A wizard, A knight & A round table

[D'Artagnan 173]

Its probably the perfect title for a saga where truth and fable are as difficult to separate as any Arthurian Legend. In one of Camelot's famous towers we have blogger Bill McMurdo, apparently revelling in his recently acquired nickname of Merlin. In another we have the requistioners of Jim McColl, Malcolm Murray and a remnant of the Blue Knights in the shape of Paul Murray.

 

The latest attempt to pull the sword from the stone came from the wand of Bill, who conjured up an interesting spell in his blog. It read :

“Rangers fans may be puzzled at all the innuendo around Blue Pitch Holdings which is coming from the Requisitioners, given that a prominent player in Minico has been phoning Chris Morgan of BPH constantly seeking their support in the upcoming AGM.

 

Morgan reckons he has had at least 50 calls from this Requisitioner I am informed, as has Richard Hughes of Zeus.

Of course, Zeus and BPH are two of the favourite whipping boys of the anti-board faction online. How curious, then, that the Requisitioners would be seeking to curry their favour or canvas their support.”

 

For those of us sitting at the round table, trying, often forlornly, to make sense of it all, it is a significant development, and without putting too fine a point on it – a serious allegation. The truth and veracity of this allegation may well be a determining factor in determining who is to be believed and who can be trusted.

 

The identity of those behind Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita has been an issue of major concern for Rangers supporters, with some discussions even raising a fear that the dark spectre of Craig Whyte may be behind them, and the consequences of that for our club.

 

The anonymity of these investors is an issue the requisitioners have focussed on recently :

 

Jim McColl :-

 

http://www.dailyreco...-murray-2665945

 

He says it's now clear from Dave King's statement today that there are outside influences who are "pulling the strings" at Ibrox.

 

He said: "Over the last couple of weeks we have attempted to clarify the identity of who is really behind Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings

 

Malcolm Murray :-

 

http://www.scotsman....crecy-1-3172886

 

All we know is their nominee name, which is Blue Pitch/Margarita, and accounts for about 12 per cent of the holding. We have demanded to know who they are but we have not been told.

 

“But the big stick we have is that if they won’t tell us, the institutions can demand to know who they are. And if they won’t tell us, those shares won’t get a vote. If there’s nothing to hide, why on earth won’t we be told?”

The question on the minds of a lot of Rangers fans is would that big stick have been brandished Malcolm if Blue Pitch and Margarita supported the requisitioners ? In fact would the identity of these investors even have been an issue ?

 

Perhaps if the requestioners undertake another question and answer session it is a question which should be asked of them “ Did you or have you attempted to recruit the support of the anonymous investors Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita ?”

 

Someone somewhere is misleading and misdirecting the Rangers support. It is either Bill McMurdo or the requisitoners.

 

All I would ask is whoever is guilty would you please do the honourable thing and fall on Excalibur – this support have been fed enough bullshit in the last few years to last a lifetime.

[Calgacus 8]

Presumably if the requisitioners got them on board they would be able to find out who they were as part of the deal?

[Zappa 0]

McMurdo is yet again being extremely misleading indeed to our support by saying "Chris Morgan of BPH". Morgan, was proposed as a director alongside James Easdale when Blue Pitch lodged their EGM requisition back in May, but there's nothing to suggest that Morgan actually represents Blue Pitch.

 

In fact there's very good supporting evidence to suggest that Morgan DOES NOT represent Blue Pitch despite being proposed as a director alongside Easdale. The leaked email from Stephen Keys of Cenkos clarifies precisely which trusts and funds Chris Morgan was representing back in May when it lists Margarita Funds [4%], Norne Anstalt [1.84%] and Putney Holdings [0.7%] as being Morgan's "investor group".

 

McMurdo's misleading comments would appear to be nothing short of spin provided to him by Toxic Jack or one of his Media House cronies.

[bossy 0]

I don't see the problem. The requisitioners want to know who they are and want to enlist their support. Why should these two aims be incompatible?

