Jump to content



Recommended Posts

after refusing to hand over contract details for Charles Green and Imran Ahmad


SHAREHOLDER Billy Paterson reported the club to police under Section 229 of the Companies Act 2006 after they refused his legal right to inspect contracts.


RANGERS are facing a police probe into alleged failures of corporate governance.


Shareholder Billy Paterson has reported the club to police for the second time after they refused to hand over contract details for Charles Green and Imran Ahmad.


Rangers’ board were forced into a u-turn last month when they failed to show Paterson details of the service contracts of current directors, claiming they had no legal obligation.


However, Paterson, from Fraserburgh, stuck to his guns and reported the club to police under Section 229 of the Companies Act 2006.


Rangers admitted within 24 hours they had got it wrong – and released details confirming chief executive Graham Wallace is on a salary of £315,000 with a potential 100 per cent bonus.


Paterson is now embroiled in another legal battle after Rangers rejected his request for contract details for former chief executive Green and commercial boss Ahmad.


Ibrox legal advisers say his appeal is time-barred, they need only show service contracts for the previous 12 months.


A Rangers spokesperson said: “Both service contracts were terminated in April 2013 and were outside the one-year inspection period stipulated by the legislation.”


But Paterson is refusing to take their latest snub lying down and insists Green and Ahmad were still officially recognised as directors of the parent company and the subsidiary football board until the end of last May.


He said: “Notices filed to Companies House by Rangers show Ahmad stepped down on May 29 and Green on May 31.


“Rangers even released a statement last April stating Green was stepping down as chief executive with immediate effect but that he would leave the company by the end of May.


“The failure of Rangers to acknowledge they were still both directors within the past 12 months and provide me with my legal right to see details of their service contracts has left me with no other option but to contact police.


“I don’t know what, if anything, they are trying to hide but they are reluctant to be open and transparent.”


A police spokeswoman said: “We have received a complaint and the matter is being looked into.”


Rangers are already the subject of a police probe after fan Phil Maher reported Wallace for allegedly misleading shareholders over the company’s finances at the agm in December.




Good on you Mr Paterson, whoever you are. :thup: Makes you wonder, why are they so reluctant to let the details out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a surprise that the board who sell themselves as the Champions of Corporate Goverance & Transparency and blame those in the past for what they 'inherited' would interpret the Companies Act in a way that opposes a shareholders legal right in such a way that suggests that they'd prefer the respective service contracts stay secret. :rolleyes:


The proof of the pudding will be in what is determined.

It appears that the board have dug their heels in on this one and must believe that they have a reasonable or good chance of having their decision 'upheld',......or that there is reason for them to try their utmost to keep the contracts of Green and Ahmad hidden.


eg. What if the contract(s) weren't accurately reflected in the IPO prospectus ?



Corporate Goverance, Transparency, Communication & Engagement.

The Board Talk the Talk but don't Walk the Walk.


Not too surprising given that the main power seems to come from the same shareholder block that lurked behind Green.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems every time the board talk about better corporate governance, the next few days shows them to be hiding from such.


This is extremely revealing wrt to their style of MO and illustration to show that the current board operate in a very similar way to those who frittered away tens of millions.


Of course this lot don't have the option of frittering away such sums because they don't have them at present.

However this is a different stage in an ongoing process to suck the value out of the club (will sooner or later include the assets).

No great conspiracy, it's simplyhow corporate vultures operate within distressed companies.

Once their claws are in, they don't let go until they feel they have maximised return.

Link to post
Share on other sites

in what way?


Well, as the article indicates there are now three clear examples of such - from refusing shareholders their right to look at contracts to statements that are less than convincing regarding our financial situation.


You might be willing to overlook such stuff. Tens of thousands are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.