Big Spliff

Guys, anybody got any info in the commercials relating to Azure deal with Rangers? Length of contract?

Or good estimates would be helpful too!

Rangers staff always seem to talk up their opponents. One of the players said the other day that DUFC would be MORE dangerous and MORE up for today after geting beat at Hampden. Whit?

M'on the Gers.

I don't know where this stands in the pecking order but I got offered hospitality for the cup final today!

I don;t want to appear ungrateful but I would rather be in the Rangers End giving it Follow Follow and Derry's Walls if I'm honest!!!

I'm reading this wondering what aspect of that scumfest website your username is trying to advertise on here. Of course, you would know only too well that my description is entirely accurate, being a sellick man yourself. The local admin will make their own mind up about the value of sellick-minded famine-dodgers plying their trade on gersnet but perhaps it would do no harm to make sure our other members are aware just how anti-Rangers your Scotzine site has been and continues to be.

 

It's not my website but for my money, mate, I wouldn't tolerate any association with Scotzine. If you choose to routinely ridicule and disparage Rangers and its fans then I suggest you have no place here - certainly not to overtly advertise that website. Back under the stone for you, I at least offer no welcome.

maineflyer, get aff the fence mate

Ticks all the boxes for me, that does. Interesting mutterings from inside Murray's group too.

No more Moet on the Mound I think it was I wrote a couple of weeks ago.

Yeah I take the point guys - I was maybe getting a bit muddled between big-picture visions and little details which affect the big picture. Maybe I also under-estimate the number of people affected by OTT stewarding - I read about it on forums but I just dont see any issues in GF4 and never really have - I suppose that influenced me earlier. Banners I completely agree with, Dublin Loyal, offended bus etc, the club's handling of these is totally unneccessary.

Note made to self.

superb mate, nothing like getting something for nothing!

Enjoy!

I buy FF and No1, I think they're both worth buying.

The matchday programme I never touch (its just a big Rangers News imo) and the Historian I've never even tried.

As far as I can tell, attendances have stayed pretty much the same so revenue there can't have declined much and it's already "copper bottomed" by record season ticket sales.

 

Advertising and TV money were already negotiated and fixed before the credit crunch and we have a guaranteed income from merchandising sales.

 

The biggest costs are players wages and they will not have increased since the start of the season and should actually be less than budgeted for due to no European football and less win bonuses than we need to win the league.

 

Cost of sales for food may have increased but that will have minimal impact on us as we get paid about 1M a year for the catering.

 

The only increase in costs I can see is the gas and electricity bills as well as the current "climate" ie a harsh winter meaning we're probably using the under soil heating more often. However the latter should be balanced by not having to replace the pitch twice a season this year.

 

However the cut in interest rates should mean we save quite a bit on our overdraft and bank loans which should more than balance out any increase in fuel bills.

 

Other than that, I can't think of any other reasons for a big drop in revenue or a big hike in costs.

 

Even many of the fans won't be feeling the pinch too much this year due to not forking out for CL and UEFA tickets as well as a few hundred quid on the final, not to mention the cut in interest rates and VAT.

 

So for the moment, I can't see any financial crisis looming except circumstances directly caused by the board of RFC...

Good contribution mate.

I'd assumed the financial crisis reference was directly related to the bank's (possibly new) insistance that we work within our revolving �£15m credit facility which is reviewed anually in November, regardless of whether the need for more is due to a short-term liquidity problem or not?

Gordon is exactly the kind of person who could be a figure-head. Obviously his current job may rule him out currently but I'd wager he'd be interested.

Yep, and he had a previous association with the Trust I believe.

I live along the road from his work, so feel free to let him know he's welcome round for tea and biscuits

Funnily enough all the names you mention are ones that I'd immediately consider as people who could personalise the issue.

 

Yep - I might like them, you might not. Personalising could be positive or negative - again it depends on the characters involved. If Gordon Smith stepped forward, I'd take a punt that >90% of the support would be warm to him.

People who are willing to invest �£5m or more would generally be successful businessmen, and have a heathy ego in respect of their own bsiness skills. Would they be willing to only have a sixth of the vote when they are used to getting their own way 100% of the time?

 

Likewise can you see the other 5 willing to allow one to become Chairman (a highly prestigous and visible position) when they have to take more of a back seat?

 

It's this area that I see the major downfall to the plan and would be interested in your thoughts as to how this would be overcome, Spliff.

 

 

Overall, a very well put together and thought-provoking article.

TBH Dell, I think you are right, this could be a potential issue. The concept relies on the fact that the top team are like-minded in the first place. Maybe that offsets the concern at least a bit.

Some of my unused words did actually discuss this issue - here's what I'd written.

