Club Statement- Murdoch MacLennan

[ian1964 10,724]

SPFL hit back

Rangers told by SPFL that Murdoch MacLennan has their ‘overwhelming support’ as they say ‘matter is closed’

Rangers have renewed their complaints over MacLennan's chairmanship of a company part-owned by Celtic's biggest shareholder, Dermot Desmond.

 

THE SPFL has reiterated its “overwhelming support” for chairman Murdoch MacLennan after Rangers called for him to step down.

The Light Blues have renewed their complaints over MacLennan’s chairmanship of a company part-owned by Celtic’s biggest shareholder, Dermot Desmond, but the SPFL has stated that it views the matter closed.

Earlier this year MacLennan became chairman of Dublin-based Independent News and Media, a firm which lists Desmond and another Celtic shareholder, Denis O’Brien, as major shareholders.

Rangers had called for an independent investigation into what they claimed was an alleged conflict of interest, but the SPFL insisted there was no case to consider.

In a lengthy statement on the Gers website, the club said they had been informed that the SPFL board had refused their request for an independent investigation into the situation.

The statement went on: “In the interests of proper governance, transparency and integrity the SPFL should have agreed to an independent investigation of this extremely serious matter and should not have refused to answer all questions and address the genuine concerns put to them in a formal letter by Rangers.

“Now, however, and because there is no route of appeal against this decision, Rangers is left with no alternative but to call for Mr MacLennan to stand down as SPFL chairman. Apart from this being the correct course of action under the circumstances, it would also be the honourable thing to do.

“Rangers believes that Mr MacLennan cannot be considered fit and proper to continue in his role as SPFL chairman as he is now obliged to recuse himself from meetings and decision-making processes which could impact on member clubs. The SPFL needs a chairman that can openly participate in all meetings.”

The SPFL, which previously released lengthy defences of MacLennan, responded with a brief statement.

A spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note the contents of Rangers’ latest press release. The board has already made its strong and overwhelming support for the chairman very clear and we consider the matter closed.”

Gers’ statement came in the wake of news that Sports Direct had secured an interim injunction which could delay the club selling their new strip.

Days earlier it emerged that chairman Dave King had been served with contempt of court papers over his failure to comply with a takeover panel order to launch an offer for the remainder of the club’s shares.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/2899247/spfl-rangers-murdoch-maclennan-overwheling-support-matter-closed-hit-back/

[buster. 5,196]

The timing of this suggests it's more a random deflection tool than part of a carefully considered and timely strategy.

 

 

[Gaffer 1,665]

37 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Unless I'm mistaken, SR has a position with the SPFL. Does he ever raise issues like this with them ?

He does, but if he is raising these points (which I'm sure he has), those conversations should rightly remain confidential.  I'm assuming the minutes of those meetings are available to members, but not the public.

[Gonzo79 15,294]

6 minutes ago, buster. said:

The timing of this suggests it's more a random deflection tool than part of a carefully considered and timely strategy.

Looks that way.  

[der Berliner 3,744]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

The timing of this suggests it's more a random deflection tool than part of a carefully considered and timely strategy.

 

 

Do we know when Rangers were informed about the latest refusal?

 

The one thing that we now have on our sides is that the situation might get a wider audience due to Gerrard being about, so the English will take note too. Whether that changes anything is anyone's guess, but I would assume that those targetted will feel somewhat more uncomfortable.

[buster. 5,196]

The SPFL, who had a board meeting over a week ago, were always going down that path. 

 

What appears to be more concerning is that there are several potential issues converging, from which have the potential to have an effect on the club/business going forward.

 

@der Berliner

Edited July 8, 2018 by buster.

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[Big Jaws 570]

5 hours ago, buster. said:

The timing of this suggests it's more a random deflection tool than part of a carefully considered and timely strategy.

 

 

Hold on a second here? By whom? By The Club or by the SPFL?

