Rangers Chairman

[Bill 13,717]

It's quite a long time now since Douglas Park became interim chairman. I've heard nothing about a more permanent replacement for Dave King but I'd have thought this is something we need to get right and get behind us to solidify progress. 

[Uilleam 6,090]

There was supposed to be shares issue. or rights issue, was there not? Presumably Covid 19 has stymied it. 

I imagine that boardroom changes will be minimal, unless necessitated by death or incarceration, until after completion of this.

[Frankie 8,757]

Yip, I'd imagine this is related to any share issue.

[der Berliner 3,951]

Could it be that part of the upcoming share issue is already subscribed (or whatever word is appropriate) by someone willing to invest, thus making transfer deals re Roofe and Itten possible?

 

Having said that, we have spent not more money this window than last big one, i.e. the Kent window. So in that respect, Morelos sale or no, we might weil be within our budget.

[compo 7,542]

51 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Could it be that part of the upcoming share issue is already subscribed (or whatever word is appropriate) by someone willing to invest, thus making transfer deals re Roofe and Itten possible?

 

Having said that, we have spent not more money this window than last big one, i.e. the Kent window. So in that respect, Morelos sale or no, we might weil be within our budget.

Or we have spent on the presumption that we we are going to get a hefty fee for Morelos 

[Bill 13,717]

I don't understand why the appointment of a chairman is being connected to a share issue. The two should be irrelevant to each other. This seems to hark back to the Murray definition of an Owner Chairman, where the chairman effectively ran the club at all levels. However, Murray or others like him didn't control the club because he was chairman, he held the reins because he was the majority shareholder. There's no requirement for a chairman to be a shareholder at all and I would contend it would be a damned good thing if he/she wasn't. What we have at present is an unfulfilled opportunity to appoint a chairman of national stature, with all that that could bring.

 

Control rests with the shareholders, albeit with certain provisions to prevent decision making stalemates. The role of the chairman is to see the board functions effectively and that the directors and the company fulfil their legal, financial and fiduciary obligations. The chairman should be appointed by the shareholders according to his/her experience, reputation and key connections. The chairman should not be seen as the person who either sets direction or takes operational decisions - that's the role of the directors appointed by the shareholders and whatever executive the directors decide to appoint. So long as the majority of shares are held by Rangers men and women, the rest will fall in place.

[Uilleam 6,090]

"The chairman should be appointed by the shareholders according to his/her experience, reputation and key connections. "

 

If the present Board is, as most seem to think, anticipating new, significant investment, with new, significant shareholdings, and potential subsequent changes in the membership, even structure, of the  Board, it does seem prudent, and politic,  to delay appointment.

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

If the right chairman for Rangers is available, there is no reason whatsoever to delay the appointment. Unless of course the plan is indeed to return to the SDM formula of corporate governance. 

[Uilleam 6,090]

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

If the right chairman for Rangers is available, there is no reason whatsoever to delay the appointment. Unless of course the plan is indeed to return to the SDM formula of corporate governance. 

Maybe the Board is maintaining our hallowed tradition of keeping its powder dry.