Charles Green tells Alison Campsie about his return to Rangers and his plans for the club.
"Walter Smith came and saw me in the first week in April and said: 'Charles, I am going to resign.' He said: 'I don't really understand the plc and I also don't like the way you do things.' He was very open and I appreciated that.
He said: 'You are like a bull at a gate, you are too direct.' This is at a time Ally and I were crossing swords. Obviously Walter's loyalty will always be towards Alistair and that is understandable.
I think what accelerated his decision was the proposal that came in from Malcolm Murray's group to requisition this Emergency General Meeting (EGM). Walter, being the honourable man that he is, was conflicted. He was part of the Blue Knights consortium last year and these are the same group of people with a few more bolted on. As chairman of Rangers his duties would have been to defend the club against the EGM. It would have been difficult to do it with the people he was working with last year.
My fear for Rangers fans is that we're going to see a repeat of what we have seen over the past 18 months.
The Blue Knights was going to buy the club from Duff and Phelps and did nothing. After my consortium acquired the club they came along to buy us out. Jim McColl was in those discussions and nothing happened. Here we are a year later with the same members.
Paul Murray has been bouncing around for a long time. I know I am not liked by Rangers fans but even those ones who don't like Charles Green don't want Paul Murray.
Paul Murray was on the board of Rangers when David Murray sold it to Craig Whyte for a £1. Paul Murray could then have bought it for £2 and did nothing. These are people now who come out and want to do it better.
Walter Smith's comments [about the board being dysfunctional] have got me off my fat backside in France to come back and get some sense into the situation.
You can't have this instability in the club, driven by people who are not looking at what is best for Rangers but what is best for them.
I left in April to allow the club to move forward. It wasn't the best thing for me but I left because I believed then that the club could go forward. It hasn't - it has gone backwards.
What I am saying to Jim McColl is: 'Look, you are the world's richest Scotsman, you are a billionaire. You have got until Friday to put £14 million into Daniel Stewart's client account and me and my consortium will sell you 20 million shares at the same price that all the Rangers fans bought in the IPO and you will have 28% of this club. Then I know you and your consortium are serious about what you want to do and if you are not going to do it by Friday just shut up and let the club move on.' What I am not prepared to do is watch people drive the share price down and destroy its value to pick up a club for their own vanity.'
Walter says it was a dysfunctional board. It was not dysfunctional when I was there because I made the decisions and it was very, very clear.
When I was there I was slightly to the right of Genghis Khan and rightly or wrongly democracies don't work around a football boardroom table.
What we have to do is put a new board together at Rangers because most of them have gone and what we have to do is put strong people in there, people with PLC experience.
[On the row which saw Ally McCoist call Green a devious man] I am a devious man and that is the nicest thing Ally has ever said about me. Ally is a fantastic guy, he had a terrible time last year.
This year is completely different. He has had time to get his act together and therefore just winning the league - and remember this is the second highest wage bill in Scottish football
- is not enough.
[On whether McCoist should go in the best interests of the club] I think Ally knows the answer to that. I would like him to stay at the club because I think it gives stability but what we have to do is we all have to perform and we all have to deliver. If people get upset when someone gives them a target then I think we all have to sit down and think again."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article