Jump to content

 

 

John Greig and John McLelland have resigned


Recommended Posts

The reason they both gave was that they no longer have a role to play in corporate decisions, which in my interpretation means that under Murray they did have a say in corporate decisions. Therefore both are part of the team that got us in this problem, and should have resigned earlier. John Greig was a footballing legend and always will be, but that does not mean he is the right man to lead Rangers in corporate or day to day decisions.

 

Still not sure about Whyte though and can see where forlanssister is coming from. Really interested to see what the BBC have dug up about him although i imagine it is just what we already know wrapped in a BBC jacket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That statement is absurd , he was a non executive director of the club and therefore had certain responsibilities towards it , you cant keep singling out people as being not responsible , they were collectivelly responsible and by saying and doing nothing are guilty of mismanagement .

 

The only ex director to come out of the last decade with and deceny was Hugh Adam , and he was slaughtered at the time , hindsight is a wonderful thing , I was one of the ones slaughtering him as UI was firmly in the " it cant happen with SDM ast the helm " how easily he fooled everyone

 

That's a simplistic view to be honest, John Greig may have been responsible by association but how much actual input into financial moves he had I'm sure was minimal. Yes he could have spoken out and made himself a pariah at the club he captained to success. I saw him more as an ambassador than someone actually "running" the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With position comes responsibility , he was a director of Rangers Football Club and had responsibilities towards the club ,it's you im afraid who has the simplistic view , each and everyone of our previous board is equally liable IMHO unless they were absent when these decisions were taken , we've had 10 years of this situation , its not as if its just appeared over night .

 

Our club is on the brink of administration , and CW is getting more stick than these charlatans who were in position , only in the deluded world of the Rangers support could the new guy get the blame .

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason they both gave was that they no longer have a role to play in corporate decisions, which in my interpretation means that under Murray they did have a say in corporate decisions. Therefore both are part of the team that got us in this problem, and should have resigned earlier..

 

They may have been given their say in corporate decisions but the final say was Murray's, as we all know. However at least they felt that they could advise/object/have their say.

 

It appears that Whyte is not even doing that, although he probably has his own advisers.

 

It's a little concerning that there's nobody left to highlight how mistakes were made in the past. Gordon Smith appears to be on hand to give footballing advice but it seems he's been kept in the dark about much that's going on as well.

 

I have a distinct feeling of unease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So who's actually left on the board now then? Whyte, Russell, Smith and who else? King and Betts?

 

Yes, the 5. I presume King is not being allowed any part in the corporate governance either and Phil Betts is a non-exec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With position comes responsibility , he was a director of Rangers Football Club and had responsibilities towards the club ,it's you im afraid who has the simplistic view , each and everyone of our previous board is equally liable IMHO unless they were absent when these decisions were taken , we've had 10 years of this situation , its not as if its just appeared over night .

 

Our club is on the brink of administration , and CW is getting more stick than these charlatans who were in position , only in the deluded world of the Rangers support could the new guy get the blame .

 

the directors of the club had responsibilities towards the shareholders, and principally the majority shareholder. Murray holds the main responsibility and everyone else are just bit players. In no way are they all equally liable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 5. I presume King is not being allowed any part in the corporate governance either and Phil Betts is a non-exec.

 

Well, if it's essentially just Craig Whyte and Ali Russell plus some advisers behind a curtain, then that's not really a board of directors is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if it's essentially just Craig Whyte and Ali Russell plus some advisers behind a curtain, then that's not really a board of directors is it?

 

Yes, it is. At least under the Companies Act definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.