Bluedell 5,627 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Aren't Stewart Robertson and Andrew Dickson accountants too? They're not PLC board members. Any non-exec would be on the PLC board, and that's also where the main decisions would be made. King, for example, isn't on the board of the football club where Robertson and Dickson are directors. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 They're not PLC board members. Any non-exec would be on the PLC board, and that's also where the main decisions would be made. King, for example, isn't on the board of the football club where Robertson and Dickson are directors. I'd prefer to see truly independent non-executives on all the boards including the subsidiary companies but concede that is extremely unlikely to happen. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) It may only be a short paragraph, but nonetheless it speaks volumes.. But trust has to be earned and maintained. No board at Rangers Football Club should ever again be afforded the luxury of blind faith regardless of who they are or what they have achieved. Edited February 27, 2017 by D'Artagnan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 7,052 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 It seems to be one step forward and two back , never in my life did I ever think this great club would be in the state its in today . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 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. Given the legal woes we have right now it would be a very large ask of any non-executive director to come in and ultimately bear any liability. Sure, you could have the Club issue a "hold harmless" to them but it is still a big ask. Of course this also would be assuming that they do indeed have to take the risk of liability for decisions made. If there is any ambiguity over it then it would surely be a big ask of anyone. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,678 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) It seems to be one step forward and two back , never in my life did I ever think this great club would be in the state its in today . With all due respect I don't think we're as bad as you seem to suggest. I think the current board have steadied the ship & generally got supporters buying into what they're trying to do. However I think they've left themselves wide open to criticism following Warburton's departure. It is clear they knew he was going one way or another but had absolutely no contingency plan in place for when he went. We are, in effect, back in the Kenny MacDowall scenario from a couple of years ago where we have someone in charge of the first team who shouldn't be there & probably doesn't want to be there. And that is beginning to show with the team performances & results. And this at a time when we are seeking to qualify to return to playing in Europe after a six year absence which seems like a eternity. I genuinely look forward to seeing Rangers play a European tie again at Ibrox as I think it will be a very significant moment for all of us on our way back Edited February 27, 2017 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Given the legal woes we have right now it would be a very large ask of any non-executive director to come in and ultimately bear any liability. Sure, you could have the Club issue a "hold harmless" to them but it is still a big ask. Of course this also would be assuming that they do indeed have to take the risk of liability for decisions made. If there is any ambiguity over it then it would surely be a big ask of anyone. What do the current directors do? What is the actual risk? Can the non-exec take out his own insurance? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 What do the current directors do? They assumed the risk themselves didn't they? Ostensibly to avoid the farcical situation of suing Charles Green in Civil Court whilst simultaneously paying his legal fees and to avoid paying his legal fees in any criminal case he faces What is the actual risk? That's a black hole as sadly we're not privy till things like a shareholder attempting to jail the Chairman, writs being served on Directors etc become public. Can the non-exec take out his own insurance? I imagine that would be perfectly possible but don't know if it's feasible (though I lean towards it being so). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I'd prefer to see truly independent non-executives on all the boards including the subsidiary companies but concede that is extremely unlikely to happen. No point on the subsidiary companies, eg the football club, They won't make any important decisions and you may find they don't even have formal board meetings. They assumed the risk themselves didn't they? Ostensibly to avoid the farcical situation of suing Charles Green in Civil Court whilst simultaneously paying his legal fees and to avoid paying his legal fees in any criminal case he faces If they did it then why can't the non-exec? That's a black hole as sadly we're not privy till things like a shareholder attempting to jail the Chairman, writs being served on Directors etc become public. I'm a director of plenty of companies where I don't have liability insurance. I just make sure that the companies don't do anything that expose me. However, to be fair, I don't have hostile shareholders. I imagine that would be perfectly possible but don't know if it's feasible (though I lean towards it being so). Agreed. As far as I'm aware, insurance companies wouldn't care who was funding it. if the fees were covered within the remuneration received then the whole issue becomes moot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,948 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) I think that with Non-Exec Directors' insurances, much would depend on the level and amount of disclosure they would have to make. For instance, quite why they are insuring themselves individually, and not via a Company policy. Non disclosure could -would- nullify the insurance; it could even be seen as fraudulent. The Board members seem, from what I understand, to be self insured. That seems like quite a risk, as we are told they are at daggers' drawn, over such matters (I paraphrase from recent discussions, revelatory, and otherwise, on these pages) as lies, obfuscations, and unprofessional conduct. I don 't think anyone can expect a Non Exec to self-insure. Edited February 28, 2017 by Uilleam 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.