Richard Wilson of the gherald opines.

[bawsburst 1,381]

Not a bad piece although the usual failures to grasp the court situation appears, as does the failure to state a minority of fans and individuals are agitating against a fine board doing a remarkable job.

Dave King: the consensus candidate

Richard Wilson

Sports writer

Sunday 13 October 2013

Rangers remain on the brink.

Dave King may be poised to return as chairman of a beleaguered Rangers board but revolutions and resolutions continue to impede any sign of club unity Photograph: SNS

At times, it seems that it is salvation that lies within reach, but on other occasions only that the club is verging on endless turmoil. Dave King has sought to provide a solution to the fundamental problem that exists within Ibrox: the need for funding to sustain the club before it can rely again on balancing the books in the top-flight and earning money to invest from European competition. The former director could return as chairman within the coming days, and that would provide a sense of reassurance to a support that continues to be fraught.

Paul Murray, another former Rangers director, could have been invited to join King on the board, alongside the chief executive Craig Mather, the finance director Brian Stockbridge, and the non-executive directors Bryan Smart and James Easdale. All six would have been up for re-election at the annual general meeting, which is currently arranged for October 24.

Murray, however, continues to represent the disgruntled institutional shareholders who have been seeking his nomination at the AGM. He is deeply supportive of King, as is Jim McColl, who is fronting the bid by the institutional shareholders to bring change to the Ibrox boardroom, and both believe King will always act in the club's best interests.

Murray will attend the Court of Session tomorrow at 10am, when a judge will rule on the validity of the nominations for four new non-executive directors - Murray, Malcolm Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson. If successful, the shareholders will propose that the AGM be held within 21 days of a new notice of resolutions being sent out this week. So rather than a line being drawn on this saga on October 24, it could run into November.

Unity is critically required. Some within Ibrox are convinced that James and Sandy Easdale can call upon more than 50% shareholder backing - with the owners of McGills Buses either owning or holding the proxy to almost 25% themselves - but that certainty seems unlikely when a bid to call an emergency general meeting to oust the current board was backed by almost 28% of institutional investors, a further 12% of shares are in the hands of individual fans or the Rangers Supporters Trust and the rest held by a disparate group of investors.

Winning the AGM vote would end the shareholder conflict, but the likelihood is that any vote would be too close to call in the meantime, with a majority of 51% of votes cast required to hold sway. King could yet cut through this propaganda and politicking. He is prepared to accept the chairmanship, and invest money, in return for full disclosure of the club's finances and a direct hand in the spending and business strategy. Having settled his tax dispute with the South African Revenue Service, King would not face any difficulties over the SFA's fit and proper person criteria.

Even if King assumes the chairmanship ahead of the AGM, it will not affect the boardroom changes being sought by the institutional shareholders. Equally, King is working independently of them now. If he joins the board he will be up for re-election along with the rest of the current directors, and if the four nominations are judged to be valid, then 10 individuals will be up for election in total. Whatever the outcome, King would remain the key individual on the board.

It appears, though, that current relationships within Ibrox are unclear. Mather and Stockbridge have sought King's return, but there has been no indication of the Easdales' stance, and the appointment requires board and shareholder approval. King has long said he would revive his interest in Rangers, and given his personal wealth - he invested £20 million in the club during Sir David Murray's ownership - and emotional commitment, he seems the figure most likely to bring long-term stability to the club. He could eventually pursue full ownership, although other wealthy and lifelong Rangers fans would also be prepared to invest in the club if it is controlled by King.

Supporters, meanwhile, are increasingly angry with the way the club has been run, with protests gathering in intensity.

At a recent meeting with representatives of the fan groups, Stockbridge revealed that by next April, Rangers will have only £1 million of their cash reserves left, although Rangers' retail income has still to be taken into account. Along with continuing questions about the high costs of last December's Initial Public Offering of Shares and legal letters having been sent to some prominent fans, there is hostility between the current board and the support.

