Club Statement: Douglas Park Now Deputy Chairman

[Gonzo79 13,875]

It was Park who wanted Pedro...which is the most worrying thing about this move.

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

In theory.

Unless he's recently acquired a hell of a lot of shares, it will be in practice rather than theory. I realise you understand this but too many people think of SDM when they hear the word Chairman, forgetting that SDM wielded power by virtue of his shareholding, not his office as Chairman.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Bill

[pete 2,499]

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

Where it says "The role of Deputy Chairman allows Douglas to assist the Club by providing an important local interaction between RIFC and the executive running the football club."

 

If there wasn't an issue at the moment then why would they do they need this? I obviously don't have a clue as to what the issues are.

 

It's possible but that worries me and suggests that the Chairman has the power to make decisions unilaterally and not going with the majority of the RIFC board. Does DP now have the power to make decisions on his own?

 

However, it's possible that the Board can now have quick Skype meetings and make decisions without King being present, and in which case it's to be welcomed, but do they really need a Deputy Chairman to do that? They could be doing it already.

 

Either way, I don't see the appointment as being particularly significant.

Skype is old shoes for video meetings.

[Bluedell 5,367]

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

Unless he's recently acquired a hell of a lot of shares, it will be in practice rather than theory. I realise you understand this but too many people think of SDM when they hear the word Chairman, forgetting that SDM wielded power by virtue of his shareholding, not his office as Chairman.

Sure, but the rumours were that it was King who was making decisions and nothing could be done without his say-so. We both know that it shouldn't work like that, but something did seem not quite right about the decision making process at times.

[buster. 4,846]

23 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

It was Park who wanted Pedro...which is the most worrying thing about this move.

That was supposedly the son of Douglas Park, Graeme.

[Walterbear 557]

It’s usually hard to second guess but I’d read it as :

 

1. We have a significant business strategy. 

2. It needs experienced business leadership to oversee implementation and to take accountability.

3. King feels he can’t do that from SA and has already stated he has lots of other business interests occupying him in SA.  

4. Park is best placed given his diverse successful business background. He also has offspring who can look after his own empire. 

5. It needs additional focus, push and energy & that could be for a variety of reasons (capability, time pressure, significance & scale of plans) etc. 

 

I’m not a fan of Robertson but I don’t read it as a criticism of him but I don’t also see him as having the experience & background to lead and be the figurehead of something of real business significance. They’ve also just given him a substantial bonus. He is more of a finance Director than a MD imo. I am sure Park will give him plenty to do!

 

I would suggest it is no more than agreeing greater clarity within the Board. The fact it states King requested this is interesting but both men have clearly agreed to this.

 

I would view it as a good move and supports a view that we have ambition to do things. There is something in our governance and structure and capability that may be hindering the pace and time is obviously urgent. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Walterbear

[Walterbear 557]

23 minutes ago, buster. said:

That was supposedly the son of Douglas Park, Graeme.

Yep. And hopefully Graeme can go and do something else and the more significant Mr Park can put his significant weight into Rangers business plan. 

[buster. 4,846]

7 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

It’s usually hard to second guess but I’d read it as :

 

1. We have a significant business strategy. 

2. It needs experienced business leadership to oversee implementation and to take accountability.

3. King feels he can’t do that from SA and has already stated he has lots of other business interests occupying him in SA.  

4. Park is best placed given his diverse successful business background. He also has offspring who can look after his own empire. 

5. It needs additional focus, push and energy & that could be for a variety of reasons (capability, time pressure, significance & scale of plans) etc. 

 

I’m not a fan of Robertson but I don’t read it as a criticism of him but I don’t also see him as having the experience & background to lead and be the figurehead of something of real business significance. They’ve also just given him a substantial bonus. He is more of a finance Director than a MD imo. I am sure Park will give him plenty to do!

 

I would suggest it is no more than agreeing greater clarity within the Board. The fact it states King requested this is interesting but both men have clearly agreed to this.

 

I would view it as a good move and supports a view that we have ambition to do things. There is something in our governance and structure and capability that may be hindering the pace and time is obviously urgent. 

 

 

I reckon we may have a better idea a little further down the line, if/when other jigsaw pieces are announced/come to light.

[Gaffer 1,665]

3 hours ago, Bluedell said:

It suggests that there are some issues at the moment between Robertson and the RIFC board that need addressing.

Where do you get that from?  I know we are all on a heightened sense of scrutiny these days, but this seems to me like a very sensible move.  DK has never wanted to be hands on, but the club needs someone to be and he appears to be a decent choice.  It's news, but nothing much in it.  There's a danger we read too much into every move the club makes these days.  Let's leave that to the obsessed ones.

[Bill 13,717]

59 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Sure, but the rumours were that it was King who was making decisions and nothing could be done without his say-so. We both know that it shouldn't work like that, but something did seem not quite right about the decision making process at times.

If King was taking decisions reserved for the board, without having prior authorisation from the board to do so, then it was up to the board to rein him in and, if necessary, overrule his actions. They could also censure and remove him if they want. On the other hand, if the board is simply allowing King to ride roughshod over them then they are failing in their fiduciary duties and the shareholders should be holding them (and King) to account. Being chairman in itself conveys no particular powers, only a responsibility to see that the board functions properly and addresses matters of business appropriately. In fact, in a well-run business, the last person who should be exercising executive power is the chairman.