The Rangers Standard: Toxic Mediahouse and Rangers Toxic Board'.

[blue1 0]

Sorry that was not what I was asking but I see I wasn't clear. I was asking if there is proof that Green is in charge?

[stewarty 1,876]

Pulling no punches. Good work!

 

Its really a bizarre decision. I felt that Mather would need to get behind the next regime if he was to stand a chance of surviving. Given that he spoke positively about Jim McColl on BT Sport pre-match on Friday, I thought we were beginning to see a path being forged from Charles Green's wreckage. But with the MH being appointed, presumably by the Easedales, it shows that Mather is powerless to stop all this nonsense.

 

The sooner we have a general meeting the better. I'd now like to see McColl escalate things and renege on this verbal agreement to roll the EGM into the AGM. We cannot afford for this shower to have control for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

[sannybear 0]

If the Easdales decide to start throwing their weight around they might find that Rangers fans , when their backs are up , are quite capable of doing the same . The editor of the Scottish Sun found that out .

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

Good article, would also like to know who is pulling the strings.

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

No doubt the usual suspects are foaming at the mouth again on RM.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't read newspapers very often and I don't really know who is who amongst journalists or media houses that are allegedly pro or anti Rangers or one director or another (perhaps I should but I care more about how the team plays than off field politics) but this piece poses a lot of valid questions.

 

However, THE most valid question right now, as Zappa rightly says, is who the bleedin' hell is running our Club. We don't have a Chairman and clearly the CEO is not in charge of day to day events as is amply demonstrated in the article. If it is Charles Green or Sandy Easdale, neither of whom are directors or employees (well not so far as we know) then there is something far amiss.

 

If this situation isn't resolved soon then both the football and the regulatory authorities (neither of whom need an invitation) will start to take an interest.

 

I am not a lawyer, far less a corporate lawyer but it seems to me that the question that would have to be asked here would be in terms of The Companies Act 2006:

 

6.2.2. Duty to act for the benefit of the company.

 

Sec172 (1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company

 

in appointing or rather re appointing Media House, were the directors acting "to promote the success of the company " or themselves?

 

If it could be proven, on the balance of probabilities, that they were acting to promote themselves rather than the company then they might be held personally liable for the expense. However, it's one thing having a perception or suspicions it's quite another (expensive) thing proving it in a court of law. A future Board could bring a claim against the current directors and in certain circumstances may even be able to invalidate the contract. I have also found that with the permission of the court, shareholders can bring a claim against a director in the name of the company. The claim is initiated and run by shareholders, but it is brought in the company’s name and to recover the company’s loss.

 

(Need to get on or there'll be no Berwick preview!)

[Calgacus 8]

No doubt the usual suspects are foaming at the mouth again on RM.

 

I haven't had the strength to look at that thread on RM. I'm always saddened by the abuse that some posters are willing to dish out to their fellow supporters.

[simplythebest 0]

I haven't had the strength to look at that thread on RM. I'm always saddened by the abuse that some posters are willing to dish out to their fellow supporters.

 

I haven't opened it myself yet.

[RANGERRAB 3,253]

Excellent article and I agree with almost all of it, although I do have a couple of points to raise:

 

a) I don't think it's necessarily the case that the board "thought that bringing back Charles Green was a good idea". I think it's probably more a case of the board (Mather especially) not having a choice in the matter of bringing back Green because they aren't actually in control of such decisions. Same goes for the hiring of Jack Irvine. I don't believe for one minute that this was Mather's decision or that he had any control over it.

 

b) I'd like to have seen Chris focus more on the question of exactly who is running the club because it's clearly not Craig Mather. He does address this in the 3rd & 2nd last paragraphs, but I'd like to see a deeper investigation and analysis of that question. As the old saying goes; follow the money, although in this case it would be like trying to follow the invisible man through a hall of mirrors.

 

who is running the club ?

until someone gains a major or majority shareholding then we'll continue as we are. CG's notion of no one owning more than 15% shareholding doesn't work. We can see that now

[Zappa 0]

who is running the club ?

 

We don't know, but I think the best guess is Green, his Zeus cohorts & their backers like Blue Pitch Holdings who forced out Malcolm Murray & appointed Easdale.