A Good Day to Bury Bad News (CRO article by Chris Graham)

[forlanssister 157]

Not only did they pick the day that Celtic played Barcelona to ensure that scrutiny of their various releases to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) would be minimised, but they also clearly knew the accounts would be the main topic of conversation.

The bit in bold is factually incorrect. The LSE would not care 1 jot about Celtics game; they are money people who crunch numbers for a living and if they were as bad as some hoped (still saying) then it would have showed up in the share price crashing. The share price has not crashed.

A classic whoosh moment if ever there was.....

[Zappa 358]

I'd think if any viable alternative were forthcoming it would already be apparent by now. Who knows what will transpire in the coming weeks. Never a dull moment!

Unfortunately I'm sceptical if the AGM will put an end to it all; depressing thought for all Bears regardless of associations, factions and agendas.

I could be wrong, but I think a LOT will happen in the run up to the AGM.

Right, it's bed time for this Bear!

[Blue Atheist 178]

The main thing that seems out of place about him though, is that for some bizarre reason he seems to think buying millions of shares in an unstable company with a share value which could tank at any time is some sort of attractive investment opportunity. Maybe he just likes a risky punt?

Its a good investment IMO and the share price will rise as we go through the divisions.

Now, providing loans for startups, which is my hobby, THAT'S risky, lol.

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

Stopped reading at woeful.

Got as far as 'Much of the focus...' looks like furry and friends are still beelin.

[thehost 11,061]

Methinks "giggles" should be "off-lining" himself for a few months.

If only for his own sanity if mind.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

That's why it's pointless and deliberately facetious for people to keep asking what Paul Murray's plans are when they know fine well that we don't know.

It's also a bridge too far to just assume that everyone who wants our Club's board of directors swept out and replaced by more qualified and trustworthy people are also supporters of Paul Murray. Some are, but plenty aren't and don't think he's necessarily the right man to be appointed to our board.

I don't know why people keep adding 2+2 and getting 5.

Don't trust board + want board removed does not necessarily = likes or wants Paul Murray. Ok, it does for some people, but not everyone.

I am looking at this comment with disbelief?!

[Turnberry18 3,204]

I've read this thread and the argument for those wanting rid of the Board is incoherent and nonsensical. It was a 'carve-up', but ask for the details of the carve up and they are found wanting.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

Tut tut more jibes at fellow bluenoses is gonna help things......not!!

Try concentrating on having an open discussion rather than belittle a fellow bear for having a difference of opinion from yours......again.

Try answering the various questions put to you rather than deflecting and obfuscating.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Obviously.

Do you EXPECT the average bear to know what Paul Murray's plans are?

The present thieving incumbents are bleeding us dry.

I'm actually amazed that a large chunk of this message board thinks that our club is being run efficiently.

They just keep coming

[JMorrison1872 320]

Guys a fucking pellet.

Him and his scaremongering associates should be run out of Ibrox.

Smearing your own fans with false information is an all time low.

[JCS 649]

Must say I'm sick to death of this contiinual infantile bickering - this 'who can score the most 'brownie points' for their side' attitide.

Like most others, I've read the accounts and tried to make sense of them, and have also availed of the impartial evaluations provided by some of our more impartial Bears.

Do the accounts make comfortable reading - no! Are we still in a precarious position - yes! But are we in crisis - no! Is there a major conspiracy afoot - no!

Many questions remain to be answered, but I very much doubt if any board would have made a better 'fist' of the situation that was inherited by Charle Green and his team. Many conveniently forget the circumstances of the Green 'takeover', which was a period of total instability, uncertainty and fear for the very future of our club.

We were financially crippled, being relentlessly pursued by HMRC and under attack from every conceivable quarter.

Did Charlie Green get it all right - no! Did his fellow board members during that period - including Malcolm Murray, Walter Smith et al - get it all right - no! Has anyone emerged with credit from this very public 'fiasco' of the past few months - no! All of the major players carry the 'can' for our congoing predicament.

Perhaps the current financial situation could be a little brighter - I really can't say, although I very much doubt it. But the inescapable fact is that there are those who will NEVER be satisfied with the current regime, and there are those who will NEVER be satisfied with a new one - no matter who it comprises.

It is with considerable regret that I say that I trust none of the main protagonists in this whole sorry saga, and I hope the forthcoming AGM will bring some stability - although I very doubt it.

Truth is, we will probably be unable to significantly inluence who is voted on, or off, the board - that will be the battle of the institutional investors.

Perhaps we - as supporters - should concentrate on how we can best meaningfully monitor and influence whatever board is in place, and call them to account when we think they are not acting in the best interests of Rangers Football Club.

We squabble about who should be on the board, yet we have no 'oversight' whatsoever!

[CaptainofIndustry 921]

The accounts are out. It's now up to the shareholders to digest them ahead of the AGM when they can decide if the current board are fit to continue. There really is very little point debating the accounts on here, unless either side hopes to persuade any institutional shareholders who may be RM members.

