TheWeissMan
-
Posts
44 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by TheWeissMan
-
I never heard his interview in full, i was going with what the poster said on his post and assuming he was quoting Ally. Not withstanding that though, Ally can have absolutely ZERO complaints about the support he has had from the Board both on staff and personal wages as well as player purchases. A top class manager would have ripped it up and started again with a increasing 4 year plan whereas Ally simply brought in player after player to keep him and his pals in a job as he has been quoted saying.
-
Another £2.3m and now we are at 9.2% of expenditure.
-
"Not one pound spent buying players." was what the poster quoted.
-
Actually i was saying it in response to Allys disbelief on the expenditure.
-
What about Templeton ? And all the signing on fees ? The accounts clearly show £1.5m spent on player purchases. Plus not forgetting £1.2m for his own salary. And another £1.2m on his coaching staff. £3.9m or 6% of our total expenditure over the 18 months on player purchases and 4 coaches.
-
A Chairman "not getting to see the books."
-
Ive seen Stockbridge in action 3 times now and its very clear he was just an order taker caught in the headlights, but again i accept he should be in the article.
-
It doesnt and i wouldnt absolve his responsibility as a Director but its my opinion that Green and Ahmad were the main culprits aided and abetted by an extremely weak and often incapable Chairman. I am quite happy to accept Stockbridge could and should be in there but i dont think it changes the overall message 1 bit.
-
I have answered that question further down. I toyed with including him but i genuinely feel he was nothing but an order taker. It wasnt out of any protection of him as lets face it....he was hopeless.
-
Oh and FS wasnt calling Whyte out far earlier than me. I called Whyte out for almost a month before he took over, basically from the start to the end. From memory FS was the same. We both took it very tight from the off and were very often the lone voices in the crowds on that issue.
-
I have proven a lot less money has been spunked away than what people give an impression of but more importantly, i have pinned it on Green, Ahmad and Murray. I would have thought that was pretty obvious from the context of the article.
-
Nowhere have i said that or defended them FS and i think you are being very disingenuous here. I have clearly stated that Green, Ahmad and Murray mismanaged the money and were completely to blame for it. Would be grateful if you reviewed your original opinion.
-
No. They didnt get the money back. That money was paid to Duff and Phelps. The £5.5m is shown as income in the accounts as it was placed in the account by the initial investors. Hope that explains things better.
-
The Goalie - Confirmed new Ayr UTD goalkeeping coach
TheWeissMan replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
They have split up and he now lives in Cambuslang or Rutherglen. Re the pub comments, the goalie has been dry for 2 years now. -
Go back to pre 28th November and i would have agreed to that. Not so sure now. I mean there was a guy there slating a FD whilst holding up a copy of our Year End Accounts and believing that £10m had went on Directors Salaries and Bonuses. Im not sure which is the lesser of two evils. Deliberately mis-stating or just plain daft.
-
I dont think very many are supportive of Stockbridge though. Im certainly not.
-
I know that. That was my point.
-
1. Firstly, Paul stated that he was referring to matters which were "public record" The only "public record" when he joined was the previous years accounts. However, lets take a little walk. Its possible Paul would have had seen management accounts to month end August which would have been 2 trading months in which, more season ticket revenue would have came in, more match-day revenue would have came in, there would have been 70,000 x Champions League tickets sold for the 2 home ties as well as Hospitality and TV revenue. And against that as you have stated, there would have been the monthly running costs and any "up-front" player acquisitions. £3m at worst. Not £19m. And not "public record." 2. I stated what was on "public record" recorded as fact. I also know for a fact, though cannot prove it, that our Net Debt, which is certainly what he is talking about when he bands the £14m figure around, did not increase by £19m in the space of 2 operating months. 3. If you read the intro again, i clearly state the debt figure at 2011 is not fact and i state how i arrive at it. It is made crystal clear. 4. We did not pay all the transfers up front though. That can clearly be traced through the £7m increase in Creditors from June 30th 2007 to June 20th 2008 as well as being a known practice in the game. I think i do know what figures he was referring to, though not for FACT hence i didnt include it. The £35m is all debt, no cash, to make it sound HUGE and the £14m is Lloyds only but using a cash guesstimate to reduce it further. If anyone was comparing apples and oranges, it was the person who made the claim in the first place. PS - For the record, as at the time he left, HMRC had also submitted the Big Tax Case assessment which from a legal standpoint was considered a £24m debt.