......there needs to be personal motivation ââ?¬â?? something which ââ?¬Ë?turns the big investor onââ?¬â?¢. In my experience, people who are prepared to have a public persona which is associated with their wealth, either; relish it, adapt naturally, or tend to have as low a profile as possible. We donââ?¬â?¢t need one particular type or another in my opinion. A Sir Tom Hunter figure would most likely enjoy quiet reflective satisfaction, whereas a Gordon Ramsay figure might never be off the telly "fucking chatting about it". Either is fine, as long as the investor gets something back which suits them. It takes all sorts remember - not everyone has (or likes) the bluster of a Sir David Murray type. You donââ?¬â?¢t see Dermot Desmond on the TV much do you?

This might be an idealised fantasy- it would depend on who the characters were I suppose.

I don't understand the SS situation. I suppose the only way for anybody to judge his fitness is for him to be out there and playing, so this should clarify things if he gets a regular game (or not).

Hope he does well and comes back to Rangers the player he once looked like he was.

The "who" question is obviously tricky. As soon as you start to pitch in names then personal preconceptions surface and we could end up in a debate over whether we'd be happy for Gordon Ramsay to have a 5% stake in Rangers when he says "fuck" 27 times every hour and apparently can't keep his cock in his pants.

I firmly believe that we do not need to wait the lifetimes required for the RST to build enough Gersave members and that - just as Celtic fans did - Rangers fans across the world will dig deep if asked when a new dawn emerges.

I would love to see a Richard Gough or a Gordon Smith figure step forward with support from a handful of financiers and a sound, plausible, visionary strategic plan. If that were to happen I really do believe the fans would do the rest. It's really not as implausible as it might first appear.

SDM moves in bizarre zig-zag patterns does he not?

First he says it would have been "bad" had Boyd not been sold. Now he's says if nobody goes then nobody goes.

He embarrasses the club by announcing a serious liquidity issue then notices that you get bids for players you dont want to leave by announcing that everyone's for sale. The CEO gets into a ridiculous slagging match with Willie McLies over the touting of players then he slags the supporters off for scoring media OG's.

My question remains; what has changed financially since the start of the month and wtf is he going to do behind the scenes to avert the "badness"? He talks long-term, but acts short-term and I don't like the smell of it one bit.

I noticed that FF were the only site to remove any reference to VB. What is the problem there?

Personal issues. Shame.

Interesting.

It depends on what the 10 years of "nothing" means. If it meant returning to our current level, then yes. If it meant becoming a Hearts, I'd say no.

Hurts my head.

Sweet baby Jesus and the orphans.... where have you lot come from???

 

And if I can ask a favour of Mr Conn.... please wear the pork chop sideys when you come on... it just doesn't seem right without them... :fish:

I remember when going to the pictures involved a certain goal being scored in a Rangers/Celtic game every time during the pre-film trailors. Brilliant to hear cheers in the pictures

Welcome mate and welcome again to all the new folk!

I think we'll keep getting new people over the next few weeks.

It's certainly a well written peice and I agree with its core sentiments, i.e change is necessary, however, as is always my gripe with such peices, it offers no solutions except perhaps a hint that we sholud be staging walkouts in the near future. At least this peice admits as such and asks for ideas.

 

Frankie makes the crucial point above: we have no Fergus Mcann waiting in the wings. Murray has stated he wants out til he is blue in the face which makes protests aimed at bringing an end to his tenure futile and possibly even harmful. The fan ownership model has been suggested but would be almost impossible to organise/mobilise given the apathy of most fans nowadays. This brings us back to the "Knight in Shining Armour" new investors who Murray would welcome! As soon as they materialise SDM will be off. I could understand a walkout if Murray was resisting overtures from an attractive buyer, but the fact is there is noone out there.

 

I won't be walking out anytime soon.

Hi mate - thanks for your input. The article itself is more of a context-setter. An attempt to state the case that change is necessary for the good of the club, not for the good of Sir David Murray. It's objectives are two-fold;

To underline to those who already believe that there is a sound basis for arguing the Sir David is no longer doing the club any good. And to frame this in a sensible manner.

And (perhaps more importantly) to engage with the very large group of supporters who are passive or not convinced that there are sound, logical, empirical arguments which are not steeped in the raw emotions of personalisation or the highs and lows of the next 90 minutes.

If it makes even one person see things from this perspective, or if it sparks further constructive debate then it was worth writing it.

This seems to have been picked up on FF today and there's been quite a bit of interesting discussion, including "Gersnet calls for protest". I'm not sure how I feel about certain aspects of the discussion, although I'm pleased that it's happening.

Britney just been on Catolica, quoting Lawwell as having a "siesmic new strategy" relating to identifying & signing the best young talent rather than shopping in the �£4m+ / �£40k/week market.

Now I know they are strange creatures over in the East, but this is exactly what many Rangers fans have been discussing recently. Wonder who'll do it more effectively?

Did you use the side bar to go to sport>football>SPL>Rangers. I found it listed there.

gotcha, thanks

be interesting to see how this plays out - everybody has dodged responsibility for it so far. Well done VB's