Craig Houston statement

[Gaffer 1,665]

I agree with you Craig regarding conflicts of interest (perceived or real), however these exist on most boards are not a problem providing they are identified, communicated and managed accordingly. I have to declare my own conflicts of interest to my board and this is common practice. It sometimes means nothing more than making sure that there is awareness, however it can be managed in more extreme circumstances by being excluded from voting or removed from discussions and decisions completely during those relevant agenda items.

 

Therefore, I share the confusion regarding the so-called governance experts on the board. They should know this. If they don't know this, what is their value to the board? If they do understand this but made an error, this could have been resolved with an acceptance (and perhaps an apology if only to appease the members) of that error and action to put appropriate controls in place.

 

I state this opinion in good faith. I want the Club 1872 concept to work, but this issue of governance concerns me. Equally, I feel guilt because I am unable (or perhaps unwilling) to spend the time required to help. Bluedell (I think) asked earlier who in their right mind would volunteer for these posts with the scrutiny involved. In my opinion, there's very little intrusive scrutiny involved in such a position (compared with regulated FTSE registered companies) and people who have retired from any senior roles in large businesses should have the necessary skills and experience to help if they have the desire to do so. Where are they though? If no one else comes forward I think we should continue to support this concept, albeit with a more critical eye in terms of how the Club is being managed.

[stewarty 1,876]

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I have a lot of respect for what Craig has done, putting himself in the firing line on a number of occasions, and seemingly to his detriment given the profile that has come with it.

 

But on the other, the statement is pretty self-indulgent and glosses over conflict of interest issues and concerns that appear to have been raised by fellow directors.

 

However, it would seem to be that there is perhaps more to this than meets the eye. Based purely on the fact that given the circumstances described, there would seem to be some fairly simple things could have been done on both sides to prevent these issues escalating. Nonetheless, its regrettable that we have lost some good people from the c1872 board.

[trublusince1982 243]

It takes a lot of mental strength and resilience to perform properly within a boardroom setting. Those who resigned I would imagine just aren't cut out for it.

 

There Will always be difficult characters to work with, it's how well you manage those people that dictates your success

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I have a lot of respect for what Craig has done for and on behalf of Rangers. But given the level of scrutiny that is pointed in our direction and knowing the divisions in our support. He should have recused himself and avoided all of this. All this has done is show the division in our support and our apparent inability to govern a supporters group.

[plgsarmy 111]

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I have a lot of respect for what Craig has done, putting himself in the firing line on a number of occasions, and seemingly to his detriment given the profile that has come with it.

 

But on the other, the statement is pretty self-indulgent and glosses over conflict of interest issues and concerns that appear to have been raised by fellow directors.

 

However, it would seem to be that there is perhaps more to this than meets the eye. Based purely on the fact that given the circumstances described, there would seem to be some fairly simple things could have been done on both sides to prevent these issues escalating. Nonetheless, its regrettable that we have lost some good people from the c1872 board.

 

Believe me, this was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

[BEARGER 1,829]

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I have a lot of respect for what Craig has done, putting himself in the firing line on a number of occasions, and seemingly to his detriment given the profile that has come with it.

 

But on the other, the statement is pretty self-indulgent and glosses over conflict of interest issues and concerns that appear to have been raised by fellow directors.

 

However, it would seem to be that there is perhaps more to this than meets the eye. Based purely on the fact that given the circumstances described, there would seem to be some fairly simple things could have been done on both sides to prevent these issues escalating. Nonetheless, its regrettable that we have lost some good people from the c1872 board.

 

This is the quote from the resignees letter, pretty obvious it was not just this one incident.

 

"However, throughout our tenure we found the conduct of one director particularly challenging, causing all of us to make considerable personal compromises at times. However last week a situation arose, which we felt compromised the organisation rather than ourselves, and that was one compromise we were not prepared to make under any circumstances."

[craig 5,199]

I agree with you Craig regarding conflicts of interest (perceived or real), however these exist on most boards are not a problem providing they are identified, communicated and managed accordingly. I have to declare my own conflicts of interest to my board and this is common practice. It sometimes means nothing more than making sure that there is awareness, however it can be managed in more extreme circumstances by being excluded from voting or removed from discussions and decisions completely during those relevant agenda items.

 

Therefore, I share the confusion regarding the so-called governance experts on the board. They should know this. If they don't know this, what is their value to the board? If they do understand this but made an error, this could have been resolved with an acceptance (and perhaps an apology if only to appease the members) of that error and action to put appropriate controls in place.

 

I state this opinion in good faith. I want the Club 1872 concept to work, but this issue of governance concerns me. Equally, I feel guilt because I am unable (or perhaps unwilling) to spend the time required to help. Bluedell (I think) asked earlier who in their right mind would volunteer for these posts with the scrutiny involved. In my opinion, there's very little intrusive scrutiny involved in such a position (compared with regulated FTSE registered companies) and people who have retired from any senior roles in large businesses should have the necessary skills and experience to help if they have the desire to do so. Where are they though? If no one else comes forward I think we should continue to support this concept, albeit with a more critical eye in terms of how the Club is being managed.

 

Excellent post Gaffer, agree with every word.

 

Conflicts of interest are very, very easily dealt with. My company for example pay out insurance claims and some of the claimants representatives sit on our Board. When Board meetings get to claims discussions those representatives recuse themselves from the meeting when any and all discussion surrounding their employers claims are discussed. The meeting minutes reflect recusal and absence from the meeting for that portion and, in an instant, any real OR perceived conflicts of interest are removed.

 

It is NOT a difficult process.

 

For those on the C1872 Board to say they have extensive governance experience and then refuse or fail to see that there absolutely is the very real possibility of at least a perceived conflict of interest is mind-blowing to me. It is so so simple - Craig had applied for the SLO job and his attendance at this meeting MIGHT have put him in contact with the very people deciding upon the recruitment for that position. That absolutely SCREAMS conflict of interest.

[craig 5,199]

It takes a lot of mental strength and resilience to perform properly within a boardroom setting. Those who resigned I would imagine just aren't cut out for it.

There Will always be difficult characters to work with, it's how well you manage those people that dictates your success

 

That is an unfair statement.

 

You, nor I, know exactly why they resigned other than the statement they made - but if we are to believe that they resigned because of these conflicts of interest then I think that, if anything, they have shown not just mental strength but also resilience and principles to resign over it.

 

You seem to make it about dealing with difficult characters with your 2nd sentence - but their statement doesn't talk about just difficult characters - it talks about people not listening when they are being told that the transparency that they all ran on was being ignored and that there was a conflict of interest which was also being ignored.

 

Seems to me that the lack of awareness of those that remain on the Board is more reason for them to have been the ones to resign - even though I think most would rather NONE resigned. And as said multiple times, it was an easy fix. Craig had no reason to be at this meeting and it seems he even agreed with that.

[rbr 1,247]

I'm going to post a fuller reply later , but this was brought up at the meeting and is still relevant today regards this statement .

 

It is totally self indulgent and should never have been allowed the time at a club1872 meeting , what CH wants to post under his own Facebook page is entirely up to him , but he has an almost North Korean attitude to the truth ie it's the truth according to him and everyone else's is wrong.

 

 

 

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Craig is rough diamond and i fully understand he can rough some people up the wrong way, even rough diamonds have there uses. Although he did make a mistake imo, continuing as normal in club 1872 whilst applying then entering the interview process for the SLO job. I still think he can do a job for club1872. I would rather this episode hadn't happened and the three directors resigning as a result, but it has and we must move on in the best interest of club1872.

 

However fresh election's for all directors positions should be re-run, to gauge the mood and the feelings of the membership.