Paul Murray And Barry Scott Resign

[Gonzo79 15,294]

I said this season has been a joke.  I did not say the club is being run like a joke.  

 

I don't think anyone could deny that the club could've been run better.  We have given our critics a very easy job.

 

My 'nothing sensational' comment related specifically to the resignations.

 

I hope that clarifies any perceived contradictions.

[Big Jaws 570]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

I said this season has been a joke.  I did not say the club is being run like a joke.  

 

I don't think anyone could deny that the club could've been run better.  We have given our critics a very easy job.

 

My 'nothing sensational' comment related specifically to the resignations.

 

I hope that clarifies any perceived contradictions.

Sort of.

 

I'm not trying to be obtuse and yes I know you said 'the season'. The context of where you are saying this is important as you are saying it in a thread relating to the board and the resignation of two board members which implies further consideration.

 

Since this board took over I personally think the Club has been run with a specific remit and to all intents and purposes, with the resolution of Mike Ashleys direct/indirect involvement, a hangover from the previous board I might add, this board has succeeded in that regard. Their first decision was Stuart McCall, then Warburton and in spite of how that ended Warburton achieved what he was brought in to do, which was promotion from the Championship. I agree that the next managerial decision was a gamble and turned out to be a poor one in Pedro but in that case hindsight is always 20/20. Murty for me was always a stop gap for them while they worked within the constraints they placed upon themselves. The structure, and I'm being as honest as any other Rangers fan can outside looking in, of how the Club is run looks far better than I would have imagined it would be at this stage in the project.

 

Of course it looks poor from a playing perspective to Rangers fans. However from a business perspective looking at it objectively they've been fairly successful. So the upshot is that I don't think the Club is being run poorly.

 

I don't however think that the public relations operation has been particularly successful which has allowed enough room for the hostile SMSM to turn any and indeed all information coming from the Club into their stock and trade Soap Opera type plot lines damaging the Rangers brand which has always in truth been their remit. In my opinion, and with the SMSM cards stacked heavily against anything even slightly positive with regards to Rangers, the board need to have a visible presence across independent media and message boards simply to disseminate relevant and important information quicker and to the people who will better use it and pass it to the fans.

 

This latest situation may well be just making way for new investors to take their place on the board however I'm puzzled as to why it has been announced without the new investors being in place... are we not going to like who that might be or is there some other reason like many have suggested in this thread already?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Big Jaws

[Gonzo79 15,294]

I don't disagree with any of that, BJ.  

 

I don't know anything about new investors, other than the rumours mentioned on this thread.  I am hopeful we have good news on the way but at the same time, not getting carried away. 

 

Two hammerings off Celtc in a matter of days is hard to stomach, so I hope you'll excuse my miserable demeanour when it comes to all things Rangers at the moment (which prompted the joke comment).  

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What i hear is they are making way for 2 guys aj has lined up. A north american and asian investor.

[917 191]

My theory, though complete speculation, is that new investment/cash is coming for Stevie G to spend, but Murray & Scott don’t like where it’s coming from. Could be re-mortgaging the stadium (though I hear no new deeds have been registered so far) or maybe even SDM getting involved again. Can’t see how this makes sense otherwise. Doubt it has anything to do with the new manager, but hopefully he already knows what’s going on because this sort of instability would put you off taking the job otherwise!

[boabie 230]

35 minutes ago, 917 said:

My theory, though complete speculation, is that new investment/cash is coming for Stevie G to spend, but Murray & Scott don’t like where it’s coming from. Could be re-mortgaging the stadium (though I hear no new deeds have been registered so far) or maybe even SDM getting involved again. Can’t see how this makes sense otherwise. Doubt it has anything to do with the new manager, but hopefully he already knows what’s going on because this sort of instability would put you off taking the job otherwise!

Murray returning only exists in the fevered imagination of clowns like Ill Phil or the beggar tramp liar.

There is nobody with power inside Ibrox foolish enough to even consider that Murray would in any way be acceptable to the Rangers support.

The board would be the only crowd at home matches. No Rangers supporter I know would have anything to do with the club if Murray was around.

[Bill 13,717]

I reckon if you asked a cross section of the Rangers support today what they think of SDM the response would be resoundingly negative and would rightly reflect on his part in the disaster of the last six years.

 

However and leaving that judgement on past events to one side, do you think the response would be the same if you asked the support whether or not they would welcome him back if he brought £50m with him for the restoration of Rangers as the number one club in Scotland?

[917 191]

I’m just putting 2+2 together here. Gerrard must think there is a war chest there. This board have already used property as security. Could they get a loan of say £25million over Ibrox or Murray Park? That sort of cash would be required to get us challenging again, but it’s a big risk so maybe why the 2 directors have walked.

[Big Jaws 570]

Non Exec Directors are not on a board to make managerial decisions they are there to offer independent oversight and in some rare cases constructive criticism and/or objectivity in executive decisions... i.e. “should bring an independent judgement to bear on issues of strategy, performance and resources including key appointments and standards of conduct”. In other words they are there to offer the board insight in aspects of their skill set or in their field of expertise. However NEDs are subject to the codified duties of directors contained in the Companies Act 2006 in the same way as executive directors.

 

Of course I could be reading more into it than is actually there but what I find the most puzzling is that they have resigned without replacement or co-option of two new NEDs although that may happen in the next few days or more. The reason why I'm bringing this up is because the UK Corporate Governance Code advises that the balance of executive and non-executive directors should be such that no individual or small group of individuals can dominate the board's decision-making. Non-executive directors should comprise not less than half the board.

[Bill 13,717]

16 minutes ago, Big Jaws said:

Non Exec Directors are not on a board to make managerial decisions they are there to offer independent oversight and in some rare cases constructive criticism and/or objectivity in executive decisions... i.e. “should bring an independent judgement to bear on issues of strategy, performance and resources including key appointments and standards of conduct”. In other words they are there to offer the board insight in aspects of their skill set or in their field of expertise. However NEDs are subject to the codified duties of directors contained in the Companies Act 2006 in the same way as executive directors.

 

Of course I could be reading more into it than is actually there but what I find the most puzzling is that they have resigned without replacement or co-option of two new NEDs although that may happen in the next few days or more. The reason why I'm bringing this up is because the UK Corporate Governance Code advises that the balance of executive and non-executive directors should be such that no individual or small group of individuals can dominate the board's decision-making. Non-executive directors should comprise not less than half the board.

I thought the UK Corporate Governance Code was intended for LSE listed companies only.