UCF2008

The fans need to stand up and be counted. A clear message needs to be sent to the board and if need be the investors that the lifeblood of the club won't continue to flow if changes aren't made.

And what about electricity, maintenance, Auchenhowie running costs, non playing staff costs and all the other overheads? They may well exceed the playing staff wage bill, most likely actually. Our club is a huge company and business with a very limited turnover for now.

A company in the business of providing a successful football team first and foremost. If other costs are the issue then they're the one's which should be cut.

I wouldn't call around £10m a small fraction. The targets for the last 2 years could have been met with a budget a tiny fraction of that.

It's a good bit less than our turnover so where's the IPO money gone?

We might end up back in admin but only because Ally needed so much money spent on his team to compete with part time managers and teams. Shall we just shout sack the board because they backed our manager?

 

Anyway, did Bomber actually mention the deeds again?

Team wages including coaching staff only cover a small fraction of the money that's apparently disappeared from the club. Hopefully the accounts can properly explain it, but I have my doubts on that.

I started one last year...maybe someone can start another

Aye, if you don't count all your 'worst result ever?' threads

The resolution calls for the removal of 3 directors to be replaced by 2. I don't see how that can be adding to the pot.

Now that Walters stepped down, we'll need a new chairman. Who's in line for that?

This is a simple problem of partly our own making.

What did a lot of us want after Whyte? A shareholding spread over many people (preferably fans) and not a dictator.

What did we get? A shareholding spread over many people (businessmen not fans) with no actual dictator but one who likes to act like one.

 

The problem could have been avoided if Jim McColl had stood up to be counted when D&P were touting us to everyone that had a American Express gold card.

For reasons known only to himself, Mr McColl chose not to get involved when he could have secured ownership of our great club for a song.

 

Walter and Jim McColl chose not to. You have to ask yourself why?

Green, as much as he has caused disruption, which I agree he has, has also tried to defend our club more than any of our previous custodians have ever done since the days of Struth and Waddell, and whether that was to protect his own interests, it was still a very refreshing change to what we have gone through for the last 30 odd years.

 

If Jim McColl now wants to take control of our club then he better start speaking to the fans and reassuring us that his way will be better and not just be another mess of "investors" that want to take from "The Rangers" rather than give their all for us.

He must also reassure us that he will defend us from our enemies and not fall back into the "dignified silence" of yesteryear.

 

If there is one thing we all agree on, here and all other Rangers forums, no matter who owns us we all want the best for our club, and if Jim McColl and Walter can give us those assurances then I will support them in any way that I can.

I think part of the problem was and still is that McColl doesn't want control of Rangers. Same as the rest of us he wants those who are in control to be looking after the club.

exactly my point. As chairman, he would have had to be neutral. After resigning, he can speak openly.

He can do, but beyond what's in his statement I don't expect to hear much more from him. Mathers earlier statement seemed to show some concern that Walter might spill the beans on exactly what's been going on at the club. We've come to expect that sort of behavior from some, but for Walter it's a case of doing what's best for the club. Which is why he hasn't aired our dirty laundry in public with this statement.

I have a gut feeling that this thing has hours, or a day or so at most, to go before it is resolved.

 

Smith's role was as a 'caretaker' chairman who was there as a symbolic figure.

Now, his stepping aside is an acknowledgement that he can no longer perform any meaningful function as chairman, which is in itself an indication that the real fight is about to take place and as chairman he would have to be neutral.

 

If I was a betting man, I'd lay a hefty wager of Green being ousted for good and a 'Rangers minded' board being in place sooner rather than later.

If that's the case I doubt very much that Walter would have been neutral. His statement certainly doesn't seem very neutral to me.

This seems ambiguous at best. He is urging the Directors to avoid a meeting? And at the same time urging fans to get behind the resolutions?

 

Who wrote this, Traynor?

What's so difficult for you to understand? If you don't get it, I do worry about the wider support trying to figure this out.

He's wanting the board to accept the resolutions and for the fans to apply pressure on them to do so.

I never said I thought there was anything wrong with it. It's clear some were anticipating more.

Including the CEO apparently

Isn't that contradictory, don't the resolutions call for the removal of CM among others?

As a director. Not necessarily as CEO though.

Maybe you should wake up and look at an experienced post war Forfar side?

 

It's ridiculous you should make comparisons like that...we are Rangers they are Forfar

I didn't make any comparison as far as I can see.

To get back on track...

I'm extremely disappointed and concerned to see Walter stepping down. I also find some of the comments in Mathers statement worrying. What truth could Walter tell which could harm the club?

If there is a bright side it's that hopefully a takeover is imminent and Walter's just making way to avoid a conflict of interests. Anything else is very frightening indeed.

