Open Letter From The Chairman

[amms 0]

It depresses me greatly when people put themselves forward as saviours who don't even know who brought Souness Woods and Butcher to Rangers.

 

Yes, because that's the most important element of all this. Somers claims not to have even heard of Charles Green until four weeks ago so I'm surprised you're not shouting for his head.

[Zappa 0]

I think the point being missed Zap is neither Frankie or I have adopted that position through choice - but because we have not been convinced by either sides arguments.

 

Like yourself I was against Green early doors and took considerable criticism for articles which were less than favourable to him but thats life - Ive learned an incredibly thick skin is required if you put yourself up as a blogger. Sometimes you call it right sometimes you cal it wrong.

 

What I have learned from this latest episode of fence sitting is that both sides have been capable of unedifying behaviour not worthy of our club' date=' and that either side will engage in desperate measures if they feel it will further their cause. However, I have been particularly impressed with Jim McColl throughout this whole affair, both his manner, his conduct and the statements he has made. I personally know member's of Jim McColl's family and know he is genuine in his love and concern for the club - despite some of the nonsense which has been printed.

 

But JM has stated the new appointees should be given a chance and speaks very highly of Graham Wallace. He would also appear to respect the judgement of Colin Kingsnorth who of course has pledged support for the current board.

 

So for those reasons Im going to continue with my status quo - rather than start shouting for the removal of people based on rumour, innuendo or deliberate smear.

 

I hope however come to 2015, freed from his current obligations, JM will seek to involve himself with our club again in some capacity.[/quote']

 

I think where you and I differ on these issues D'Art, is that you seem to be taking all sorts of things into consideration like the actions of supporters of both sides, bloggers etc too whereas I'm only interested in taking the individual directors, proposed directors and their actions (or lack of them) into account. I want us to stick to the important core issues and not get bogged down in the mire of petty mudslinging. Much like Jim McColl, I think we should try to be pragmatic about the situation and not get pigeonholed as being completely pro or anti board/status quo because it's counter productive and also not particularly realistic.

 

There's no denying that Graham Wallace appears to be a solid appointment, so I think he's got a very good chance of surviving the AGM. Crighton I'm as yet unsure about despite initial reservations, but my mind is now made up on Somers. It doesn't matter whether Somers wrote this statement himself, Jack Irvine helped him write it or Irvine wrote it and Somers just signed it, it's just not up to an acceptable standard for a Rangers Chairman statement, nowhere near it. We've been getting spoon fed this level of petty amateurish crap for far too long now and it needs to stop. Green's dog & pony show is supposed to have left town months ago, but Chairman statements like this really make me wonder.

 

The Easdales have about 5% of the company in their names and they hold such a large block of proxy votes, that they might just manage to get voted back in, but they've shown no good reason why they should be involved in running the club or why they should get our backing. They've not shown us one single thing which suggests they would be good for the club and they don't have CVs which qualify them on a professional level. If 5% and a bunch of proxies let's them hang on and retain positions they should never have been given in the first place, then there might not be a lot we can do, but I can't see them being good for the Club because I think they're involved for themselves, not for the good of Rangers.

 

Stockbridge is toast. His position is completely untenable for countless good reasons and if he gets voted back in at the AGM, then something is far wrong and I'll be very worried indeed.

 

On the requisitioners side, the only man I'm not comfortable with is Malcolm Murray. I didn't take to him when he first arrived on the scene and he didn't change my mind when he addressed the recent meeting of fans in Glasgow, so despite the fact that he no doubt has the Club's best interests at heart, he's not suitable for me.

 

I'm comfortable with Paul Murray despite his involvement in SDM's regime from 2007 to 2011 because I think he's always tried and fought hard to do the right thing and what's best for the club. We don't know a great deal about Alex Wilson and Scott Murdoch, but their credentials seem good, they're genuine fans and I like what I've seen and heard from them both so far.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

so we have a chairman that until 4 weeks ago paid not one jot of attention to our club.

 

something drastically wrong with that.

[Bluedell 5,330]

 

I honestly think the promotion of his blogs by the requisitioners supporters have done them far more harm than good.

 

I'd agree with that but that in itself shouldn't affect people's ability to judge the pros and cons of both parties....in an ideal world.