That is unsustainable, and although it is shareholders who will ultimately decide on the make-up of the RIFC plc board, decisions will be swayed by ongoing unrest amongst the fans and the potential consequences for future merchandise and ticket revenue. King is the individual best placed, and with the necessary wherewithal and experience, to bring some command to an unruly situation in the immediate term.

[five stars 1,621]

"a fine board doing a remarkable job." Comic genius.

[StublueKPL 524]

"a fine board doing a remarkable job." Comic genius.

what you fail to understand is that some people do think they are doing ok.

[allgers 735]

The situation has went from you will be back in admin by Christmas to deary deary you will only have 1 million left by the end of this season. HaHaHaHaHa. You gotta laugh. even that is an underestimation, worse case scenario if we do not sell the merchandise, who are they trying to kid.

[CaptainofIndustry 921]

That can be summarised as: "Yes, I know Dave King has invested £20m in Rangers previously but Mather has been horrible to my friends Chris and Mark. They really like Paul Murray so if Dave King knows what's good for him, he'd better listen to what Chris and Mark tell him."

[Bothwellbear 1,392]

Love how both sides think they are the majority and the others the minority. There is absolutely nothing to prove that at all. This board are not doing a good job. We would not need King to ride in if they were.

[glasgowrangersno1 468]

The situation has went from you will be back in admin by Christmas to deary deary you will only have 1 million left by the end of this season. HaHaHaHaHa. You gotta laugh. even that is an underestimation, worse case scenario if we do not sell the merchandise, who are they trying to kid.

I didn't quite understand why they gave that figure in the meeting because it paints a worse picture than necessary.

I would just like us to be on an even keel from month to month so we know, if another round of investment is done, that the money will go to improving the club rather than used as working capital.

[StublueKPL 524]

I don't think they are doing a tremendous job. Far from it looking at some salaries.

However, also not as bad a job as some posters try and make out.

And the fact you criticise trying to get king onboard as the club needing him is a joke.

The guys can't win. Try and get king, stabilise the fans a bit more as most would be happy to have him, and you slag them for it?

Ffs

[Lisburnranger 36]

He's right about the AGM date. Murray and co may be happy to go ahead as planned but if any resolutions are added or changed, it takes 1 shareholder to demand a clear 21 days and the AGM must be delayed.

The court is there to apply the law and the companies act is explicitly clear on this

[CaptainofIndustry 921]

He's right about the AGM date. Murray and co may be happy to go ahead as planned but if any resolutions are added or changed, it takes 1 shareholder to demand a clear 21 days and the AGM must be delayed.

The court is there to apply the law and the companies act is explicitly clear on this

Mate, on a slightly separate subject what was the reason for an RST board member giving Radio Clyde an interview last night? Seems a strange choice of media outlet for the RST to be speaking to. Was this to give a reaction to the news of King's return?

[bawsburst 1,381]

He's right about the AGM date. Murray and co may be happy to go ahead as planned but if any resolutions are added or changed, it takes 1 shareholder to demand a clear 21 days and the AGM must be delayed.

The court is there to apply the law and the companies act is explicitly clear on this

Monday has nothing to do with the date as our board have made clear more than once.

[allgers 735]

I don't think they are doing a tremendous job. Far from it looking at some salaries.

However, also not as bad a job as some posters try and make out.

And the fact you criticise trying to get king onboard as the club needing him is a joke.

The guys can't win. Try and get king, stabilise the fans a bit more as most would be happy to have him, and you slag them for it?

Ffs

The Club does need him, maybe not as a suger daddy. We need experiance at the top and King can provide it.

[dummiesoot 16,005]

Hate this "board is at loggerheads with the fans pish" frankly somewhat like Timothy over the past few years, those dissenting voices are the loudest it does not mean ALL fans are against the current board. Yes some aspects of the board are dysfunctional, but Mather seems to be doing a good job and the Easedales have done fuck all to warrant my distrust right now. I want these fans groups to acknowledge that there are SOME FANS who want the board out not all.

[iang2911 423]

What some seem to forget, either through ignorance or intentionally, is the board are implementing a business plan on behalf of the shareholders. The plan that was put forward preIPO was going to be expensive and it was ALWAYS going to require a fresh investment round prior to going back in to the top league.