[chilledbear 16]

It's only a problem if you are McMurdo and you support a certain faction.

[Zappa 0]

One important question we could be asking would be why has Chris Morgan aligned the interests of the trusts and funds which form his own investor group with the interests of Blue Pitch and the Easdales.

[D'Artagnan 173]

McMurdo is yet again being extremely misleading indeed to our support by saying "Chris Morgan of BPH". Morgan, was proposed as a director alongside James Easdale when Blue Pitch lodged their EGM requisition back in May, but there's nothing to suggest that Morgan actually represents Blue Pitch.

 

In fact there's very good supporting evidence to suggest that Morgan DOES NOT represent Blue Pitch despite being proposed as a director alongside Easdale. The leaked email from Stephen Keys of Cenkos clarifies precisely which trusts and funds Chris Morgan was representing back in May when it lists Margarita Funds [4%], Norne Anstalt [1.84%] and Putney Holdings [0.7%] as being Morgan's "investor group".

 

McMurdo's misleading comments would appear to be nothing short of spin provided to him by Toxic Jack or one of his Media House cronies.

 

Well if they are spin Zap then they should be nailed - once and for all.

 

But I think it weakens the case of the requisitoners if it can be proved they were happy to recruit the support of the anonymous investors, and have only raised concerns about identity since that support was not forthcoming.

[bossy 0]

Well if they are spin Zap then they should be nailed - once and for all.

 

But I think it weakens the case of the requisitoners if it can be proved they were happy to recruit the support of the anonymous investors' date=' and have only raised concerns about identity since that support was not forthcoming.[/quote']

 

I fail to see how it weakens their case. Their case is about good corporate governance and, logically, you would want to get all your investors behind that.

 

That said, the pressure to reveal the beneficial owners behind these outfits may be designed to put pressure on them to support the requisition. All is fair in love and war as they say. But that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the requisitioner's case.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I fail to see how it weakens their case. Their case is about good corporate governance and, logically, you would want to get all your investors behind that.

 

That said, the pressure to reveal the beneficial owners behind these outfits may be designed to put pressure on them to support the requisition. All is fair in love and war as they say. But that has nothing to do with the fundamentals of the requisitioner's case.

 

Id say good corporate governance and transparency Bossy.

 

I think if they have sought the support of the anonymous ones, and been subsequently rejected, and then engaged in a bit of scaremongering as to who these people are - then it would be transparent all right - just the wrong kind of transparency.

[Zappa 0]

Well if they are spin Zap then they should be nailed - once and for all.

 

There's no 'if' about it D'Art because Bill has been passing on spin from big chief toxic man and his cohorts for many many months. Personally' date=' I'd forgive him for simply passing it on because that's fair play in all honesty, but trying to pass off PR war spin as truth and factual, when it clearly isn't is a couple of steps too far.

 

But I think it weakens the case of the requisitoners if it can be proved they were happy to recruit the support of the anonymous investors, and have only raised concerns about identity since that support was not forthcoming.

 

That's what the spin is supposed to make us think, but I'm not buying it for a minute. People have been asking who's behind Blue Pitch right from the start when Green & co took over our club with the backing of these mysterious investors. Green was asked about it so often in the first few months after their newco takeover that he inevitably started contradicting himself about it and had to release at least one official statement to correct his verbal diarrhoea. Our very own forlanssister got a chance to ask Green about Blue Pitch personally and he contradicted himself AGAIN by saying it was Naqvi after having released the statement on the Rangers site saying it wasn't Naqvi.

 

Regarding McColl, Murray & co, it makes perfect sense for them to have been trying to make contact with ALL relevant parties, whether they be anonymous investors or not, so Jack & Bill trying to twist repeated contact from them into some sort of own goal is really stretching the imagination and comes over as pure spin and a bit desperate. It would be a lot more worrying if the requisitioners hadn't been trying to make contact with these parties.