[Tom Davison 0]

There has been a succession of people such as Green, Ahmed, Stockbridge and possibly the Easdales, who have become involved with our club. For most of us to be allowed to serve in a leadership role at Rangers would be considered a great privilege. There is little evidence that any of the people listed above, saw/see it that way. Why would someone like David Somers, who seemingly knew very little about our club before being appointed as chairman, consider that he now occupied a privileged position? He has described the requisitioners group as being fanatics. He would do well to make time to meet with some of the people who for many years now have invested their time and money in supporting Glasgow Rangers. They, too, could possibly be described as fanatics and would be happy to explain to Mr Somers, as to why, they were quite pleased to be described, in that way.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Sod this being nice - I think that people backing the current board are virtually collaborators.

 

I can understand people not liking the requisitioners, but to back the vandals that are metaphorically burning Ibrox to the ground? It's beyond me.

 

Well, that is rather strong a statement. We sure have got it all from Whyte, Green and Co., but likewise from the requisitioners.

 

As I intimated above, the current board (i.e. Somers, Wallace, Crighton ) has been in office for a few weeks. Over the whole course, Somers has made about two statement, one was yesterday. Over the whole period, the requisitioners have lambasted them with the same repeated arguments time and again, the supporters groups followed suit. There have been a couple of Irivine replies, but hardly a word from Wallace and Somers. I assumed (rightly, by the looks of it) that they were neck-deep in studying that mess up there. And think of ways to correct it. Hence McColl stopped his part of the campaign, apparently after talking to these new chaps and seeing the sense involved. It should have given the majority of the anti-Board faction reason to think.

 

Sure, we/I could all be wrong, but calling the chairman and CEO vandals is telling me that the propaganda of the bloggers and the Pretenders has been succesful ... in a way.

 

NB: I am not surprised that after weeks of inuendo, bad-mouthing and rumour-mongering, the chairman's "back" broke and he reverted to some unsavoury words as well.

[der Berliner 3,247]

There has been a succession of people such as Green, Ahmed, Stockbridge and possibly the Easdales, who have become involved with our club. For most of us to be allowed to serve in a leadership role at Rangers would be considered a great privilege. There is little evidence that any of the people listed above, saw/see it that way. Why would someone like David Somers, who seemingly knew very little about our club before being appointed as chairman, consider that he now occupied a privileged position? He has described the requisitioners group as being fanatics. He would do well to make time to meet with some of the people who for many years now have invested their time and money in supporting Glasgow Rangers. They, too, could possibly be described as fanatics and would be happy to explain to Mr Somers, as to why, they were quite pleased to be described, in that way.

 

You do wonder why the requisitioners have not tried their luck with talking to the chairman and the CEO directly, rather than fighting the dirty war in the media? At times you do wonder whether the pendulum swings only in one direction, when the talk about the duties of the board comes up. If I were one of the requisitioners, I'd try to speak to the new board chaps ASAP.

[crucible 0]

Yes, because that's the most important element of all this. Somers claims not to have even heard of Charles Green until four weeks ago so I'm surprised you're not shouting for his head.

 

I have no reason to disbelieve him should I have, I also see the article on Paul Murray's past failures is spreading like wildfire not good for the requisitioners along with JM stepping away.

[andy steel 0]

Well, that is rather strong a statement. We sure have got it all from Whyte, Green and Co., but likewise from the requisitioners.

 

As I intimated above, the current board (i.e. Somers, Wallace, Crighton ) has been in office for a few weeks. Over the whole course, Somers has made about two statement, one was yesterday. Over the whole period, the requisitioners have lambasted them with the same repeated arguments time and again, the supporters groups followed suit. There have been a couple of Irivine replies, but hardly a word from Wallace and Somers. I assumed (rightly, by the looks of it) that they were neck-deep in studying that mess up there. And think of ways to correct it. Hence McColl stopped his part of the campaign, apparently after talking to these new chaps and seeing the sense involved. It should have given the majority of the anti-Board faction reason to think.

 

Sure, we/I could all be wrong, but calling the chairman and CEO vandals is telling me that the propaganda of the bloggers and the Pretenders has been succesful ... in a way.

 

NB: I am not surprised that after weeks of inuendo, bad-mouthing and rumour-mongering, the chairman's "back" broke and he reverted to some unsavoury words as well.

 

You'll be pleased to hear, then, that I don't pay any heed to the propaganda of the bloggers, since I haven't read them for months. I merely consider the inexplicable flow of money out of our club, leaving it financially in a precarious position, is vandalism. How anyone can think otherwise is, as I said, beyond me.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

what have the current board done to stem this flow or indeed what do they plan to do.