Club Statement- Murdoch MacLennan

[ian1964 10,427]

Murdoch MacLennan’s heavy role remedying regulatory problems at INM plc means his SPFL chairmanship is even more compromised.

https://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2018/07/09/murdoch-maclennans-heavy-role-remedying-regulatory-problems-at-inm-plc-means-his-spfl-chairmanship-is-even-more-compromised/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[colinstein 294]

he's got to go

 

It is smart to release these statements at times when they'll have the most impact

news management must be a big part of our PR  you'd hope

[ian1964 10,427]

Lifted from FF:

 

Take this with a large - very large - pinch of salt.

I’m hearing from a good, and honest, mate who supports Motherwell and has some ‘contacts’ close to those running the club that Doncaster may be getting the heave-ho over the fact that it was he who chose to not disclose MacLennans potential conflict of interest. He claims several clubs, including Motherwell (hence his interest) expressed discontent at the way the whole recruitment of MacLennan right up to recent misleading statement ha gone. He’s claiming that rumours in Motherwell circles suggest this story will ‘break’ in tomorrow’s newspapers.

As I said, he’s a good lad and is only passing on rumours from the Motherwell side. Personally, I suspect it’s no more than a fanciful rumour but thought I’d pass it on anyway.

Guess we will find out about 2230-2300hrs.

If Doncaster goes there’s no way MacLennan can’t go as well.

 

Valley Bluenose, 7 minutes ago Report

[RANGERRAB 3,266]

MacLennan will eventually go but Dumbcaster will hang on unfortunately for the time being

[buster. 4,808]

13 hours ago, Big Jaws said:

You're saying more or less the same thing in your posts in response to both myself and @Gaffer. I'll address it the statement may not be addressing MA's injunction and there may well be NDA's here that means they cant but I'm sorry @buster. you cant possibly describe the Clubs statement as a deflection when its in fact dealing with at least one of the points of attack I already mentioned. You'd prefer to attack MA first I get that however to me it doesn't matter what order we take them in. If that means slight of hand and keeping powder dry on other things then I'm perfectly comfortable with that. The SPFL refusal to act accordingly and above board is for me absolutely incredulous. 

 

I'll repeat it again in this case its the SPFL Chairman's appointment which is clearly a conflict of interest that has been met with their refusal to hold an independent investigation. Not only that but as far as the Private Eye article goes Chris Jack sites it in his article which although some what woolly round the edges is in agreement with the Rangers position. Added to that the SPFL either never bothered to consult Robertson who is a member of the SPFL board or they bypassed him altogether. Who the f&*k do they think they are thats not how you operate a board room? It doesn't matter how they cut it there is no escaping this for the SPFL and whether or not the other teams are public about it at at the moment there will come a time when they will have no choice on the matter and will have to issue a statement themselves.

 

Of course we want to see the team kicking a ball around but it is important that the body who runs our game, appoints CO's chairmen, referees etc etc etc is held to account.

I may be saying similar to you and Gaffer but try reading it slowly instead of going off on one.

I'll try and make it as simple as possible.

 

1. I agreed with the counter attack from club to SFA charges at the time it was launched.

2. I was happy to see that extended to MMcL/SPFL and repeatedly posted the Private Eye article on here (first posted by Forlansister). 

3. I have no issue with the statement by itself.

4. I do however think the timing of publication was chosen at least in part to deflect from other matters.

5. I don't want a statement re. SDI. Firstly, we'll see what happens today in court.

 

---------------------------

 

The bottomline for me is that the club is badly run at an executive level and too often instead of building something, we react to events. The reactions often include statements that go down well but end-up achieving very little. Relatively recently, AJ openly 

talked of 'institutional failure' that surrounded the handling of the Pedro Caixinha appointment....something that continues to cost us. Round about the sametime we signed an agreement with SDI which is the subject of todays court proceedings and threatens our kit launch.

 

The Takeover Panel stuff and current SDI issues stem from actions/contracts taken or signed by the present board. 

These IMO are potentially very important because they may effect our financial position/projections in a significant way.

We hear that the TOP can be ignored as it has no effect on the club, that's bullshit.

 

Does there  come a point when Dave King becomes toxic and would there be any 'Rangers friendly' rich folk out there willing and able to buy him out ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gaffer 1,665]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

I may be saying similar to you and Gaffer but try reading it slowly instead of going off on one.

I'll try and make it as simple as possible.

 

1. I agreed with the counter attack from club to SFA charges at the time it was launched.

2. I was happy to see that extended to MMcL/SPFL and repeatedly posted the Private Eye article on here (first posted by Forlansister). 

3. I have no issue with the statement by itself.

4. I do however think the timing of publication was chosen at least in part to deflect from other matters.

5. I don't want a statement re. SDI. Firstly, we'll see what happens today in court.

 

---------------------------

 

The bottomline for me is that the club is badly run at an executive level and too often instead of building something, we react to events. The reactions often include statements that go down well but end-up achieving very little. Relatively recently, AJ openly 

talked of 'institutional failure' that surrounded the handling of the Pedro Caixinha appointment....something that continues to cost us. Round about the sametime we signed an agreement with SDI which is the subject of todays court proceedings and threatens our kit launch.