[STEPPS BOY 75,120]

Dave King- A SA judge said in court he was a liar. He has had to repay millions to the SA Tax Authorities and apologize for his actions. He did invest 20m in Rangers before but SDM lost/wasted that money. He was a director when we ran up huge debts and under Whyte. Recently said we would be bankrupt by the end of the year. Would the SFA accept him as a director after the SA mess?

Frank Blin wants no involvement with Rangers.

Douglas Park has failed to put up sufficient cash to have any bid accepted. Deep pockets but short arms it seems.

So why would we want these men on the Board?

It was Douglas Park who was funding 6 million bid post CVA!

[CaptainofIndustry 921]

Really?

Not too difficult if you look closely.

"A small side point here – if you are a shareholder make sure you attend and vote in this AGM. If you can’t attend then make sure you find a way to proxy your vote to either a group like the RST or a friend who can attend for you."

In other words, if you can't come and give us your vote, get someone else to do it!

This is the key section for me. Over the course of a few short months, we've watched Chris go from outspoken critic of Rangers' enemies to obedient cheerleader for the Rangers Supporters Trust. Chris is welcome to his opinion but if he's now no more than an RST mouthpiece, he's no longer an impartial commentator - he's a participant who has adopted a very firm standpoint on one side of an internal power struggle. As has been the case increasingly for some months, his views are indistinguishable from those of Mark Dingwall. No offence to Mr D but anyone with his track record decrying Rangers directors as "opportunist spivs" is not a scenario I can accept. As Chris and the RST are now as one, I cannot take Chris seriously as a spokesman any longer. Maybe when this is over Chris will consider some of his less wise actions, start speaking independently again and regain some credibility.

[trublusince1982 768]

The longer this all goes on the less and less i want anybody already mentioned anywhere near the club, both sides refuse to give us any details on how they will take the club forward, all debate has been stopped accross the board to continue the one upmanship.

None of you are fit to run Rangers our revenues are in the gutter and nobody has stepped forward and been brave enough to discuss future plans.

Keep hearing of the boards five year plan but as time goes on it seems more and more likely that that plan depends on european football and has no intention of making a profit in the next two to three seasons.

If we the fans are the life blood as you keep mentioning then clue us in.

[Cherster Perry 1977 18]

Got as far as Giggles Chris Graham | Contributor. A boring little man to be honest.

What is your stance on the change in NOMAD?

[clan macrae 292]

By Chris Graham | Contributor

Much of the focus in the past two days has rightly been on the release of the audited accounts for Rangers. There is much analysis still to be done on these and they arguably raised more questions than answers but I will leave the detailed analysis to those better qualified than myself to speak on such matters.

However the old adage about certain days being good ones to release bad news was taken to new levels by this current board on 1st October 2013. Not only did they pick the day that Celtic played Barcelona to ensure that scrutiny of their various releases to the London Stock Exchange (LSE) would be minimised, but they also clearly knew the accounts would be the main topic of conversation.

Now the accounts were woeful. Let’s not beat around the bush. Mather and Stockbridge can try, and have tried, to put a brave face on it all but only an idiot would accept that the club has been run well over the last 12 months. Huge director salaries and bonuses, IPO costs around 25% when the standard is around 5%, non-playing staff costs dwarfing those of the playing staff (a unique proposition for football clubs) and the IPO money gone in less than the space of year. The spin that our two esteemed executive directors have tried to place on these matters over the past two days has been bizarre to watch, but that is for another article.

There were no less than four releases to the LSE by Rangers on the 1st October. One was the aforementioned annual results and notice of the AGM to be held on the 24th October at Ibrox. A small side point here – if you are a shareholder make sure you attend and vote in this AGM. If you can’t attend then make sure you find a way to proxy your vote to either a group like the RST or a friend who can attend for you. If you bought your shares from a broker (after the IPO) then make sure you contact them and inform them of your wish to attend the AGM and vote – they should be able to advise you what you have to do.

The second notice was about Charles Green finally disposing of shares beneath the notifiable level of 3%. Many pronouncements have been made over the past few months by both Green and the Easdales about the disposal and purchase of these shares but most of them have failed to materialise on the LSE website. Despite the best efforts of their media and blogging mouthpieces, the levels of shareholdings announced via those mediums still do not tally with the situation as announced to the LSE. It now at least appears that some of Green’s shares have indeed been sold, breaking the lock in agreement with Cenkos, although Green’s assertion that he no longer has any financial interest in Rangers is difficult to verify. I certainly won’t be taking his word for it.

The third and fourth notices are probably of the most concern though and were clearly released in the hope that they would be swamped by the news of the accounts and the incredibly #brave actions of our chums from the East End in another Champions League defeat. To some extent this has worked.