The plan centred around getting back to the top league in the shortest possible time while maintaining facilities and staffing at the required level, the board are doing a good job of implementing that plan, we can all disagree with salaries and bonuses, and probably will always do so but they are on track for getting back to the top league after next season.

The alternative plan I saw last year suggested a slow progress back to the top, over a period of 10 years, this IMO would have been disastrous for Rangers so I fully back the current plan and those carrying it out, more quality people on the board will help and the news about Dave king is very welcome.

[allgers 735]

What some seem to forget, either through ignorance or intentionally, is the board are implementing a business plan on behalf of the shareholders. The plan that was put forward preIPO was going to be expensive and it was ALWAYS going to require a fresh investment round prior to going back in to the top league.

The plan centred around getting back to the top league in the shortest possible time while maintaining facilities and staffing at the required level, the board are doing a good job of implementing that plan, we can all disagree with salaries and bonuses, and probably will always do so but they are on track for getting back to the top league after next season.

The alternative plan I saw last year suggested a slow progress back to the top, over a period of 10 years, this IMO would have been disastrous for Rangers so I fully back the current plan and those carrying it out, more quality people on the board will help and the news about Dave king is very welcome.

The thought of a ten year plan fills me with despair, that is just madness.

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

Time for the board to look round Ibrox for a bunch of pimply youths. Give them a fiver each and a bunch of 'Back the Board' banners. That would have the media in turmoil.

[iang2911 423]

The thought of a ten year plan fills me with despair, that is just madness.

That's what I thought as well.

[IainB 599]

Time for the board to look round Ibrox for a bunch of pimply youths. Give them a fiver each and a bunch of 'Back the Board' banners. That would have the media in turmoil.

You mean follow the example of Mini and his cohorts?

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

You mean follow the example of Mini and his cohorts?

Mini and his cohorts don't buy the boys, they just rent them.

[dougie76 15,359]

Love how both sides think they are the majority and the others the minority. There is absolutely nothing to prove that at all. This board are not doing a good job. We would not need King to ride in if they were.

Every club needs investors we are no different.

[Lisburnranger 36]

Monday has nothing to do with the date as our board have made clear more than once.

At the court of session on 3rd October the requisitionists petitioned to have the agm postponed while their claim was heard as their was a risk they may not have been able to get a court hearing before 24th. The judge refused that request but has scheduled the hearing for tomorrow. Murray and co. told the court that they were happy to go ahead on the 24th if they were successful and they wouldn't invoke their right of 21 days to consider the resolution. That affects them only. Their requisition represents at most just over 5% of the shareholding. Any other shareholder who is not part of that group can invoke their own right of 21 days to consider the resolutions. Neither the board nor the court can revoke that fundamental right of a shareholder. I hope it does go ahead on the 24th because I believe the sooner this is all put to bed one way or another, then our club can move on. For anyone to suggest that it will definitely go ahead on the 24th October, is simply wrong. Nobody can make that guarantee at this stage

[bawsburst 1,381]

At the court of session on 3rd October the requisitionists petitioned to have the agm postponed while their claim was heard as their was a risk they may not have been able to get a court hearing before 24th. The judge refused that request but has scheduled the hearing for tomorrow. Murray and co. told the court that they were happy to go ahead on the 24th if they were successful and they wouldn't invoke their right of 21 days to consider the resolution. That affects them only. Their requisition represents at most just over 5% of the shareholding. Any other shareholder who is not part of that group can invoke their own right of 21 days to consider the resolutions. Neither the board nor the court can revoke that fundamental right of a shareholder. I hope it does go ahead on the 24th because I believe the sooner this is all put to bed one way or another, then our club can move on. For anyone to suggest that it will definitely go ahead on the 24th October, is simply wrong. Nobody can make that guarantee at this stage

I think the club/board may differ with you somewhat.

