantly increased since we have a separate sponsorship deal.

 

ALSO..... lets not pay too much attention to the sponsorship deal being a "separate" deal.... our shirt sponsors and their shirt sponsors may have different names on the front of the shirt.... but they are BOTH part of the same group of companies - it is a "separate" deal in name only.