Yes but 3 Scottish Internationalists with a total of 1100+ appearances to guide them.

yes, those 3 do skew the average experience figure somewhat don't they?

Our team was not young on Saturday.

Player Age Apps

Gallacher 24 37

Hegarty 20 28

McCulloch 35 601

Faure 22 21

Wallace 26 234

Black 28 285

Mitchell 21 10

Crawford 20 24

Macleod 19 28

Templeton 24 174

Little. 24 69

SUBS:

A Smith 20 0

Aird 18 21

McAusland 20 26

Gasparotto 17 2

McKay 18 42

Average 22 100

As you can see this gives us a squad average age of 22 and career first team competitive appearances of 100. I stand by what I said before, but maybe you'd like to find me a less experienced post war Rangers side

Clear enough to me that it will have been a number of issues that provoked this action.

 

I'd say McCoist's position would be the least important.

If we had a trustworthy board in place I might agree with you. Sadly we don't

I've already responded to this quote mate, but I'd like to add McCoist having a go at last years team is just not on, can you imagine the great managers of the past doing that?

 

McCoist hasn't just 'lost' the players he's belittled - he's lost the respect of fellow professionals too, time to go Ally

McCoist's comments were spot on. He highlighted the need for experienced players to come in and help some of the younger lads out. They may or may not be the worst Rangers team ever but the squad Ally had at his disposal for Saturdays game was arguably the most inexperienced ever.

Yes, both gave public interviews, what part of that are you struggling to understand? Green shouldn't have spoken publicly about the side, he was playing to the gallery, as ever, and as ever some of the gallery like what they hear.

Greens press statements were as usual so calculated you'd think he and his 'paki friend' had been scouring internet forums to calculate exactly what the Greenco fans wanted to hear

They aren't due till next year i'm sure.

So we'd effectively be ineligible for European competition for a further 3 years including this season? Or would it be 4?

BTW folks, we should be in the clear that the sports media in Scotland, after we handed them the story of their lifes, pounce on ever uttering that echoes from Ibrox (which is sad enough) and will milk this all as long as they can squeeze a drop out of it. I for one will not believe a word that comes out of Scrote, even if he tells me that today is Monday. The rest of that horrible lot, as you can read above, followed suit. For all we know, much of that info comes from Scrote, probably via his suggested link to Easdale? Am I to expect that Smith talks to Easdale and all his other fellow directors (especially of the "opposite" faction) all the time and about him going to chuck it? Obviously, we all know that even the Green-faction will think twice ere sending Smith away or let him harbour thoughts of going. For it would be a massive PR disaster. That aid, even if that's the case, what would happen?

 

BTW, do we actually know how the requisition was tabled? By the sound of it, it looked rather agressively. If it was done that way, bad enough. You would have thought that these men talk to one another. If it was done after some talking took place, was it more the "opposition's bluster" that got all folk animated? Mather's outspoken statement was rather unexpected.

I have to be honest and say that I was more surprised by the reaction to Mathers comments than the comments themselves. I didn't agree with everything he said, but to me at least it made perfect sense why he made that statement. The requisition was afterall calling for the removal of himself and two of his fellow directors. Also I thought it wasn't too dissimilar to a few statements Green made last year shortly before and after taking on the role of CEO. One diference is that Mather didn't resort to riduculous stereotyping talking about Braveheart and Mel Gibson and the other is that at least those Mel Gibson types were offering to buy the club.

Why the disappointment? He's never accepted responsibility for his actions. It's always someone else's fault.

Obviously or else he wouldn't be trying to weasel his way back into power at the club. Unbelelievable. I'll tell you, if I was one of those fans who'd given Green my full support, I'd feel really let down by the way he's acted.

I feel sorry for them. I honestly do. There's still one or two nutters who think the sun shines out Greens rear end, but I think he's lost most of his support now.

[/sARCASM]

Great point. And TBH who didn't agree with Green's comments? The mistake was saying them publically. If Ally had said the same thing that we were going after the league and a cup then everyone would have said that's exactly what we should be going after.

Would we really? To me it wouldn't matter who at the club said it. It's arrogant, unsportsmanlike and unbefitting our club. I wouldn't even expect TLB to stoop so low as to start off a season by announcing to the press how they should be winning this and that competition.

Where does that leave Ally now that Walter apparently is opposing Mather.

Apparently according to reports today it could lead to Mather being removed as a director but kept on as CEO if the requisition is successful.

Yet Ally is still defending Green's apparent mate Mather?

It's all a little bit confusing tbh. Take Easedale for instance. You would have thought he'd been placed on the board by Greenco and he made his opposition to Malcolm Murray known as he and his brother were interviewed by scrote. Yet we then get a requisition for the removal of three directors from the anti-Greenco camp and Easedale isn't amongst them. What's going on there?