Walterbear 557 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 My only real reservation about AJ.... One of his main roles was to secure investment, and potential new owners. I think it's safe to safe that he failed on both those counts. There were plans to tap into his "sports network" in order to achieve the above, but it was ultimately pointless. On the plus side, he was vocal about selling to CW, and under his guidance the clubs financials were improving (even without the investments). He seems well connected in US money circles (going by previous media reports) but trying to attract investment during the HMRC years has been virtually impossible other than through rich supporters (without whom we would be in much more serious trouble). Hats off to them! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 He seems well connected in US money circles (going by previous media reports) but trying to attract investment during the HMRC years has been virtually impossible other than through rich supporters (without whom we would be in much more serious trouble). Hats off to them! I believe that was one of the reason why AJ was brought in - he was very well connected.....but he still failed to attract the investment, or even the interest required. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 The comment about bringing investment was interesting because I can't remember him ever being mentioned in that regard before? Although I seem to remember there were a few rumours he was interested in taking over at one point - was his name mentioned in connection with the US guy who was reportedly interested? Or have I made that up... If we're close to being back on an more firm financial footing then its maybe not too far fetched to suggest he might be able to find some people willing to invest something. Mike, good to see you back posting 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
917 191 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) I think there has to be doubts. DF's summary seemed to be that AJ, Paul Murray and Dave King were supposed to be bringing in fresh investment/new owners to the club, and in that they failed. However you could wonder who exactly would ever have been willing to buy us with the big tax case hovering over the club at the time? More serious doubts in my mind though which came out at the trial, involve the contracts given to Martin Bain and Ally McCoist. The former was given a contract which required a 3-year pay-off, while Coisty was awarded a deal which included a £1million compensation clause if he was not appointed successor to Walter Smith as manager. AJ was chairman of the board at the time. More details on the Bain deal are available via this link, which I found somewhere else.. http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/15269946.Rangers_trial___Club_acted_illegally_over%20_chief_executive_s_contract_/ Edited June 5, 2017 by 917 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Well, I read a little of similar stuff on AJ on FF, i.e. people following Findlay's "findings" and having a go at him regarding the Bain and McCoist "deals". You do wonder how much of that is actual fact and, despite being chairman, how much AJ could have done to prevent it ... given SDM's virtual hold on the company. In any case, it puts doubts in the the minds of the jurors as much as us, and the latter was probably not what Findlay actually intended. Perhaps we will have to wait and see whether AJ is really appointed to the board. Obviously, quite interesting what comes to the fore with the odd former manager, board member and whatnot when it comes to Rangers. I reckon the media will be all over it after the verdict, no matter which way it will go. Yet, when it comes to them ... not only have you dig deep for any scrap of info, but the papers will do all they can to avoid publishing anything in great detail. They even manage to warp the investment stuff away from the more famous Yahoo names to a bit part player for us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 given SDM's virtual hold on the company. From what I read while following the trial Johnston and the others were made out to be extending Bains contract and inserting conditions into Walters without Murray being made aware. The point seemed to be that Murray had other larger problems to deal with and left the board to get on with things. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davie P 4 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 From what I read while following the trial Johnston and the others were made out to be extending Bains contract and inserting conditions into Walters without Murray being made aware. The point seemed to be that Murray had other larger problems to deal with and left the board to get on with things. Was AJ an executive or non-executive Chairman. if the latter, would he even have had the authority to agree the Bain/McCoist deals, without Murray's nod and a wink? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 AJ explained the Bain 'contract' in the Q&A, the 'contract' was never valid and never could be, it was an attempt to clear up another of Murrays messes. There was no possibility of the 'contract' ever being enforced. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 AJ explained the Bain 'contract' in the Q&A, the 'contract' was never valid and never could be, it was an attempt to clear up another of Murrays messes. There was no possibility of the 'contract' ever being enforced. Why wasn't it valid and why could it not have been enforced? Was there another contract that Bain had that he used in his compensation claim? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,429 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 AJ explained the Bain 'contract' in the Q&A, the 'contract' was never valid and never could be, it was an attempt to clear up another of Murrays messes. There was no possibility of the 'contract' ever being enforced. An extraordinary situation. The terms of the contract could not have been enforced by either party? Does this mean that Bain was working without a contract, on a grace and favour basis, and that he was CEO, by habit and repute? 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.