forlanssister 3,050 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I don't know that it would be portrayed as "casting aside". If they get 2 of their 3 targets, they might settle for 1 on 2 off rather than the turkey shoot of an EGM in pursuit of 2 on 3 off. Then it's just Paul, would you like to stand aside for the good of the Club etc etc. There's no doubt Paul Murray would stand aside if the need arose, he publicly stated that last time around. However that would only be temporary measure at best. Why would McColl go to all this trouble to and settle with a deal that leaves the present dysfunctional board holding power? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Keep Mather, get someone other than Paul Murray. Would be my preference. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 There's no doubt Paul Murray would stand aside if the need arose, he publicly stated that last time around. However that would only be temporary measure at best. Why would McColl go to all this trouble to and settle with a deal that leaves the present dysfunctional board holding power? A very fair question that only he can answer. But I would liken it to a chess match. Both sides are prepared to sacrifice pawns e.g. PM on the McCollCo and BS/CM (perhaps off the Board but not the CEO position) on the incumbents side, in order to gain an advantage but both may have to agree to settle for a draw, at least this time around. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Dave King is not going to be under the radar forever, but he may well go off the radar completely if a half baked compromise is reached. He wants to invest serious money but not when there is even the remotest chance of anyone taking their slice of it. He trusts the McColl team. He doesn't trust the current board. McColl knows investment is absolutely crucial moving forward. Why let your biggest investor (by far potentially) walk away just to avoid the conflict of an EGM? Doesn't add up to me. Absolutely and I'm sure Jim McColl didn't build up his successful businesses by giving in to or compromising with chancers in tough situations. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 A very fair question that only he can answer. But I would liken it to a chess match. Both sides are prepared to sacrifice pawns e.g. PM on the McCollCo and BS/CM (perhaps off the Board but not the CEO position) on the incumbents side, in order to gain an advantage but both may have to agree to settle for a draw, at least this time around. If he settles for that he may a well not have bothered. It might be bloody, it might be messy but the simple fact is the board needs cleansed not more of the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Absolutely and I'm sure Jim McColl didn't build up his successful businesses by giving in to or compromising with chancers in tough situations. I doubt Rangers are like any other business he's built up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 I doubt Rangers are like any other business he's built up. That's not the point though. McColl is a winner and he's said this is a battle he's not going to lose. I believe him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 That's not the point though. McColl is a winner and he's said this is a battle he's not going to lose. I believe him. Personally I don't like my club being the subject of some poker game. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 the simple fact is the board needs cleansed not more of the same. I don't think anyone on here disagrees with that. No doubt MCollCo will way it all up very carefully before deciding their next move and whether sacrifices are in order. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Personally I don't like my club being the subject of some poker game. It might be messy and it's likely to get even messier before this is resolved, but SpivCo need to go and the club board needs cleared out to a man and replaced with a more suitable one. 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.