Jump to content

 

 

Company Statement


Recommended Posts

FOLLOWING a recent review, there have been some minor changes to Rangers’ internal governance structures.

 

At the time that the previous board was removed, there was a dual reporting structure that duplicated non-executive director roles at the holding company (RIFC) and at the operating company (TRFC). This structure was not in accordance with best practice and appears to have been put in place by the previous board to accommodate the inability of Sandy Easdale to sit on the holding company board.

 

The TRFC operating board has now been fully functioning for some time and with the imminent appointment of a Director of Football the RIFC board believes that it is appropriate that the TRFC board continues to function independently of the RIFC board within the mandates and budgets set by RIFC.

 

Consequently, the non-executive directors appointed by RIFC to the TRFC board will now exercise their roles solely as non-executive directors of the holding company, RIFC. The executive management of the Club will then form the board of TRFC.

 

https://rangers.co.uk/news/club/company-statement-3/

Edited by chilledbear
Link to post
Share on other sites

The TRFC operating board has now been fully functioning for some time and with the imminent appointment of a Director of Football the RIFC board believes that it is appropriate that the TRFC board continues to function independently of the RIFC board within the mandates and budgets set by RIFC.

 

 

"the imminent appointment of a Director of Football"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the structure not predate Easdale's directorship?

 

Sure did. Sandy was appointed to the club board on 11/9/13, and Green, Ahmad, Walter and Malcolm Murray joined in 2012. The latter 3 were all non-execs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I struggle to see anything overtly sinister in this.

 

The appointment of PC was, said King, undertaken by the football board, and was a decision with which he, as Chairman of the main Board was not/could not be/would not be involved. (Handily avoiding blame, as the more cynical may opine.)

 

It seems clear (as clear as anything with Rangers) that the desire of the main Board is to have the football side running separately, quasi independently, on the philosophy, perhaps, of not buying a dog and barking yourself.

 

Or am I being completely naive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.