Two years on - appraising the Rangers board

[Bluedell 5,627]

We need less transparency not more. We cannot accept reality as a fan base and our support unlike other teams crosses classes giving our support vast differences in perspective . This week I have heard we spent to little, we spent to much, we don't want a DoF we do want a DoF. we can't get a large majority agreement on the main infrastructure let alone the specifics.

 

All our support does is cause trouble and argue. Doesn't matter what the board do we will have large disagreement across swaths of the support not just little pockets here and there.

 

Our fans are a problem not a solution when it comes to direction.

 

Transparency doesn't mean that the fans have a say. It just means we get told what is happening and what decisions are being made.

 

Yes, some may disagree, but it's better fans arguing over the actual direction that the club is taking (eg DoF) rather than on something that's totally misinformed.

 

I don't see the problem in fans arguing over the pros and cons of a DoF.

 

For example, it's better that the fans know the financial restrictions that the club has rather than speculating that we may have an £8m transfer budget in the summer.

[Bluedell 5,627]

, unfortunately I don't think it's possible to ask any potential independent non-executive director to do likewise.

 

I'd disagree. I think it would be possible to get a non-exec without directors' insurance.

 

They should however receive remuneration, and then it goes against the message that they currently have that none of the board take any cash.

[Walterbear 557]

Good article plus what Stewarty and forlan say.

 

It is healthy that the fans are mire questioning these days. The increase of social media and access to information and opinion must be supported by fans having better access to the club board and being able to better understand it's decision making process, the restrictions our board may be under and a better understanding of the strategy and how the strategy is specifically supported (by evidence of finances for example).

[Davie P 4]

Difficult to argue with much of the article, however, I do think it is important to also highlight the positives:

1. The losses have been cut substantially.

2. The directors are attempting to run the club in a sustainable manner.

3. Ibrox and Auchenhowie are now fit for purpose, after years of neglect.

4. Paul Murray is a CA, is he not perhaps providing the guidance that a FD would offer, at no cost to the club? (This is obviously a full time position and of vital importance for any business, but perhaps they had to make compromises to spend cash in other more pressing areas?)

 

For all of us, we just don't know what was 'under the hood' (to borrow from Kieran Prior.) We know that there were many onerous contracts awarded to mysterious investors in order for Charles Green to finance his lifestyle in France. We also know that the SD agreement was possibly the worst example of corporate greed and conflict of interest, that could have happened to our club. What we don't know is the extent of these contracts; penalty clauses for early cancellation; can these be challenged in court etc. Most of us, who are not in the know, can only look on from the outside and say WTF is going on. Although we all want transparency, we saw what happened to King when SD wanted to have him arrested and thrown in jail. Who is to say that other contracts do not have the same secrecy clauses? Is there issues that are preventing him from pumping in the stated millions from his children's trust funds?

 

Is he above criticism? Of course not, many of the items mentioned in the article could and should have been better handled. Is he the best custodian for the club? Probably not, but where would we be under Greenock s***s and MA now if King hadn't stepped up. Probably looking for new grounds after Ashley sold Ibrox for parking or flats or a shopping centre!

 

Things are not looking good at the moment (I was the one greetin' about it a couple of weeks ago), both on and off the field, but I would rather that we take the time to get the best possible replacement and structure (even if it means that Murty stays in place until the end of the season). Unless we are going to get a wealth off the radar benefactor, the problems at the club will take years to resolve. There are no other instant fixes.

[Walterbear 557]

Nail on head davie.

[der Berliner 3,747]

Murray, Whyte, Green.....

 

There is no inopportune moment to assess the performance of the board.

 

Have we learned nothing during the past 20 years?

 

Not the point, actually. But stewarty and the quoted post from forlanssister above listed things that I would have wanted in the article itself, rather than essentially another list of what we know. Likewise, how does Club1872 views its current dealings with the board? Is it at arms' length or have they a closer contact than we know, but as "major shareholders" can't elaborate on publicly?

[forlanssister 3,114]

I'd disagree. I think it would be possible to get a non-exec without directors' insurance.

 

They should however receive remuneration, and then it goes against the message that they currently have that none of the board take any cash.

 

Undoubtedly they should be remunerated at the commensurate rate for the job and their experience but asking them to do so without liability insurance in the current climate is a hell of an ask and would severely curtail the pool of potential candidates.

 

I don't think anyone would have a problem with truly independent directors being remunerated.

 

I'd also prefer them to come from a business background rather than an accountancy background as there's plenty of them there already.

Edited February 27, 2017 by forlanssister
Shite spelling

[Bluedell 5,627]

Undoubtedly they should be remunerated at the commensurate rate for the job and their experience but asking them to do so without liability insurance in the current climate is a hell of an ask and would severely curtail the pool of potential candidates.

 

I don't think anyone would have a problem with truly independent directors being remunerated.

 

I'd also prefer them to come from a business background rather than an accountancy background as there's plenty of them there already.

I'd agree that no insurance may curtail the pool of candidates but it doesn't mean that someone good couldn't be found from the remainder.

 

There's plenty of people with accountancy background on the board? There's Paul Murray, who hasn't worked as an accountant since he left Arthur Andersen in 1989 but I'm not aware of the other board members having an accountancy background. Anyway, the current skillset is far more important that whatever they did, say, 25 years ago.

[Bluedell 5,627]

4. Paul Murray is a CA, is he not perhaps providing the guidance that a FD would offer, at no cost to the club? (This is obviously a full time position and of vital importance for any business, but perhaps they had to make compromises to spend cash in other more pressing areas?)

Paul has got his own business and has never worked as an accountant as far as I'm aware. It's more likely that Stewart Robertson fulfils the part of the role together with the financial controller.

[forlanssister 3,114]

I'd agree that no insurance may curtail the pool of candidates but it doesn't mean that someone good couldn't be found from the remainder.

 

There's plenty of people with accountancy background on the board? There's Paul Murray, who hasn't worked as an accountant since he left Arthur Andersen in 1989 but I'm not aware of the other board members having an accountancy background. Anyway, the current skillset is far more important that whatever they did, say, 25 years ago.

 

Aren't Stewart Robertson and Andrew Dickson accountants too?