First of all it was announced that we have parted company with our second nominated advisor (NOMAD) in the past year. Strand Hanson took over from Cenkos and are the advisers who were used to block the suggested compromise deal to add Sandy Easdale, Paul Murray, Frank Blin and John McClelland to the board. It would appear things have become too hot for them and they have now been replaced by Daniel Stewart who previously acted as brokers for Rangers.

A number of things are concerning about this: Firstly, the fact that we are now on our third NOMAD in just under a year is virtually unheard of. Cenkos are generally regarded as a top notch NOMAD in the City of London and the circumstances of their departure are still unexplained. Strand Hanson, without being unkind to them, were a step down at least in terms of reputation. Daniel Stewart are a further notch, or several, below that. By their own admission they are incapable of representing a company the size of Rangers. But what is particularly concerning is that Daniel Stewart have clear connections with Charles Green having previously worked with him at Nova Resources.

Daniel Stewart is also the firm which Green famously told Jim McColl to deposit £14 million with in order for him to walk away from Rangers. Why are we appointing a lesser known NOMAD with links to Charles Green on the day that Green’s shareholding drops below the 3% mark? Why can we not hold onto a NOMAD for longer than a few months?

The above is bad enough but the most concerning notice has been left for last. Behind curtain number four is reference to Section S338 of the Companies Act but, in layman’s terms, this board are attempting to block the nomination of other directors at the AGM. In effect this means that instead of the shareholders attending being allowed to have a democratic vote on both the current and proposed directors, the board would prefer it if nobody opposed them.

Now I can understand this. Their performance, in my opinion, has been a shambles both in terms of their financial guidance of Rangers and also their general representation of the club in public and private. If I were them then I wouldn’t want an open and democratic vote on my future either. However that is what the fans want and it is what the shareholders want. No matter what you think of Paul Murray and Jim McColl, you must be concerned that this board do not want to give shareholders the opportunity to vote for change.

I bought shares partly to have a say in such matters but mainly to help my football club to rebuild itself after financial Armageddon. I didn’t expect to make money from the shares I purchased. I’ve watched the money that myself and others put up, in my opinion, squandered on ridiculous executive salaries and bonuses. I’ve seen what I consider to be poor commercial performance and I’ve seen executives make some bizarre and indefensible statements which are unworthy of my football club. I’d like the opportunity to attend an AGM and, along with other fan and institutional shareholders, decide whether these people should be allowed to continue or whether those nominated by the institutional investors should be brought in instead. This board are attempting to deny me that right in what I consider to be a desperate stunt.

Their assertion that the documentation has already been sent to the printers is one of the most pathetic excuses I have ever heard of to stop what amounts to an election. The requisitioning shareholders have already offered to pay any additional printing and postage costs. Why are this board so determined to stop anyone from outside their little clique being brought onto the board? Why won’t they allow a democratic shareholder vote on the direction our football club takes? They will happily use mouthpieces like Bill McMurdo to tell us that they will win any vote easily so why try to stop that vote with these pathetic excuses?

The financial figures are atrocious. Many questions remain about exactly where large amounts of money have gone. The level of IPO fees alone is cause for concern and there is no clarity in the accounts on why those costs are so high. The Pinsent Masons report remains unpublished and will stay as a document seen only by the board. We still have no clarity on the beneficial shareholders behind Blue Pitch and Margarita. We still have minimal clarity on exactly what Charles Green’s shareholding situation is. We can’t hold on to a NOMAD for more than a few months. We can’t see the board’s five-year plan despite their calls for the nominees to produce theirs.

Both the fans and the shareholders deserve a say in the future of this board. They are trying to deny that say to shareholders at the upcoming AGM and to fans in the stands by demonising them for protesting. If alarm bells are still not ringing for a few in our support then they best wake up soon.

Ed disnae like this.

[kellydown 5]

I, like a good many supporters also bought shares, and ALL other arguments aside , am disgusted that the board would deny me a chance to vote on their performance.

A disgrace.

This fact alone should unite us to demand answers on all fronts from the board.

[cerberusandorthus 184]

Keep trying Chris - even a blind chicken will find a worm eventually

[dunipace 9]

Chris,give it a rest my eyes are sore reading all this dross, their my shares and you will NOT influence me on how i vote, unless(you can get me a blazer) lets get back to speaking about football we're lucky to have a club to support.

[Redsox1 1,361]

Time to lock this thread !

[CaptainofIndustry 921]

I agree mate. Its bad enough if anyone socialises with them but to marry one

You, sir, are a bad man!

[Young Bob 1,360]

You, sir, are a bad man!

Only stating how it is and how I see it Im certainly not one of those oft mentioned "handwringer" types that you find on FF.

[Cherster Perry 1977 18]

Only stating how it is and how I see it Im certainly not one of those oft mentioned "handwringer" types that you find on FF.

Impressive.

[Young Bob 1,360]

Impressive.

At least we agree on some things.