RFC Statement: RE: Paul Murray and AGM Voting

[Frankie 8,685]

Rangers have today released a statement hitting back at requisitioner Paul Murray over his claims on leaked voting figures

 

"The board have noted with great concern statements made by requistioner Paul Murray over media stories speculating about the votes cast for Thursday's AGM.

 

"We feel this is an attack on the integrity of board members.

 

"The board are dismayed that an experienced businessman with knowledge of city practises could suggest that our board would leak information to the media before the AGM.

 

"In point of fact, the board did not have the final voting figures and therefore it would have been physically impossible to leak anything.

 

"We deplore the latest tactic of Mr Murray's which can only serve to inflame supporters and would ask him to take the honourable course and withdraw his accusation."

 

Capita have also released a statement to Sky Sports News which read:

 

"Capita Registrars provides support services for shareholder meetings, including the collation and analysis of votes, to more than 1300 companies and observes the highest standards of confidentiality and integrity as a matter of course.

 

"We have, nonetheless, conducted a detailed investigation into the circumstances surrounding the alleged leak of information surrounding the Rangers International Football Club plc AGM vote and are confident that all necessary protocols were rigorously adhered to and that no information was shared inappropriately."

[Stimpy 0]

The board should be publiclly asking why a BBC journalist was reporting on the figures last night......the reason why Capita have had to make a statement.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Stimpy

[Darthter 542]

As someone who has a vested interest in the AGM proxy voting, Paul Murray has every right to question the source of the BBC's information (if true). As PM pointed out (i think) the source could only be RFC or Capita.

 

RFC should rightly be releasing a statement concerning the BBC report, but they should be supporting PM not attacking him. They should be questioning the BBC as to their source. I fear the reason they aren't is that they know the source & they know that the info is potentially untrue anyway.

 

All this does is raise more questions about the current board & their media involvement.....

[calscot 0]

It seems strange that the BBC have been left out of the criticism. The only ones to gain from the story are the board and the BBC and so it's the board that are being a bit strange and not looking too innocent.

[SteveC 150]

The board's statement reads exactly like a typical politician/journalist double bluff. leak, get accused, demand apology, muddy the water, playe the victim..the "as if we would do such a thing" is beyond effing parody. "integrity" ffs after all they have got up to?!

[Frankie 8,685]

As someone who has a vested interest in the AGM proxy voting, Paul Murray has every right to question the source of the BBC's information (if true). As PM pointed out (i think) the source could only be RFC or Capita.

 

RFC should rightly be releasing a statement concerning the BBC report, but they should be supporting PM not attacking him. They should be questioning the BBC as to their source. I fear the reason they aren't is that they know the source & they know that the info is potentially untrue anyway.

 

All this does is raise more questions about the current board & their media involvement.....

 

Correct.

 

As much as PM moaning on tires us all out, the club should be ensuring the AGM procedure is above reproach; not moaning themselves.

[Darthter 542]

the club should be ensuring the AGM procedure is above reproach

 

That is the key if they want to regain ANY trust from the fans......

[Frankie 8,685]

That is the key if they want to regain ANY trust from the fans......

 

Indeed, by colluding with banned media, they continue to leave doubts about their efforts.

 

Back to square one.

[onevision 1,601]

all necessary protocols were rigorously adhered to and that no information was shared inappropriately."

 

This is the bit i don't like about the Capita statement

[der Berliner 3,886]

Just for clarity, where was this statement released? Can't find it at the club's HP.