Why Rangers’ Board is not Rangers’ Problem

On Saturday the 26^th
of April, Rangers had their final home fixture of the season. It was the match
where Stage Two’s completion would be presented by way of a silver championship
trophy to Captain Lee McCulloch, something rounded off nicely by a convincing
3-0 win over visitors Stranraer.

Our guests also gave us the
respect of a fine guard of honour to greet the Champions, while their
supporters joined in on two minutes to applaud the late Sandy Jardine, for whom
an emotional powerful and impeccably observed minute’s silence had also taken
place prior to kick off, and we thank our visiting fans for their dignity.

Unfortunately, a day which should
have been of both celebration and mourning, on entirely football levels each,
was once again mildly upstaged by the sideshow of the board, and in particular,
supporters’ distaste for its members.

Even on such a potent and
powerful day for all that is good about the club, politics could not be put
aside for 90 minutes. “Sack the board” emanated from sections of supporters
throughout the match, and during what was supposed to be a moment of
celebration where the trophy was presented was embarrassingly upstaged when
fans booed the board when they were shown on screen.

This seems to prove,
categorically, that politics have become more important than football now,
because even on a day of this one’s gravity opinion about the boardroom was
apparently more important than honouring Sandy Jardine, and being presented
with a league title.

Even the day after Jardine’s passing,
the brief ceasefire drawn up at the breaking of the news had ended, and it was
immediately back to point scoring and boardroom warfare rather than continuing
to honour the great man.

Before I continue, I have been
accused of being pro-board. Anyone who knows me knows this is nonsense. I am
not pro-board. However, what I am is pro-reason and so many critiques of the
board are absolutely ridiculous, and borne out of football hate rather than
rational and objective criticisms of those who run the club.

They are far from perfect in
there, I do not disagree there. But it bewilders me when I see one set of rules
for them and another for…well…everyone else.

Let me provide you with my
logical and rational rebuttal for a great number of the criticisms the board
get, and why I feel the poison against them has abandoned all reason. If you
disagree, that is fine, I respect that. This is just my view.

Sandy Easdale is a crook, a spiv, and a gangster.

Ok, let us look at this. Yes, he
did spend some time inside for VAT fraud, no condoning that. But he has served
his time, carried out his residency at Her Majesty’s Pleasure and has not done
anything illegal since. Meanwhile, Dave King is lauded by many as the Messiah
yet his tax evasion case has been dismissed completely, despite the fact it is
on record as the biggest tax case in South African history. Oscar Pistorious’
lawyer, Barry Roux, managed to get it settled out of court and King stumped up
700M RSA compared with the requested 2.8B RSA. So, some Rangers fans want this
man in control of their club, a man who I have on authority lied about the £18M
story being false. But they do not want Easdale.

As for spiv, does anyone actually
know what that word means? To define spiv exactly means someone who wears the
suit but is not worthy of it. Who contributes nothing to the organisation and
is just a charlatan. Well, Easdale is a huge shareholder, and has invested
somewhere around £1.5M+ in Rangers. Yet, somehow being a major shareholder is
not enough. Well, not if you are called Sandy Easdale. Mike Ashley has around the
same level of shareholding as Easdale yet is never mentioned in any negative
light at all. The argument there would be that he is not on the board. Well,
guess what, neither is Sandy Easdale.

Let us be honest, Rangers
supporters just do not like the Easdales, and no matter what money they bring
to the club they will never be accepted. That is supporters’ right and they are
entitled to it, but it adds a further problem.

This board are liars, cheats, thieves, and a disgrace to the club.

Ok, I am not going to deny
Wallace has told a porkie or two. I will not deny that for one second.
Personally I feel some of his dishonesties have come from an altruistic basis, with
supporters suffering enough over the past two years. The desire not to spread
panic and alarm is one of his job descriptions. Others do not share my view on
that and I respect that. However, SDM told more than a few porkies in his time
too but it was not until 9IAR was over (and the DA era to an extent) and things
started to slide a little on the pitch that these ‘lies’ and ‘porkies’ became a
problem. Success on the pitch meant these things did not apparently matter. But
lack of it meant they did. As they do now by this board.

