Board Changes

[Anchorman 0]

This is a very positive, if short term move, on behalf of the Board; his credentials are excellent.

 

Depends who you speak to. Some people down Merseyside way would disagree.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

It's quite bizarre. There's certain people on Rangers forums that I disagree with and cannot stand.

 

BrahimHemdani I generally always disagree with but actually really quite like.

 

I think I appreciate the fact he seems to know his football and has a knowledge of other leagues.

 

Drinking and laying my cards out on the table 'loyal'.

 

I also notice now that I don't adhere to correct paragraph structure any more on forums.

 

Each sentence becomes a new paragraph. It's a brave new world.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BrahimHemdani I generally always disagree with but actually really quite like.

.

 

I take that as an immense compliment for which many thanks; in fact may I have your permission to use it as my epitaph alongside "....dots every "i" and crosses every "t" which someone wrote about me years ago.

 

Yes, one sentence paragraphs seem quite appropriate on forums, I think because one often tends to skim read if it's a long thread in particular.

 

BH (Pedantic Loyal).

[ian1964 10,761]

No doubt he wasn't making enough money as a consultant.

 

His turn to stick his snout in the trough

[buster. 5,257]

His turn to stick his snout in the trough

 

Was going to say that Mr.Nash and his CV would tend to suggest that this wasn't the case but in 21st Century UKPLC I think it has become the norm. Although there are very different levels that go from a simple 'disproportionate renumeration' down to 'pure spi.very'.

 

Note. Generally, over a number of years the 'disproportionate renumeration' becomes the norm.

 

Regards Mr.Nash, I see he has a large number of shares. Does anyone know if he bought them or were they some kind of bonus or similar ?

[Zappa 0]

What are you thinking ?

 

Share issue ?

 

No idea unfortunately. There's various possibilities. I certainly doubt if they'd make this director appointment (including insinuating that it'll likely only be short term) for some sort of trivial reason, but I guess it could just be related to a technicality or voting matter.

[buster. 5,257]

No idea unfortunately. There's various possibilities. I certainly doubt if they'd make this director appointment (including insinuating that it'll likely only be short term) for some sort of trivial reason, but I guess it could just be related to a technicality or voting matter.

 

There has been rumours of a split of sorts within the boardroom regards a number of issues going forward.

 

The split seems to have Easdale(s) plus proxy votes........ versus............. Wallace and probably Laxey Partners with Somers perhaps floating (mainly towards the Easdale block) but this a guess.

 

The 'split' isn't so fundamental as 12 months ago because we now have both sides with the same motivation, making money out of Rangers. It's the way they go about it that will differ, (MO).

 

The Nash appointment clearly gives Wallace another supporter on the board or perhaps both sides have along with other parties (eg.Deloittes) been forced to act as they firefight the main problem(s).

 

There is a significant cashflow problem looming unless the board can raise finance one way or another.

I'd have thought the appointment will have this as a driver with perhaps Deloittes insisting on X which means the board must work towards Y in as credible a way as possible.

[Zappa 0]

There has been rumours of a split of sorts within the boardroom regards a number of issues going forward.

 

The split seems to have Easdale(s) plus proxy votes........ versus............. Wallace and probably Laxey Partners with Somers perhaps floating (mainly towards the Easdale block) but this a guess.

 

The 'split' isn't so fundamental as 12 months ago because we now have both sides with the same motivation, making money out of Rangers. It's the way they go about it that will differ, (MO).

 

The Nash appointment clearly gives Wallace another supporter on the board or perhaps both sides have along with other parties (eg.Deloittes) been forced to act as they firefight the main problem(s).

 

There is a significant cashflow problem looming unless the board can raise finance one way or another.

I'd have thought the appointment will have this as a driver with perhaps Deloittes insisting on X which means the board must work towards Y in as credible a way as possible.

 

You've pretty much covered the sort of issues I had in mind myself, but there's just so many different possibilities that it's impossible to say for sure.

 

The way I was looking at it is that the company & club boardrooms have some very big issues facing them which will require crucial votes and in the case of the PLC board they only had four directors in Somers, Wallace, J. Easdale & Crighton, so with a divided vote important decisions would become awkward, especially given that the other Easdale brother Sandy, isn't supposed to have a vote in PLC boardroom voting.

 

Obviously, the other possibility is as you say and the auditors are making demands.

 

Then there's the possibility that the Nomad's requested the appointment in order to help with going door to door cap in hand, as Nash no doubt adds an extra level of credibility to a PLC board looking for cash. We can maybe rule this option out due to the statement that it's only expected to be a short term appointment though....

[forlanssister 3,114]

Not an employee just a self-employed contractor invoicing the club via Lingur Consulting Ltd.

 

The agreement is with The Rangers Football Club Ltd not RIFC plc but also states he will work 9am - 5pm up to a maximum 16 days or as required by the Club and RIFC.

 

Interestingly the contract was verbally agreed 12/12/2013 just 24 days after Somers canonisation of Stockbridge at the AGM, and commenced 8/1/2014

 

£1000 per day plus VAT and travel expenses.

 

Wallace to authorise payment of the travel expenses.

 

1 months notice by either party.

 

No bonus, no free healthcare, no car allowance, no share options.

[Zappa 0]

The agreement is with The Rangers Football Club Ltd not RIFC plc but also states he will work 9am - 5pm up to a maximum 16 days or as required by the Club and RIFC.

 

16 days per month?