BEARGER 1,829 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 The board could have done more, we all could have done more, It's always the case that more could have been done. But McCoist promised to support the board and then reneged, the actions of a conman. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 C'mon Craig you're better than that. I'm not making aspersions at all FS. There are plenty that say he is selfish because of his salary, there are plenty that say he is selfish (or sold out) because of his penny shares - but with the salary he was entitled to it - one could say it shows he is greedy, but someone else can just as easily say that he was entitled to it and should take it... The penny shares he was being offered at massive discount - at the time it could easily be argued that he had no reason to refuse them (plenty of Bears were on Board with Charles Green and believed he would be the savior). All I am saying here is that I have no idea if he is selfish or not - because despite the appearance of SOME of his actions he was justly entitled to that salary and at liberty to accept the shares. Yes, some of his actions appear to be selfish - I don't doubt that for a second. But I also look at it and think "would many of us refuse the salary you are entitled to" ? Answer is that it would be difficult to reject it, love for the Club or not. He was fully aware that his vote could well make or break the resolution, whatever anyone thinks of McCoist he is no fool. Oh I don't think he is a fool, not at all. Do we know that he decided to not vote simply to break the resolution - or was there some other reason ? Again, if he said he was going to vote for the resolution then he should have - but do we know that there wasn't a simple reason why he didn't - or was it all nefarious ? Again, it appears you have far more information to hand than I do, so I bow to your greater insight. That being the case then Ally really has sold his soul, which saddens me. As you're aware 80 odd % participation in voting at a Company AGM (the average is 46%) is quite high, I don't get your assumption that the Board stopped canvassing as soon as they thought they hit 75%, could they have done more? I think probably they could have just as I thought they could (and should) have last year. So if they didn't stop canvassing for additional padding why is it that we aren't completely up in arms at the remaining 15% who also decided to not vote ? Is it because Ally had agreed to vote in favour ? Is it simply because it is Ally ? Is it because he is an easy target ? My point is that either the Board stopped canvassing (which makes them naïve) or they did canvass and there were more who were against it than you would think. Yes, the 80% is a very high turnout - but we also have a fairly thinly traded and fairly small pool of shareholders - I mean with 46% being the average we only need about 5 people to show up and vote (or cast proxies) to beat the average..... Maybe it is actually ME that is naïve - but to me anyone voting against resolution 11 to prevent their shareholding from dilution is looking at a very, very short term game. Even upon dilution of, say 50%, I reckon that the investment could take us back to the top of Scottish football, in European competition, turning a profit - and all of that would see the share price actually increasing, possibly to a point where your smaller shareholding is worth more. And if someone like Ally is no fool then he should see the possibility of that..... Or maybe I am forlornly clutching at straws in the belief that mankind aren't so self-absorbed and self-serving. Aye, probably the latter 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 How can you be happy with them and disagree with their published policy ? That published policy you talk of is simply ONE policy for funding. It is very easy to be happy with the job they are doing overall and yet disagree with them on a particular policy. Very, very few companies will have shareholders completely agree with every policy that a Board of Directors wish to embark upon. Go take a look at AIG. Icahn led an investors revolt at AIG simply because the Board of Directors refused to sell off particular parts of the company..... as soon as the AIG Board decided that Icahn may have a point and started looking to divest of certain business units.... the investor revolt was dead. Why ? Because Icahn actually believed that the AIG Board had done good work but that they were failing in a major way to not get rid of business units which weren't part of their core business - a typical instance of "I like what you are doing except for this one thing". It happened an awful lot more than you would think. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) Which is fair enough - but I would argue that his personal feelings towards the current Board would be clouding his judgement on what is in the best interests of the Club - and that should, surely, see him also receive short shrift from the support. 1. He is a fan 2. He knows full well that res 11 was about diluting the ownership of Ashley & Easdales 3. He is someone that understands the markets better than most. Yet he still didn't support res 11 - I fail to see how that gets him a get out of jail free card simply because he has personal issues with the current incumbents. The only difference between him and McCoist is that McCoist did actually pledge his support - and his decision to not vote still ends up putting him in the EXACT same place as Murray.... Neither voted for Res 11. Both claim to be fans of the club. Only one gets hung, drawn and quartered...... They both should be.... More seriously, think the reason is two fold - firstly, that McCoist is a bigger figure and a huge part of Rangers' history and secondly that McCoist's vote would have carried the board over the percentage needed whereas Murray's wouldn't have. I'm not saying that changes or negates your points, I'm just saying it explains why one is mentioned on this thread to the exclusion of the other. One of the two would have made all the difference and the other would not have so it's the one being focussed on. You are of course correct that both are guilty of what seems a crime against our club - unless they have reasons which are hidden from our eyes. It seems unfathomable to me what these could be but if there are good reasons, then good but, if not .............. Edited November 28, 2016 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,567 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 I'm not making aspersions at all FS. There are plenty that say he is selfish because of his salary, there are plenty that say he is selfish (or sold out) because of his penny shares - but with the salary he was entitled to it - one could say it shows he is greedy, but someone else can just as easily say that he was entitled to it and should take it... The penny shares he was being offered at massive