-
Im not Toxic Jack. Im 100% against Toxic Jack and want him out of our Club.
-
1. And neither would Paul Murray know to be fair, however not withstanding that, debts on player assets are not included when calculating Net Debt, something which i know you are aware of Bluedell. 2. I didnt say it was a few weeks from the year end, i said it was a few weeks after they were published. Not that it makes much of a difference to be fair though. 3. If Paul Murray was talking about "debt" then when he quoted £14m as the end figure, what was he quoting there ? Was he leaving out all player debts, HMRC debts, Leases, Finance, Ticketus, 20% of Lloyds loan ? 4. As stated above, these would not greatly impact Net Debt figures and certainly not to the tune of £19m.
-
financial figures on PM history, taken from RM.
TheWeissMan replied to j1mgg's topic in Rangers Chat
I think you know exactly what i mean. At the meeting the other week every difficult question put to P and M Murray about their time on the Board was deflected and they made out they were fighting a losing battle because others had more sway. I am merely asking if its not a distinct possibility that the same could be said for BS, as much as i despise him and want him off the Board. I dont see how the Murrays can claim this without you questioning it but for others its out of the question. Also on my other strawman, once again Paul Murray was beating that drum on BBC Scotland today. Its a pity none of them are clever enough and none of the fans close to him are brave enough to ask why Malcolm cant provide the information he so craves. And for another strawman, and again on the radio, P Murray claimed BS position was untenable for 2 reasons, that he was there when the business lost £14m and for his conduct in office. He said it without a hint of irony and without a seconds thought that his partner in crime fitted the exact same description. -
financial figures on PM history, taken from RM.
TheWeissMan replied to j1mgg's topic in Rangers Chat
Things went so well that at the end of his time, we sold the club for £1 with the only alternative model an absolute joke of a deal placed on the table by Paul Murray which involved puting us in more debt. Yeah. Things were fantastic. -
financial figures on PM history, taken from RM.
TheWeissMan replied to j1mgg's topic in Rangers Chat
So you think a guy of Somers standing should take on a Chairman role of a huge business in a bit of distress then spend time googling to see what people think of the PR team ? As for the £14m loss, and remember im not a fan of BS, but what if he takes the Malcolm Murray approach and says, its not my fault, i was doing what i was told and out voted. When all is said and done, Paul Murray failed miserably last time he was at the club. Malcolm Murray failed miserably the last time he was at the club. Malcolm Murray was embarrassing in his capacity as Chairman and his antics at social events were very questionable. His "No surrender" and his appearance on Talk Sport was embarrassing as well. And the guffaws at the table at the child abuse joke the other week were ridiculous from people who are vying for a place on Rangers Football Club Board. I will take my chance with Mr Somers who has no failures in business to be noted and no tainted past at our club. -
financial figures on PM history, taken from RM.
TheWeissMan replied to j1mgg's topic in Rangers Chat
The guy has only been here for 22 working days. He wont know this history of Jack Irvine right now and he probably wont know the history of Stockbridge either. Im guessing he wont even know about the video either. He has clearly been poring over the Board Meetings and probably thinking WTF ? Stockbridge will be playing him just now, as you would and on the face of it, claims that we could have been suspended on AIM if BS left are true. Once he gets his feet under the table firmly though, im sure he will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff because unlike Murray, his business history and present tells us he can. As for it being a strawman, can you explain to me any reasonable argument as to why our Ex Chairman of 10 months should not know an answer to a question they are asking of our current chairman of 1 month. ? -
financial figures on PM history, taken from RM.
TheWeissMan replied to j1mgg's topic in Rangers Chat
I am no fan of Stockbridges and there were parts of the statement yesterday that were crass however Somers has the background. He has the big company mentality and he isn't a Charles green or Craig Whyte. For me it's simple, no matter who we vote for its a gamble so faced with the choice of the history of failure with the Murray's or 3 new guys with credible backgrounds then I'm going to put my chip on the latter. Another thing that grates me about Paul Murray and his fans is this constant greeting about Bluepitch and Margarita. He wants Somers to disclose who they are. Why doesn't Malcolm disclose who they are? After all, he was in the job almost 8 times longer than Somers after all.