But then the problem then lies in
the inalienable truth that ‘this board’ has undergone more changes than
Roseanne Barr in the past two years. So which board is it exactly that many
supporters hate?

Wallace and Easdale are the new ‘bad guys’.

Which brings me to the above. Two
years ago the board was Charles Green, Malcolm Murray, Ian Hart, Phil Cartmell,
Brian Stockbridge and Bryan Smart. Now it is Graham Wallace, David Somers,
James Easdale and Norman Crighton. Yet the current incumbents are just as
loathed and despised as the first post-admin board ended up being. It started
out as Charles Green being the bad guy, once he was gone Stockbridge became the
big enemy. When he left it was Jack Irvine and Media House regarded as the poison of the club, then Wallace ended that partnership. So then Easdale started to occupy that dubious slot,
and when Wallace himself was originally appointed I tweeted it was only a matter of time before he
too was a spiv. And here we are, with Easdale becoming public enemy number one
Wallace is slowly joining him.

Requistioners wanted Wallace.

Which brings me deliciously to
this one. The four requisitioners, that is, Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Alex
Wilson and Scott Murdoch themselves wanted
Graham Wallace as CEO! Paul Murray is on record as thoroughly endorsing
Wallace’s credentials:

So, the man who lost to Wallace
among others on the board fully endorses
his character and professional competence. Let us not forget Wallace presided
over Man City’s title-winning season. The man is not a crook. His CV is pretty
impressive, yet Dave King, the man who backed Murray, slanders him at every given chance
and is trying to crush the club’s coffers with this absolutely ludicrous season
ticket scheme. A scheme, thankfully, which is not getting a huge amount of
support. Anyone else see the ridiculous hypocrisy here?

In short, Wallace is now a spiv,
liar and crook, despite having the
endorsement of the man who many fans wanted in power. So, which is it?

How can the board possibly accept bonuses?

Thorny topic this for
cash-stricken Rangers. How can a Rangers board possibly justify giving
themselves thousands of pounds in bonuses? That is the question the Rangers fan
asks his or herself. First off, while Wallace did not explicitly deny the board
will get bonuses, he also did not confirm they would either. This is a tabloid
case of ‘assume the worst and get website hits and newspaper sales’.

The second, and more curious
aspect is the board would not be the only employees to get bonuses. The players
(and coaching staff) get win bonuses every match! In Lee McCulloch’s
autobiography he states a figure of around £400,000 was owed to the squad by
Craig Whyte for the 2010/2011 title win. So around 30 players would get about
£13,000 each. While the numbers are not as high now, players still get win
bonuses per match and another for winning the league.

So, it is ok for underperforming
players to get thousands in win bonuses but not the board, despite it being a
fairly standard law in corporate governance?

For me no one should get bonuses
while the club cannot afford it, and that includes players. But, and here is
the brutal sad truth – every player, member of coaching staff and board member
has a contract entitling them to that bonus. It is standard football practise.
But thanks to politics and Rangers’ situation it is the board who get blamed
for everything.

We want Dave King.

Or Paul Murray. Or no one. It
seems that anyone who is not Dave King or associated with the requisition group
is a spiv, a crook, a charlatan and unacceptable to the club. The only guy who
is not associated with this lot who would be accepted is Walter Smith, and he
tried once and is not going to try again. His strength is beside the pitch, not
in the boardroom.

So…there you have it. The
mangled, rambled mess of a situation we have at this club. The funny thing is
no other football institution goes through this level of excruciating scrutiny,
where every penny has to be accounted for otherwise someone is a crook, or
faceless ‘evil’ is pulling the strings.

But…at least we won the league!