 

The Takeover Panel stuff and current SDI issues stem from actions/contracts taken or signed by the present board. 

These IMO are potentially very important because they may effect our financial position/projections in a significant way.

We hear that the TOP can be ignored as it has no effect on the club, that's bullshit.

 

Does there  come a point when Dave King becomes toxic and would there be any 'Rangers friendly' rich folk out there willing and able to buy him out ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The TOP issue is a minor one and as a tax payer I'm glad that DK is showing this commmittee up for what it is - a complete and utter waste of time and resources.

 

The SD issue is also something that should be cleared up quite quickly.  That's a case of SD being embarassed at losing this contract and trying themselves to deflect from that screw up.  They're using ambiguity in the contract (which exists in every contract if you need to look hard enough) to achieve that, but it shouldn't take long to resolve.

 

The issue involving a code of conduct within our league governing body is very serious and verges on corruption.

 

These first two issues are relatively minor so I don't understand why you think Rangers would hold onto something as serious as the SPFL point just to deflect.  That doesn't make sense does it?  It's like trying to use marshmallows on a stick to deflect from the fact your house is burning down.

 

As for your final point, DK has said on a few occasions that he only stepped in because others couldn't or wouldn't.  He has said he'd step aside if others were forthcoming.  They're not.  My criticism of DK is around the amount of time he can afford to spend on us.  We need people to sort out our club and it's frustrating for me that a man with his skills, experience and intellect appears to be able to spend very little time on Rangers matters.  That's why I welcome his intervention on key issues like this.  Very few others would have the awareness and nerve to tackle such a serious issue in the game.  The proof of that is in the boardrooms of every other SPFL club.  They appear to lack the guts and sense to deal with this, and yet EVERY one of them knows this is a scandal in our game, even Celtic!!!

Edited July 10, 2018 by Gaffer

[buster. 4,808]

21 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

The TOP issue is a minor one and as a tax payer I'm glad that DK is showing this commmittee up for what it is - a complete and utter waste of time and resources.

 

The SD issue is also something that should be cleared up quite quickly.  That's a case of SD being embarassed at losing this contract and trying themselves to deflect from that screw up.  They're using ambiguity in the contract (which exists in every contract if you need to look hard enough) to achieve that, but it shouldn't take long to resolve.

 

The issue involving a code of conduct within our league governing body is very serious and verges on corruption.

 

These first two issues are relatively minor so I don't understand why you think Rangers would hold onto something as serious as the SPFL point just to deflect.  That doesn't make sense does it?  It's like trying to use marshmallows on a stick to deflect from the fact your house is burning down.

 

As for your final point, DK has said on a few occasions that he only stepped in because others couldn't or wouldn't.  He has said he'd step aside I feel others were forthcoming.  They're not.  My criticism of DK is around the amount of time he can afford to spend on us.  We need people to sort out our club and it's frustrating for me that a man with his skills, experience and intellect appears to be able to spend very little time on Rangers matters.  That's why I welcome his intervention on key issues like this.  Very few others would have the awareness and nerve to tackle such a serious issue in the game.  The proof of that is in the boardrooms of every other SPFL club.  They appear to lack the guts and sense to deal with this, and yet EVERY one of them knows this is a scandal in our game, even Celtic!!!

SDI matter is better parked until we see how it develops in court today. 

Interesting take on TOP issue,..... can't agree with it though. 

 

Celtic sowing up much of the political influence in Scottish football is something they've done as part of a wider plan that sees them esconced in pretty much every way as the establishment club with a finger in just about every pie in the country.

 

We have finaly reacted because of charges brought against us by the SFA.....when that and more should have been part of a wider strategy several years ago. 

 

Bottomline, the boardroom have perfomed well in putting up cashflow but don't seem able to get a handle on a holistic medium to long term strategy. Until we do, it'll be reactions to X and Y, soundbite statements that amount to little and continued dominance by a club who do have a strategy with competence in place to carry it out. We don't have a strategy, nor a cohesive boardroom and we don't have a competent CEO figure.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by buster.

[DMAA 3,603]

We need a CEO who is a diplomat and who can build bridges with other clubs. A quick look at the forums of our clubs and despite being the most blatant case of corruption you could imagine they all assumed this story was nonsense because it came from King and responded by mocking Rangers further. He just brings constant bad press but I’ve no idea how change could be brought about. 

[DMAA 3,603]

In Gerrard we finally have a manager who brings respectably back to the club but with the board it’s a different story. 

[Bill 13,717]

You could have God as chairman and the 12 Apostles around the boardroom table. Fans of the other clubs would still ridicule Rangers. It’s what defines many of them.