FURTHER to the announcement earlier today regarding the petition filed in the Scottish Courts (the "Petition") by Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Ian Cormack, John Graham and Colin Howell being shareholders representing 0.71 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (the "Petitioners"), the Company confirms that the Petition was called in the Scottish courts to be heard today, Friday, October 4, 2013 by Lord Kinclaven.

The Petitioners sought interim orders to prevent the Annual General Meeting of the Company from taking place on October 24, 2013. No such orders were granted by the court.

Certain legal arguments in relation to the validity of the section 338 notices have been continued to a new hearing to take place on Monday, October 14, 2013 at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Whilst the Company considers its legal position on these matters to be robust, the Petitioners have also confirmed that if their arguments succeed in relation to the validity of the s338 notices, the Petitioners agree that the Annual General Meeting should proceed to take place on October 24, 2013 as long as their proposed resolutions are circulated as soon as reasonably practicable after the hearing concludes and before the date of the Annual General Meeting.

The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on October 24, 2013.

Further announcements will be made as appropriate.

[StublueKPL 524]

I think the club/board may differ with you somewhat.

FURTHER to the announcement earlier today regarding the petition filed in the Scottish Courts (the "Petition") by Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Ian Cormack, John Graham and Colin Howell being shareholders representing 0.71 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (the "Petitioners"), the Company confirms that the Petition was called in the Scottish courts to be heard today, Friday, October 4, 2013 by Lord Kinclaven.

The Petitioners sought interim orders to prevent the Annual General Meeting of the Company from taking place on October 24, 2013. No such orders were granted by the court.

Certain legal arguments in relation to the validity of the section 338 notices have been continued to a new hearing to take place on Monday, October 14, 2013 at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Whilst the Company considers its legal position on these matters to be robust, the Petitioners have also confirmed that if their arguments succeed in relation to the validity of the s338 notices, the Petitioners agree that the Annual General Meeting should proceed to take place on October 24, 2013 as long as their proposed resolutions are circulated as soon as reasonably practicable after the hearing concludes and before the date of the Annual General Meeting.

The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on October 24, 2013.

Further announcements will be made as appropriate.

is that official rangers?

[Lisburnranger 36]

I think the club/board may differ with you somewhat.

FURTHER to the announcement earlier today regarding the petition filed in the Scottish Courts (the "Petition") by Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Ian Cormack, John Graham and Colin Howell being shareholders representing 0.71 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (the "Petitioners"), the Company confirms that the Petition was called in the Scottish courts to be heard today, Friday, October 4, 2013 by Lord Kinclaven.

The Petitioners sought interim orders to prevent the Annual General Meeting of the Company from taking place on October 24, 2013. No such orders were granted by the court.

Certain legal arguments in relation to the validity of the section 338 notices have been continued to a new hearing to take place on Monday, October 14, 2013 at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Whilst the Company considers its legal position on these matters to be robust, the Petitioners have also confirmed that if their arguments succeed in relation to the validity of the s338 notices, the Petitioners agree that the Annual General Meeting should proceed to take place on October 24, 2013 as long as their proposed resolutions are circulated as soon as reasonably practicable after the hearing concludes and before the date of the Annual General Meeting.

The Annual General Meeting of the Company is, therefore, set to proceed on October 24, 2013.

Further announcements will be made as appropriate.

Re. the parts you highlighted.

1. That is one of the reasons they are in court and why I said they had a maximum of 5%

2. Again as per my previous post they tried to have the AGM delayed before the case was heard but failed

3. The petitioners agree, but they only account for between 0.71% and 5.03% of the shareholders. They are saying that they are happy, but they don't speak for the other shareholders. There is an assumption there that there are no other objections. I hope that assumption is correct

This place would go mental if it was suggested that Paul Murray was removing shareholders' rights to 21 days consideration of the resolutions which is what would happen if that ruling was binding on all shareholders

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

"Further announcements will be made as appropriate." If any shareholder wishes the date to be put back, an announcement as to a new date would be "appropriate". What was deceided in court was that a delay was not automatic. Subject to there being no objections, the AGM could proceed on 24th October. My reading of the judgement is that it is likely that the requisitioners will fail so why order an unnecessary delay. Let's just wait and see what transpires.