McColl the Messiah? Some key questions...

[Frankie 8,651]

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/155-mccoll-the-messiah-some-key-questions

 

From a cursory look across the various forums this sunny Wednesday morning, I note Jim McColl et al appears to be requesting EGM support from the Rangers supporters who are shareholders (apparently around 12% of the whole). Fair enough and not an unexpected development but this is actually an important issue so please allow me to labour the point somewhat.

 

First of all, I'd fancy, under normal circumstances Jim McColl would be exactly the kind of investor and/or board member and/or outright owner our fans would literally carry up the marble staircase to victory. He's substantially rich, apparently a genuine fan and his business reputation is clearly impressive given his various successes. What's not to like?

 

Unfortunately, as we know, the situation at Ibrox is far from normal and McColl’s influence with specific regard to Rangers has hardly been impressive in recent times:

 

1. McColl has been involved with previous failed bids – including an aborted attempt at fan ownership in conjunction with the RST and purportedly a rejected post-D&P deadline bid for the club along with Walter Smith last year. Has he learned from these experiences?

 

2. McColl has always come across as reluctant at best and quirky to a fault when it comes to Rangers. Sure, a football club can’t be seen as a sound investment by someone used to making money rather than losing it but, if he’s a fan, then his involvement would only ever be an emotional one anyway. Where does he draw the line between personal concern and business?

 

3. Fan trust of anyone involved is at an all-time low. The most recent regimes from Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte have failed completely whilst the current incumbents are struggling to retain supporter backing with a variety of poor decisions. Thus, anyone who wants to control Rangers has to accept public scrutiny will be higher than anything they’ll have experienced before. Does that fit with McColl’s preference for remaining in the background?

 

4. His current share-holding is hardly impressive (even if he may have the backing of others). No-one knows just how many shares McColl owns but it must be lower than the LSE-notifiable 3%. Is that reflective of his overall interest or just someone who prefers to stay under the radar? Just how much money is he willing to spend?

 

5. McColl and/or his group have never made their plans clear and, in fact, it's impossible to tell from one day to the next if they want to buy the club and/or if they just want to be a short-term controlling bloc to ensure ‘effective’ ownership (perhaps via a new share issue) is transferred to someone else like Dave King. How exactly do they see the club’s financial future?

 

All these valid questions means, instead of having the automatic backing of a huge majority of supporters (and indeed other shareholders), many people are - quite rightly - less than clear about what he's offering. Ergo, to make calls for fan backing without being completely open on his intentions is not the best strategy in my opinion. Indeed, it could be said he’s suffering from the same problems the Blue Knights stumbled into last year; namely failing to grasp supporter attention amidst a variety of strategic errors.

 

To conclude, I'll say again: Jim McColl should be the right man for the job, but the very fact we have doubters (based on constructive criticism rather than daft stuff about his politics), doesn't reflect well on his efforts so far. Thus, I'd argue that McColl still has a bit of work to do if he wants to be successful; even if the fact he's come this far suggests he's clearly confident.

 

However, if it's a straight choice between a Charles Green and a Frank Blin along with an Imran Ahmad and a Jim McColl, I don't see many fans opting for the former. Of course, as always, it's not as simple as that so McColl and his group would be well advised to avoid complacency and/or assume fan backing. If not, he only needs to phone Paul Murray to release what over-confidence can do to your reputation.

 

What Rangers fans want more than anything is a well-run, self-sustainable club. If McColl can provide that, then great but instead of hiding from the debate on how this can happen, why not show the support why you’re the right man for the job. That’s real leadership quality and, if the plans are viable, then backing would be a given. Over to you, Jim…

[Stefanovitch 0]

Paul Murray, Brian Kennedy and the rest were all a bit vague on their intentions and as it appeared at the time unwilling to put their money where their mouths were.

 

If McColl does get the backing he needs and has another share issue what's to stop another Green or nameless institutional investor (on behalf of Green) buying more shares?

[chilledbear 16]

Yes I would prefer McColl/Blin , but after all that's happened they need to be honest and open, although are we likely to get the same from the present Board(?).

 

At least we know of McColl and Blin which actually makes a change.

[Frankie 8,651]

Paul Murray, Brian Kennedy and the rest were all a bit vague on their intentions and as it appeared at the time unwilling to put their money where their mouths were.

 

If McColl does get the backing he needs and has another share issue what's to stop another Green or nameless institutional investor (on behalf of Green) buying more shares?

 

Well, that's why he'd want his people on the board to ensure it was organised and under-written by the right people.

[lenzEK 0]

I want to know that whatever money being raised and coming into the Club will be used solely for the benefit of Rangers regardless of the amounts. I believe that McColl and Blin can guarantee that will happen.

[andy steel 0]

To my uneducated eyes none of these doubts about McColl or Blin make sense. Look at the boxes they tick -

 

We want Rangers fans, if possible, and they are;

We want successful businessmen, and they are;

We want reputable businessmen, and they are;

We don't want to go down the SDM road, and they won't;

We don't want leaks to the media all the time, and they haven't.

 

I think that wanting to know their plans down to a T would be great but not that realistic; from the little that I followed the business pages back in the late 80's, 90's and 00's, those hot years of take-overs, not many companies or individuals laid out in absolute detail their future plans (with the exception, almost always, of laying off staff). It may be annoying but these guys did not get where they are by making too many wrong moves and if they think an EGM, a boardroom clear out and thorough corporate governance ahead of 'here, Charles, have £14m to fuck off' is the way to go then I can buy that.

 

We're not going to get ideal, we will have to go with the best available.

[Davie P 4]

I want to know that whatever money being raised and coming into the Club will be used solely for the benefit of Rangers regardless of the amounts. I believe that McColl and Blin can guarantee that will happen.

 

The only way for that to happen is for McColl/Blin to be on the board to ensure that there is a new share issue, hopefully underwritten by someone like Dave King. In that way all existing shareholding is diluted (unless they wish to put more money into the club, which I think is unlikely given the current share price against the IPO launch price.)

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The only way for that to happen is for McColl/Blin to be on the board to ensure that there is a new share issue, hopefully underwritten by someone like Dave King. In that way all existing shareholding is diluted (unless they wish to put more money into the club, which I think is unlikely given the current share price against the IPO launch price.)

 

That makes sense to me.

 

My information is that the investors are not willing to pay more than 20p per share and for now their preferred option is an EGM. With all the institutional investors on side the numbers should stack up for them though the threat from DK to buy new shares and devalue may force some into selling though not sure Zeus or any of their party have the cash or the will to chuck more money at it.

[chilledbear 16]

I go along with Andy, comparing the two choices is like night and day, I just don't understand why a Rangers fan would want McColl etc. to fail.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I go along with Andy, comparing the two choices is like night and day, I just don't understand why a Rangers fan would want McColl etc. to fail.

 

As others have said, McColl and Blin are respected business men, but McColl's Rangers credentials are unclear, although Blin is reputed to be a fan. However, P Murray evokes mixed emotions as part of the previous failed board, the unseated BK's and questions over what he actually brings to the table (some would say nothing at all).

 

Better than the current money grabbing incumbents, doesn't seem to be in doubt; but as Frankie says, we need to know a great deal more about their individual intentions and group plans before rushing to a judgement.