For whom the bell tolls

[D'Artagnan 173]

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

(George Santayana)

 

Allow me to summarise briefly. The Panel of Takeovers and Mergers ruled that the current custodians of our club did not act properly in their acquisition of same, determining they had acted as a concert party and consequently, having control of 30% of the business were thus compelled to make an offer to investors for the remaining shares.

 

This was denied by Dave King who took the decision to the Court of Session where his legal argument was rejected by Lord Bannatyne. The Advocate for the takeover Panel highlighted during the hearing an e-mail from George Letham to Dave King which cautioned King about the consequences of exceeding the 30% benchmark. These warnings clearly went unheeded.

 

Subsequently King was ordered to make an £11 million offer to the Club’s remaining shareholders despite the fact  King’s lawyer argued that his client could not afford to make such an offer.

 

If alarm bells are not sounding amongst our support – they certainly should be.

 

When Laura Fawkes, a Director of Club 1872, challenged Dave King at the 2017 AGM with regard to the recruitment of a replacement manager, the timescales as well as apparent failure to put in place previous assurances given with regard to succession planning, Dave King responded as follows:

 

“As far as the manager, I don’t accept the comment you’ve made. It’s difficult to put a time limit on it. The issue with Pedro was not one of succession planning, there’s maybe a perception that Pedro was doomed to failure. It wasn’t my view, I don’t think it was the board’s view, we continued to back Pedro. Ultimately results speak for themselves and having taken action we were extremely aware that this is going to be a 3 year appointment. We have got to be a careful we don’t let adverse results distract us from the process and I’m personally happy that we have taken the correct amount of time.”

 

After 68 days we had still failed to appoint a new manager and eventually installed the youth coach Graham Murty, as temporary manager. That remains the status quo at the time of writing.

 

Our club is one home defeat away from our worst ever series of home performances on record. In terms of assessment of our club’s progress, rebuilding and vision to reclaim the top spot in domestic football, it serves as more of an indictment than a positive indicator of continuous and steady improvement.

 

I would hope by now the alarm bells are loud enough to suggest a major headache is imminent.

 

Any honeymoon period which the current board deserved is now at an end. It is fine being beholden to them for rescuing us but they need to be judged by the job they are doing now and if that is deemed unsatisfactory or below standard then criticism should be forthcoming.

 

Not silence.

[Gaffer 1,665]

1 hour ago, D'Artagnan said:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

(George Santayana)

 

Allow me to summarise briefly. The Panel of Takeovers and Mergers ruled that the current custodians of our club did not act properly in their acquisition of same, determining they had acted as a concert party and consequently, having control of 30% of the business were thus compelled to make an offer to investors for the remaining shares.

 

This was denied by Dave King who took the decision to the Court of Session where his legal argument was rejected by Lord Bannatyne. The Advocate for the takeover Panel highlighted during the hearing an e-mail from George Letham to Dave King which cautioned King about the consequences of exceeding the 30% benchmark. These warnings clearly went unheeded.

 

Subsequently King was ordered to make an £11 million offer to the Club’s remaining shareholders despite the fact  King’s lawyer argued that his client could not afford to make such an offer.

 

If alarm bells are not sounding amongst our support – they certainly should be.

 

When Laura Fawkes, a Director of Club 1872, challenged Dave King at the 2017 AGM with regard to the recruitment of a replacement manager, the timescales as well as apparent failure to put in place previous assurances given with regard to succession planning, Dave King responded as follows:

 

“As far as the manager, I don’t accept the comment you’ve made. It’s difficult to put a time limit on it. The issue with Pedro was not one of succession planning, there’s maybe a perception that Pedro was doomed to failure. It wasn’t my view, I don’t think it was the board’s view, we continued to back Pedro. Ultimately results speak for themselves and having taken action we were extremely aware that this is going to be a 3 year appointment. We have got to be a careful we don’t let adverse results distract us from the process and I’m personally happy that we have taken the correct amount of time.”

 

After 68 days we had still failed to appoint a new manager and eventually installed the youth coach Graham Murty, as temporary manager. That remains the status quo at the time of writing.

 

Our club is one home defeat away from our worst ever series of home performances on record. In terms of assessment of our club’s progress, rebuilding and vision to reclaim the top spot in domestic football, it serves as more of an indictment than a positive indicator of continuous and steady improvement.

 

I would hope by now the alarm bells are loud enough to suggest a major headache is imminent.

 

Any honeymoon period which the current board deserved is now at an end. It is fine being beholden to them for rescuing us but they need to be judged by the job they are doing now and if that is deemed unsatisfactory or below standard then criticism should be forthcoming.

 

Not silence.

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Why should alarm bells be ringing?  We gave a young manager the chance (after the 'preferred candidate' thankfully turned us down), and last week we were within touching distance of going within three points of Celtic.  Had we won (which we clearly should have if the players had done their jobs properly), we would all have been delighted, so how can the events of the last week now suddenly be the fault of the board?

 

What are you calling for?  Banners at Ibrox demanding something?  If so, what?

 

[Gonzo79 13,589]

Hopefully the board have learned from previous appointments and will get some sensible advisors on board before appointing the next one.

 

We are right to question the board but let's face facts, there's no knight in shining armour coming in to fling money at us.

[compo 6,124]

Let's hope our next manager is a few years down the line , stand firm with Murty .

