What have the current board done right?

[D'Artagnan 173]

I'd take that, mate. I'd honestly like to check myself and see if I'm looking at it from one side only. Good to reflect but I'd prefer something to go on. If that make sense.

 

Ok I'll give it a shot as purely as Devil's Advocate - I would request people see this in the context Shorerdbear and I discussed - and not as support of the current board.

 

Firstly lets start with our CEO - Wallace

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoll-says-wallace-is-a-man-of-steel-for-rangers-143996n.22831596

 

In all the players who have taken the stage thus far JM has by far impressed me the most. He calls it as it is and does not engage in petty argument and propaganda and, more than many, brings a sense of integrity and professionalism.

 

His endorsement in that article of not only Wallace but the whole board suggests to me we have a capable board in place, known and respected throughout the business world. Such a vote of confidence should lift us above puerile digs such as "****s" & "wigs" - unfortunately it hasnt - but I think such conduct is only self-defeating for those who resort to it.

 

Of course Stockbridge remained, though not for long - perhaps he was the sacrificial lamb or perhaps Wallace saw through his incompetency who knows - but it demonstrated the new man was listening to the demands of fans. The later departure of Irvine was also welcomed and again appeared to be a response to the desires of almost all fans/fan groups.

 

Wallace asked to be judged on 120 days - and initially that was agreed. Our accounts did not make comfortable reading and it is clear our club is bleeding money. Some of those costs are attributed to unrealistic salaries to staff which the current board had no part of - though they did try to reduce it and it was rejected of course. At some point, no matter who is on the board, those unrealistic wages are going to have to be addressed and such a culture brought to an end.

 

As is pointed out in another thread new sponsors have been found, though the details have still to be published, and also a fan engagement survey is underway. It is of course too early to give any plaudits regarding the latter - the proof will be in the implementation of the issues raised by fans.

 

Then of course we come to Easdales - and I make it no bones about it - I would much rather persons with a more positive public image were involved at our club. But if we are going to get into the moral argument then Dave King fares little better after his brush with the South African Tax Man. If King says the integrity button has no on/off switch does that mean the man who was labelled a "shameless glib liar" will behave in the same manner at our club ?

 

The opening link I posted also makes reference to Colin Kingsnorth & Laxey. Again Wallace appears to rate him in that article and appears to have no concerns regarding him nor the investment. Furthermore as was seen recently Laxey were happy to step aside for the benefit of the club when a more favourable loan/credit rating became available from George Letham. Despite the fact that Easdale's loan was interest free he seems to have collected none of the plaudits enjoyed by others despite offering the most generous terms.

 

But the loans/credit facility is where it goes particularly pear shaped. Despite Wallace's assertions even in January that there was sufficient money to tide us through the board's actions suggested quite the opposite - and the speed with which the money seemed to be required was additionally alarming. To date the board have failed to explain this anomaly between statements and action. Perhaps it was, as some have suggested, as a consequence of Imran's court case - but to date we are all still in the dark. Not good enough.

 

But I dont think the UOF have helped their own case - at times they have appeared to be hyper-critical and deliberately confrontational. When King is saying some fans are spoiling for a fight - I think its perhaps time to check yourself. Also I think the links between some in the UOF and Paul Murray make people wary. Not that Im saying there is anything wrong with Paul Murray, but if you are putting yourself out there to challenge the board then perhaps it would be wiser to not to be involved with parties who may have a vested interest in the demise of the board, as that could seen as an agenda rather than an atruistic crusade.

 

The last thing is there are clearly fans who care not a jot for individuals but purely the club. They will buy ST's as they feel doing otherwise could seriously harm or endanger the club.

 

Post Edit

 

Sorry SB I think on re-reading that it seems more like a SITREP than an actual direct answer to your original question.

Edited April 17, 2014 by D'Artagnan

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Ok I'll give it a shot as purely as Devil's Advocate - I would request people see this in the context Shorerdbear and I discussed - and not as support of the current board.

 

Firstly lets start with our CEO - Wallace

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoll-says-wallace-is-a-man-of-steel-for-rangers-143996n.22831596

 

In all the players who have taken the stage thus far JM has by far impressed me the most. He calls it as it is and does not engage in petty argument and propaganda and' date=' more than many, brings a sense of integrity and professionalism.

