Do Rangers Shareholders Want Paul Murray?


So, it is official. The AGM
Rangers fans have been waiting for will take place on the 19th of December,
2013. The chance for shareholders to finally, democratically vote either in
favour of the Requisitioner group led by Paul Murray, or to remain with the current
Murray and his associates need a
51% majority to claim control of Ibrox, and after the current/previous board
vetoed the vote at the now-postponed October 24th AGM Murray, as we know, won a
court case at the Court of Session to have it scrapped and replaced with the
Christmas AGM which will contain the vote. This will see that the process of
democracy can take place and those shareholders shall get their say.
But what is their say? Do Rangers shareholders actually want Paul Murray and his namesake Malcolm in charge of their club?
To try to get some kind of
qualitative answer to this I polled Twitter. Rather than just accumulating
stats with a quantitative poll I wanted open-ended answers containing opinions
as opposed to just a yes/no answer. I also asked, if willing to divulge, for
share numbers.
The results were very intriguing;
53% (just 2% clear of the
required number) of the responses favoured Paul Murray. Some of the responses
were particularly interesting;
@Chr1sMcLaughlin wrote:
            “200 shares. Even though I don’t like
Paul Murray, I’m voting for Murray/mccall group.”
@LawTRICIA wrote:
            “Yes I do. I want the money grabbers
out as we will struggle to survive the way things are!”
            “yup, own them through the RST and will
be proxying vote to them for the requisitioners. Current board have to go and
we move on”
There were a number of other
replies in favour of Murray’s
group, but, as mentioned, a further 47% who fell into the other groups;
Undecided‘, and ‘existing
A selection from the ‘undecided’
            “not many..few hundred…can’t answer
as not been given options yet. Will hav2 decide when we get sent paperwork
            “yes.Just dont like the idea of blindly
saying these people bad.Us good, but giving us no real details in how they
change things.”
            “714 shares. Will need to wait and see
proposals. Hopefully info to come from both sides prior to AGM.”
So there are plenty of ‘floating
voters’ Murray or the existing board need to convince.
Lastly is the support for the
existing board (Voter remaining anonymous and also speaking on behalf of one
other voter).
            “Yeah both share holders I think we’l
vote Easedales I do believe they have rangers at heart
Paul Murray does appear, for now,
to have the borderline majority he needs, but as we know opinion polls do not
always, and indeed often do not reflect the actual vote cast.
Furthermore 2% really is not a
convincing majority at all – it would only take a few votes to turn that
December’s AGM promises to be
truly fascinating and a potential end to these board wars which have dominated
the front pages for far, far too long.

No posts to display


  1. They did not 'veto' the requesitioners proposed resolutions, they ignored them – a criminal act. This rendered the AGM open to postponement by the Court of Session.

Comments are closed.