The Double Whammy

Today the Nominee Directors have stepped up their communication with the support through interviews with blogger Chris Graham, of the CRo and TRS websites.

While there are lots of similarities between the interviews, it has to be seen as a step change that both Wilson and Murdoch are stepping out of the shadows and a number of secret meetings with a small number of supporters, and answering questions publicly.

What is a tad unfortunate is the stage managed propaganda evident from both interviews and the distinct lack of detail from either nominee.

Murdoch’s interview is very negative indeed, and the subject matter is most definitely everyone else associated to Rangers apart from him. Now that could be down to Graham, or some CRo editing, but there is absolutely nothing in terms of substance as to what he feels he personally can bring to the board, or what the plans of the nominees are to stabilise financial performance of the PLC business that runs Rangers.

Instead, what we see is oft repeated negative accusations about Brian Stockbridge and Jack Irvine.

My issue with this is that I already distrust these two and wish them out. What I am now looking for is the nominees to give it a rest on telling us what we already know, and start telling us in detail how they will recover the business

Wilson’s interview is marginally better than Murdoch’s, with an interesting question that graham asks him (but not Murdoch)

Assuming you are successful in being appointed to the board, is there more you can say on specific plans for funding or how the club would be run? Is it possible to be more specific?

AW - We know how we want to operate but what we find when we get in there is impossible to say. When we lift the lid on it we have no idea what is going to come out. What worries us is that there is a cash outflow which has not been explained, so we need to look at what we have and then start to address it urgently. We can't say specifically who will invest. We have 3-4 people who are wealthy individuals who have approached us and said they will put money into the club if the board is trustworthy and clean. We've also had some of the institutions, who we can't name for reasons of confidentiality; tell us they will put more money in. We just can't put names into the public domain at this time as frustrating as that might be for people



Of course it’s a bit vague and unclear, given that we know that the nominees have been receiving detailed information on various transactions and contracts that Rangers have placed.
What that means is that either there is no business plan to recover the RIFC company, or that the nominees don’t wish to share their plans

The simplistic view is that, after excluding the “one off costs” published in the accounts, that RIFC are still trading at a loss.
Therefor there are limited options outside of fundraising to address that ongoing deficit.

These limited options are to either increase revenue, decrease expenditure, or both.

Without specific reference to these limited options , and how this would be tackled, it is difficult to get any confidence that the nominees would be able to make RIFC a break even business without investment or share issues.

I sincerely hope that the nominees will soon start to move their focus from voting off the current board to voting the nominees on.

For me that is what is required for any lingering doubters in the fan base to make their minds up

Bill

Smoke and Mirrors

As the Nominee directors posed for a photo shoot to sign a “Rangers Constitution” piece of propaganda yesterday it all seemed a little contrived, and desperate.

It’s worth recalling just what these pledges these nominated Directors make in detail

“1. We will never sell Ibrox Stadium. We will ring fence the asset to ensure this can never happen. This is our home and will always remain our home.”

This is a pledge we should all welcome, and pressure should be put on the current board to make a similar promise in print.

2. We are committed to fan representation on the board.

One can only hope that this process is fair and democratic and the whole Rangers support can openly vote for candidates. One also hopes that any Rangers supporter lucky enough to be elected is genuinely objective and inclusive.

3. No director including his/her family members
or close business associates should have
any financial interest in any contract involving
the club.

This should be a given

4. We will undertake to ensure that all executive director salaries and bonuses are approved by a Remuneration Committee and subject to market benchmarking.

This should also be a given

5. We will undertake to ensure that all shareholders are treated equally.

At this point it just looks like they are trying to pad out this “constitution” as it would look far too light with 5 points on it. What exactly do they mean here? Do they seriously wish us to believe that Joe Bloggs with one share will be treated the same as Jimmy Smith with 2M shares? Really? How?

6. We will undertake to ensure that there is total transparency in all the club’s affairs.

This seems like a very vague statement that cannot be quantified. Rangers are a PLC company who have to adhere to strict LSE Guidelines. How the requisitioners intend to fulfil that promise without breaching these guidelines should be explained in laymans language. Of course this should be in the interests of transparency

7. There will be no long term debt.

While all Rangers fans would agree that the club should never be exposed by its corporate shell’s banking activities, it would be silly to dismiss any opportunity to utilise any debt facility. This statement raises more questions than answers.

It assumes that the club will have to be operated at break even level immediately.

Therefor, given that the club is operating at a loss at the moment, even discounting the IPO transactions, what business plan do the nominees have to increase revenue and decrease expenditure in order to achieve that break even position?

While this “constitution” is largely a vision based series of pledges, what would be far more effective in convincing shareholders to vote them on to the board would be some tangible plans for how to firstly return the club to a sound financial footing, and how to build on that footing to grow the club.

Without such a solid plan, how can anyone have any confidence that there is any substance behind such vague statements?

8. All non executive directors fees are to be waived unless the club is in Europe.

What exactly do they mean by fees? Bonuses? Surely bonuses should be decided on appropriate performance targets? Some Rangers fans would question whether bonuses should ever be appropriate. I’d be wary that such a statement doesn’t stop the gravy train rolling in to the station when Rangers return to Europe at the precise time the team will need more investment.

What I would ask these nominees to do is cut the crap and start telling us how they will save the club.

They could start by telling fans’ groups intent on starving the club of its primary source of income that boycotting Rangers is counter-productive and will only damage the club.

I won’t hold my breath on any of the above happening.

Bill.