discount - at the time it could easily be argued that he had no reason to refuse them (plenty of Bears were on Board with Charles Green and believed he would be the savior). All I am saying here is that I have no idea if he is selfish or not - because despite the appearance of SOME of his actions he was justly entitled to that salary and at liberty to accept the shares. Yes, some of his actions appear to be selfish - I don't doubt that for a second. But I also look at it and think "would many of us refuse the salary you are entitled to" ? Answer is that it would be difficult to reject it, love for the Club or not. Oh I don't think he is a fool, not at all. Do we know that he decided to not vote simply to break the resolution - or was there some other reason ? Again, if he said he was going to vote for the resolution then he should have - but do we know that there wasn't a simple reason why he didn't - or was it all nefarious ? Again, it appears you have far more information to hand than I do, so I bow to your greater insight. That being the case then Ally really has sold his soul, which saddens me. So if they didn't stop canvassing for additional padding why is it that we aren't completely up in arms at the remaining 15% who also decided to not vote ? Is it because Ally had agreed to vote in favour ? Is it simply because it is Ally ? Is it because he is an easy target ? My point is that either the Board stopped canvassing (which makes them naïve) or they did canvass and there were more who were against it than you would think. Yes, the 80% is a very high turnout - but we also have a fairly thinly traded and fairly small pool of shareholders - I mean with 46% being the average we only need about 5 people to show up and vote (or cast proxies) to beat the average..... Maybe it is actually ME that is naïve - but to me anyone voting against resolution 11 to prevent their shareholding from dilution is looking at a very, very short term game. Even upon dilution of, say 50%, I reckon that the investment could take us back to the top of Scottish football, in European competition, turning a profit - and all of that would see the share price actually increasing, possibly to a point where your smaller shareholding is worth more. And if someone like Ally is no fool then he should see the possibility of that..... Or maybe I am forlornly clutching at straws in the belief that mankind aren't so self-absorbed and self-serving. Aye, probably the latter i am sorry, but I think, my friend, that you should go wring your hands for however long it takes for them to be wrung dry, then return. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,066 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Oh I don't think he is a fool, not at all. Do we know that he decided to not vote simply to break the resolution - or was there some other reason ? Again, if he said he was going to vote for the resolution then he should have - but do we know that there wasn't a simple reason why he didn't - or was it all nefarious ? Again, it appears you have far more information to hand than I do, so I bow to your greater insight. That being the case then Ally really has sold his soul, which saddens me. It saddens or rather should sadden us all So if they didn't stop canvassing for additional padding why is it that we aren't completely up in arms at the remaining 15% who also decided to not vote ? Is it because Ally had agreed to vote in favour ? Is it simply because it is Ally ? Is it because he is an easy target ? My point is that either the Board stopped canvassing (which makes them naïve) or they did canvass and there were more who were against it than you would think. Whatever people think of our Board I really doubt that they're naive. Yes, the 80% is a very high turnout - but we also have a fairly thinly traded and fairly small pool of shareholders - I mean with 46% being the average we only need about 5 people to show up and vote (or cast proxies) to beat the average..... Maybe it is actually ME that is naïve - but to me anyone voting against resolution 11 to prevent their shareholding from dilution is looking at a very, very short term game. Even upon dilution of, say 50%, I reckon that the investment could take us back to the top of Scottish football, in European competition, turning a profit - and all of that would see the share price actually increasing, possibly to a point where your smaller shareholding is worth more. And if someone like Ally is no fool then he should see the possibility of that..... I concur that it's shortism in the extreme. Or maybe I am forlornly clutching at straws in the belief that mankind aren't so self-absorbed and self-serving. Aye, probably the latter Or maybe I'm just too cynical! That published policy you talk of is simply ONE policy for funding. It is very easy to be happy with the job they are doing overall and yet disagree with them on a particular policy. Very, very few companies will have shareholders completely agree with every policy that a Board of Directors wish to embark upon. Go take a look at AIG. Icahn led an investors revolt at AIG simply because the Board of Directors refused to sell off particular parts of the company..... as soon as the AIG Board decided that Icahn may have a point and started looking to divest of certain business units.... the investor revolt was dead. Why ? Because Icahn actually believed that the AIG Board had done good work but that they were failing in a major way to not get rid of business units which weren't part of their core business - a typical instance of "I like what you are doing except for this one thing". It happened an awful lot more than you would think. Ironically enough that's just what Laxey Partners (remember them?) do for a living and us aside are generally successful. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 i am sorry, but I think, my friend, that you should go wring your hands for however long it takes for them to be wrung dry, then return. Oh aye, I'm a hand-wringer now. Good lord. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,567 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Oh aye, I'm a hand-wringer now. Good lord.[/quote That's how it reads to me. I, too, suppose he must have had his reasons; it is merely unfortunate that it is impossible to discern even one scintilla of concern for the future of the Club in his actions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charltonman 19 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Thanks Craig , I'm sure that this is going to run for sometime. (Btw very brave of you to admit you didn't vote in the current climate ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charltonman 19 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Craig , I can totally understand voting against a particular acquisition or a remuneration policy . This seemed a much more fundamental policy to me . 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.