 

His endorsement in that article of not only Wallace but the whole board suggests to me we have a capable board in place, known and respected throughout the business world. Such a vote of confidence should lift us above puerile digs such as "****s" & "wigs" - unfortunately it hasnt - but I think such conduct is only self-defeating for those who resort to it.

 

Of course Stockbridge remained, though not for long - perhaps he was the sacrificial lamb or perhaps Wallace saw through his incompetency who knows - but it demonstrated the new man was listening to the demands of fans. The later departure of Irvine was also welcomed and again appeared to be a response to the desires of almost all fans/fan groups.

 

Wallace asked to be judged on 120 days - and initially that was agreed. Our accounts did not make comfortable reading and it is clear our club is bleeding money. Some of those costs are attributed to unrealistic salaries to staff which the current board had no part of - though they did try to reduce it and it was rejected of course. At some point, no matter who is on the board, those unrealistic wages are going to have to be addressed and such a culture brought to an end.

 

As is pointed out in another thread new sponsors have been found, though the details have still to be published, and also a fan engagement survey is underway. It is of course too early to give any plaudits regarding the latter - the proof will be in the implementation of the issues raised by fans.

 

Then of course we come to Easdales - and I make it no bones about it - I would much rather persons with a more positive public image were involved at our club. But if we are going to get into the moral argument then Dave King fares little better after his brush with the South African Tax Man. If King says the integrity button has no on/off switch does that mean the man who was labelled a "shameless glib liar" will behave in the same manner at our club ?

 

The opening link I posted also makes reference to Colin Kingsnorth & Laxey. Again Wallace appears to rate him in that article and appears to have no concerns regarding him nor the investment. Furthermore as was seen recently Laxey were happy to step aside for the benefit of the club when a more favourable loan/credit rating became available from George Letham. Despite the fact that Easdale's loan was interest free he seems to have collected none of the plaudits enjoyed by others despite offering the most generous terms.

 

But the loans/credit facility is where it goes particularly pear shaped. Despite Wallace's assertions even in January that there was sufficient money to tide us through the board's actions suggested quite the opposite - and the speed with which the money seemed to be required was additionally alarming. To date the board have failed to explain this anomaly between statements and action. Perhaps it was, as some have suggested, as a consequence of Imran's court case - but to date we are all still in the dark. Not good enough.

 

But I dont think the UOF have helped their own case - at times they have appeared to be hyper-critical and deliberately confrontational. When King is saying some fans are spoiling for a fight - I think its perhaps time to check yourself. Also I think the links between some in the UOF and Paul Murray make people wary. Not that Im saying there is anything wrong with Paul Murray, but if you are putting yourself out there to challenge the board then perhaps it would be wiser to not to be involved with parties who may have a vested interest in the demise of the board, as that could seen as an agenda rather than an atruistic crusade.

 

The last thing is there are clearly fans who care not a jot for individuals but purely the club. They will buy ST's as they feel doing otherwise could seriously harm or endanger the club.

 

Post Edit

 

Sorry SB I think on re-reading that it seems more like a SITREP than an actual direct answer to your original question.[/quote']

 

I don't see how any reasonable person could challenge the above as anything other than a fair and balanced assessment from a respected writer.

[Stimpy 0]

Cheers, D'Art.

 

I'll try and respond later when day off work and kids of school headache at the same time goes away.

[Zappa 0]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoll-says-wallace-is-a-man-of-steel-for-rangers-143996n.22831596

 

In all the players who have taken the stage thus far JM has by far impressed me the most. He calls it as it is and does not engage in petty argument and propaganda and' date=' more than many, brings a sense of integrity and professionalism.

 

His endorsement in that article of not only Wallace but the whole board suggests to me we have a capable board in place, known and respected throughout the business world.[/quote']

 

I think it's worth looking at Jim McColl's various comments in their specific context rather than as an overall or general endorsement D'Art. Not only does JM come across as an extremely diplomatic character, but at that particular time when those comments were made it was only 2 or 3 weeks before the AGM, so it was a time for diplomacy and sensible heads. McColl's group had also been outflanked by the Nomad's pre-AGM director & CEO appointments (one of which it later turned out was essentially a Laxey appointment) and following the Laxey & Artemis decisions to back the new board JM had little option other than to be graceful in defeat and say they'd be willing to work with the new board. That's certainly how it seemed to me as opposed to any sort of wild support or praise for the new appointments.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I think it's worth looking at Jim McColl's various comments in their specific context rather than as an overall or general endorsement D'Art. Not only does JM come across as an extremely diplomatic character, but at that particular time when those comments were made it was only 2 or 3 weeks before the AGM, so it was a time for diplomacy and sensible heads. McColl's group had also been outflanked by the Nomad's pre-AGM director & CEO appointments (one of which it later turned out was essentially a Laxey appointment) and following the Laxey & Artemis decisions to back the new board JM had little option other than to be graceful in defeat and say they'd be willing to work with the new board. That's certainly how it seemed to me as opposed to any sort of wild support or praise for the new appointments.