[Soulsonic5791 408]

2 hours ago, D'Artagnan said:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

(George Santayana)

 

Allow me to summarise briefly. The Panel of Takeovers and Mergers ruled that the current custodians of our club did not act properly in their acquisition of same, determining they had acted as a concert party and consequently, having control of 30% of the business were thus compelled to make an offer to investors for the remaining shares.

 

This was denied by Dave King who took the decision to the Court of Session where his legal argument was rejected by Lord Bannatyne. The Advocate for the takeover Panel highlighted during the hearing an e-mail from George Letham to Dave King which cautioned King about the consequences of exceeding the 30% benchmark. These warnings clearly went unheeded.

 

Subsequently King was ordered to make an £11 million offer to the Club’s remaining shareholders despite the fact  King’s lawyer argued that his client could not afford to make such an offer.

 

If alarm bells are not sounding amongst our support – they certainly should be.

 

When Laura Fawkes, a Director of Club 1872, challenged Dave King at the 2017 AGM with regard to the recruitment of a replacement manager, the timescales as well as apparent failure to put in place previous assurances given with regard to succession planning, Dave King responded as follows:

 

“As far as the manager, I don’t accept the comment you’ve made. It’s difficult to put a time limit on it. The issue with Pedro was not one of succession planning, there’s maybe a perception that Pedro was doomed to failure. It wasn’t my view, I don’t think it was the board’s view, we continued to back Pedro. Ultimately results speak for themselves and having taken action we were extremely aware that this is going to be a 3 year appointment. We have got to be a careful we don’t let adverse results distract us from the process and I’m personally happy that we have taken the correct amount of time.”

 

After 68 days we had still failed to appoint a new manager and eventually installed the youth coach Graham Murty, as temporary manager. That remains the status quo at the time of writing.

 

Our club is one home defeat away from our worst ever series of home performances on record. In terms of assessment of our club’s progress, rebuilding and vision to reclaim the top spot in domestic football, it serves as more of an indictment than a positive indicator of continuous and steady improvement.

 

I would hope by now the alarm bells are loud enough to suggest a major headache is imminent.

 

Any honeymoon period which the current board deserved is now at an end. It is fine being beholden to them for rescuing us but they need to be judged by the job they are doing now and if that is deemed unsatisfactory or below standard then criticism should be forthcoming.

 

Not silence.

Maybe Laura et al are regretting rushing to move their offices into Ibrox?

 

King's tone when addressing a representative of a significant shareholder said it all in my opinion.

 

The goodwill that the board deservedly garnered amongst the support when they relieved Llambias, Leach and the Easdales of the reins of power is on the wane.

 

How long before it is truly exhausted?

[Gonzo79 13,589]

3 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

 

How long before it is truly exhausted?

That could depend entirely on what happens over the Summer.  

[D'Artagnan 173]

59 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Why should alarm bells be ringing?  We gave a young manager the chance (after the 'preferred candidate' thankfully turned us down), and last week we were within touching distance of going within three points of Celtic.  Had we won (which we clearly should have if the players had done their jobs properly), we would all have been delighted, so how can the events of the last week now suddenly be the fault of the board?

 

What are you calling for?  Banners at Ibrox demanding something?  If so, what?

 

Does it not alarm you that the current chairman of our club embarked on a course of action which a regulatory body and the court of session deemed improper, despite the clear warning from George Letham ?

 

Similarly are you not concerned that the man who has pledged to underwrite future losses at our club appears to be in default with an order from the Takeover Panel, reinforced by a court of session ruling, with no sign of resolution ?

 

After 68 days of failing to appoint a manager, embarrassing ourselves with an undignified statement regarding the sole target they had identified, we appointed the youth coach as interim manager as replacement for the disasterous appointment they had previously appointed - and yet the board feel they are immune to any sort of criticism despite assuring fans they would ensure there was succession planning after Warburton ?

[Soulsonic5791 408]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

That could depend entirely on what happens over the Summer.  

So you are thinking along similar lines to me Gonzo79. The close season will undoubtedly crystallise many fans opinions of this board. The ready made excuse of being hamstrung by not having access to the revenue stream of replica strips and merchandising in general will be nigh on impossible to be cited again by King et al. Are the power-brokers truly serious about halting Celtic's dominance in the short term?

 

I remain to be convinced.

 

In my opinion, D'Artagnan makes several valid points re King and the board.

[Gonzo79 13,589]

If they get a good manager in and we start the season well, everything will be grand.  Stick with Murty or bring in another dud and we continue losing and drawing matches we should win and the hostility towards the custodians will gather pace.  

 

 

[ranger_syntax 3,765]

1 hour ago, D'Artagnan said:

Does it not alarm you that the current chairman of our club embarked on a course of action which a regulatory body and the court of session deemed improper, despite the clear warning from George Letham ?

 

Similarly are you not concerned that the man who has pledged to underwrite future losses at our club appears to be in default with an order from the Takeover Panel, reinforced by a court of session ruling, with no sign of resolution ?

 

After 68 days of failing to appoint a manager, embarrassing ourselves with an undignified statement regarding the sole target they had identified, we appointed the youth coach as interim manager as replacement for the disasterous appointment they had previously appointed - and yet the board feel they are immune to any sort of criticism despite assuring fans they would ensure there was succession planning after Warburton ?

Have you done any succession planning for the board?