 

If you are suggesting that its a deflection tactic from the Club I've got to take issue with you on that. The Club, its brand, the fans and the chairman have been under attack since before the administration event and consequently the team which took over the Club and removed the spivs. Admittedly it would take some time to prepare a strategy but once said strategy is in place its just a matter of time before all the ducks are in a row. At the moment there is a three point attack on the Club a) Through the SPFL CO, b) TAB/TOP contempt papers served on Dave King and c) MA's temp injunction. I would suggest that there is a slight of hand here but make no mistake about it there will be a strategy in place and I for one am starting to see where the weakest point in the opposition might be.

[Gonzo79 15,294]

29 minutes ago, Big Jaws said:

I for one am starting to see where the weakest point in the opposition might be.

They don't eat red meat on Fridays?

[pete 2,499]

Chris Jack: Questions over Murdoch MacLennan are key for all clubs and not just Rangers

Christopher Jack @Chris_Jack89 Group Senior Sports Writer

Murdoch MacLennan

 

 

 

1 comment

 

 

THINGS are rarely black and white in the world of Scottish football and when it comes to Murdoch MacLennan it isn’t a case of blue and green.
Rangers may be leading the calls for MacLennan’s head due to his business links with two Celtic powerbrokers but the issues over his position should be looked at by clubs across the country.
When Ibrox chairman Dave King called for Gary Hughes, the then non-executive director of the Scottish FA, to be suspended, supporters of other sides could have been forgiven for shrugging their shoulders.
The comments that Hughes made in a magazine interview in 2006 - in which he labelled Rangers fans ‘the great unwashed’ - angered the Light Blue legions and King.
Weeks later, Hughes did not seek re-election to the Hampden board as he left his position after three years.
That didn’t completely placate Rangers, however, and in a statement they called for a review of the SFA’s procedures and a probe into whether Hughes was party to any discussions regarding the Notice of Complaint in relation to their 2011/12 UEFA licence.
That battle is very much between Ibrox and Hampden but the latest fight that King has taken up has consequences across the country and leagues.
It is one that he has fought alone in public so far, however. Where Rangers have led, no others have followed as shots have been launched back and forth with no sign of being intercepted by friendly fire, or otherwise, from elsewhere.
King has now shifted his crosshairs along the Sixth Floor at the National Stadium and MacLennan, the chairman of the SPFL, is firmly in his sights over his appointment to the board of Independent News and Media, a Dublin-based firm where Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien are influential shareholders.
The SPFL have refused Rangers’ request for an independent investigation into MacLennan’s links with INM and the Ibrox board have now called for him to be removed from office at Hampden.
In response, a spokesperson for the SPFL said: “We note the contents of Rangers’ latest press release. The board has already made its strong and overwhelming support for the chairman very clear and we consider the matter closed.”
That won’t be how Rangers see it, though, especially when Stewart Robertson, the Ibrox Managing Director, and MacLennan, weren’t involved in the board discussion.
The potential for a conflict of interest here is clear, well to most observers at least. It comes down to who told what to who. Or not, in this case.
If MacLennan informed Neil Doncaster, the SPFL chief executive, of his role with INM and highlighted the links with Desmond and O’Brien then his conscience is clear.
If Doncaster was told, as he should have been, then those details had to be passed onto to the SPFL Board, of which Robertson is a member.
If both of those processes had been followed completely to the letter, it is unfathomable to see how we could have reached this point and how Rangers could have become so irked.
Whether there is a conflict of interest or not, and there is no suggestion whatsoever that MacLennan has acted improperly in his dealings, that is only one issue.
The details of a Private Eye article on MacLennan have yet to be addressed by the man who was appointed in July but has rarely been seen in public.
Perceptions cannot be altered but the SPFL had a chance to properly address Rangers’ concerns and didn’t take it. For some, their actions speak louder than their words.
That could also be said about other clubs that have watched on as the statement war has unfolded and have chosen to stay in their bunkers rather than put their heads above the parapet in public.
When the position of the SPFL chairman has been called into question, that issue becomes bigger than Rangers v Celtic or King v Doncaster. If clubs don’t show their colours, only grey areas will remain.