 

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/jim-mccoll-backs-graham-wallace-as-rangers-chief-exec.1385759471

 

Thats seems like an endorsement to me Zap - general or otherwise.

[simplythebest 0]

Removing Stockbridge and Irvine was supposed to be two massive things they could do right, seems to be considered irrelevant though now that they actually did it.

 

Make of that what you will

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Removing Stockbridge and Irvine was supposed to be two massive things they could do right, seems to be considered irrelevant though now that they actually did it.

 

Make of that what you will

 

They did rather sour it with the payoffs and the lies. But it was certainly the right way to go.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Removing Stockbridge and Irvine was supposed to be two massive things they could do right, seems to be considered irrelevant though now that they actually did it.

 

Make of that what you will

 

I'm sure you'll be fulsome in your praise for them when they say. "David Murray come on down!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Zappa 0]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/jim-mccoll-backs-graham-wallace-as-rangers-chief-exec.1385759471

 

Thats seems like an endorsement to me Zap - general or otherwise.

 

Of course it was an endorsement of Wallace and I didn't intend to suggest that it wasn't one, but I do think that the specific context and timing are extremely important given at that point McColl & co were left with no choice other than to say they'd work with the new CEO, as ideally they still wanted at least a couple of their men appointed at the AGM. Also part of the context was the fact that at least one of the requisitioners had spoken to Wallace themselves about the Rangers CEO position, presumably before deciding on Christian Purslow. That interest and contact they had with Wallace themselves made his appointment something they simply had to endorse or else it would have looked like little more than sour grapes. All I'm really saying is that it seemed like a far more complicated situation than just the fact that JM gave Wallace his blessing/endorsement and it's a little unfair to cherry pick something like that from the whole fiasco.

 

Anyway, regarding our own opinions of Wallace.... Now that he's been here for 5 months, what do you think yourself?

 

He's clearly experienced, highly intelligent, sharp and well spoken, so if he stays for any length of time he might end up being a good CEO in some ways, especially if he can actually get the Club on the right track. The guy Nash who Wallace brought in is apparently excellent too.

 

What I don't like though, is that he doesn't give off any sort of impression, vibes or anything at all that make me want to trust him. Quite the opposite in fact because he seems like an expert in evasiveness and twisting or dodging questions very much like an experienced and cunning politician.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Of course it was an endorsement of Wallace and I didn't intend to suggest that it wasn't one, but I do think that the specific context and timing are extremely important given at that point McColl & co were left with no choice other than to say they'd work with the new CEO, as ideally they still wanted at least a couple of their men appointed at the AGM. Also part of the context was the fact that at least one of the requisitioners had spoken to Wallace themselves about the Rangers CEO position, presumably before deciding on Christian Purslow. That interest and contact they had with Wallace themselves made his appointment something they simply had to endorse or else it would have looked like little more than sour grapes. All I'm really saying is that it seemed like a far more complicated situation than just the fact that JM gave Wallace his blessing/endorsement and it's a little unfair to cherry pick something like that from the whole fiasco.

Anyway, regarding our own opinions of Wallace.... Now that he's been here for 5 months, what do you think yourself?

 

He's clearly experienced, highly intelligent, sharp and well spoken, so if he stays for any length of time he might end up being a good CEO in some ways, especially if he can actually get the Club on the right track. The guy Nash who Wallace brought in is apparently excellent too.

 

What I don't like though, is that he doesn't give off any sort of impression, vibes or anything at all that make me want to trust him. Quite the opposite in fact because he seems like an expert in evasiveness and twisting or dodging questions very much like an experienced and cunning politician.

 

Im totally undecided Zap.

 

The allegation made by King re the 120 day renewal is critical to me. If it is as King has alleged and that the board never intended to publish the review prior to the end of ST deadline then it matters not a jot my views on Wallace - the whole board should be chased from Ibrox.