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