Martin Bain suspended

[Danny 0]

As for King, isn't he under fraud charges? Maybe parasite was the wrong word, but I certainly don't want guys like him on the board. I suspect the last 3 replies are all dubious about this takeover.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Whyte was always going to have a clear out but I find it very hard to believe that either Bain or the very straightforward McIntyre would have done anything "irregular".

 

Johnston may just have been making the point finally that he did not consider that the whole thing was in the best interests of the Club.

 

Paul Murray's position was untennable and if King supported him or was going to support him then he was in the same position.

 

Keeping McCLelland (who has a seat on one of the UEFA committees) as figurehead Vice Chair and John Greig both of whom will do as they are told is good PR but getting rid of Bain and McIntyre (which is obviously coming) just looks vindictive to me and as has been said they will likely be sacked and left to sue and there will be an out of court settlement with confidentiality clauses etc, which is cheaper than paying them off but very unseemly.

 

Bit of a mess really, one can only hope the Board room machinations are over quickly so we can get on with team building for next season.

 

But with Bain suspended who will be doing the negotiations, Whyte?

Edited October 22, 2011 by BrahimHemdani
deleted typo

[forlanssister 3,114]

Yup, I'll take seriously what you have to say from now on...

 

Oh me bad, 20 million X bad !

[calscot 0]

That would be the same Dave King who has invested 20 million times more in Rangers than Chris Whyte, eh ?

 

When it comes to control of a business, what matters is how many shares you have, not how much you paid for them. Dave King could have had the shares for �£1 too if he'd done the same deal as Whyte - however he'd also have to stump up another �£43M from somewhere. He had his chance and passed.

[Bluedell 5,679]

As for King, isn't he under fraud charges? Maybe parasite was the wrong word, but I certainly don't want guys like him on the board. I suspect the last 3 replies are all dubious about this takeover.

 

Not sure why disagreeing with King being called a parasite means that I'm dubious about the takeover, although there are a number of unanswered questions about the whole thing that I look forwrd to receiving answers on (or at least more information). However I would have thought that most fans would want answers to the same questions.

[maineflyer 0]

Excellent news, let the metaphorical blood flow. Change is positive

[Danny 0]

Not sure why disagreeing with King being called a parasite means that I'm dubious about the takeover, although there are a number of unanswered questions about the whole thing that I look forwrd to receiving answers on (or at least more information). However I would have thought that most fans would want answers to the same questions.

 

You cannot have it both ways. You don't want today's information public, but you want questions answered?

 

I feel your stance is really contradictory tbh.

[Bluedell 5,679]

You cannot have it both ways. You don't want today's information public, but you want questions answered?

 

I feel your stance is really contradictory tbh.

 

It's not a difficult concept to deal with. There are some things that should be publicised and some things that shouldn't.

 

I want to know what the team is for the following day, but I don't want to know that EHD has been sent out to try and wind up Scott Brown for example.

 

I want to know whether the club still has �£22m of debt, but I don't need to know internal board room arguments, the publicising of which do the club no good.

 

I want to know if the funds for transfers have been paid into the club or whether they will just be funded by debt, but I don't need to know the exact transfer budget as that can be used by others to hold the club over a barrel.

 

I don't see that as being contradictory in the least.

[Zappa 0]

Personally, I think at the very least it would have been professional and courteous to get that delayed statement out to the shareholders and fans before starting tearing apart the board. Obviously there was no obligation to do so, but it doesn't quite sit right that all this is now happenning when the shareholders and fans still don't know what on earth is actually going on and what the new companies' plans for the club are.

 

I find it interesting that AJ refused to resign as chairman because despite the fact that he didn't manage to find a buyer for the club, I do think he had the club's best interests in mind at all times. The interesting thing is that AJ had said he would resign on the 16th May and that's the same date that Wavetower originally said a statement would be released to shareholders. So Whyte reneged on the statement release, pushing it back 3 weeks and that must have prompted AJ to change his mind on resigning as chairman on the 16th as planned.

[Bears 0]

Personally, I think at the very least it would have been professional and courteous to get that delayed statement out to the shareholders and fans before starting tearing apart the board. Obviously there was no obligation to do so, but it doesn't quite sit right that all this is now happenning when the shareholders and fans still don't know what on earth is actually going on and what the new companies' plans for the club are.

 

I find it interesting that AJ refused to resign as chairman because despite the fact that he didn't manage to find a buyer for the club, I do think he had the club's best interests in mind at all times. The interesting thing is that AJ had said he would resign on the 16th May and that's the same date that Wavetower originally said a statement would be released to shareholders. So Whyte reneged on the statement release, pushing it back 3 weeks and that must have prompted AJ to change his mind on resigning as chairman on the 16th as planned.

 

 

Especially as he's not paid for the job.

 

there's a few twists in the tail yet obviously