trublusince1982

seemingly broker to broker

You mean badly-written story. It seems to contradict itself. He's giving a loan to begin with then somehow increases his stake in Rangers as a result of this loan. Need to explain that one

 

Taking it it means the loan will be repaid in shares.

personally would prefer a whale over an elephant. Unless of course he means the elephant in the room.

... as of 3 weeks ago, but hey, don't confuse people with facts.

 

Some folks obviously view that anything that comes from the board as double-speak or lies, which is their right. Likewise, the current board has time and again - and with media attention - said that they do not intend to sell Ibrox. What they intent to do with Auchenhowie is anyone's guess, of course ... and leaving it out of the statements may raise concerns. You would at least expect that - to keep their face to all parties - they do not touch Ibrox in any way. Still, what those fans demand is a "legally binding agreement" that Ibrox (et al) won't be touched. Now, have they in any way explained how this "legally binding" statement will be structured? Who goes into an agreement with whom and what are the relevant legal rules that would actually cover this? Just asking, as it all does seem a bit vague.

They also said scoutingdevelopment would be a priority and they could secure £5m investment with the push of a button. So why do we have no scouting/development?

Thank you Forlan your a gentleman

You may well see one of the six at best.

 

 

I assume everybody knows the details of Wallace's contract which will probably cost the club the fatter part of £1m per year if not more.

 

 

 

forlan can you explain the Wallace part a wee bit more for us hard of thinking? Fatter part of a million reads to me as over £500k up towards £800k. Is that right and if so how is that broken down ? had thought all in including bonus it was around £400k he receives. Sorry if i am reading that wrong.

 

thanks in advance

By their own admission the previous board(s) negotiated player signings poorly. So far, the current board hasn't done much wrong in this respect.

 

As for Nerlinger and moonbeams, people leave themselves with very little room to argue if they polarise between moonbeams and actual signing/contract talks. Whatever Green did or didn't do with Laudrup, this board obviously talked to Nerlinger and that position. It borders on conjecture to assume that they knew full well that he would decline, but conjecture is flourishing anyway. BTW, I for one can't remember that Rangers officially proclaimed that they were talking to Nerlinger on our homepage, so unless you read the Scottish papers and informed journos, those moonbeams did not shine for that many people.

how do you know we ever spoke to nerlinger? The club has never confirmed nor denied it was in talks has it?Don't think the club has said one thing about Nerlinger or about even being in talks with any potential candidates. It could have been a story made up by one of the papers or a bad tip they were given, wouldnt be the first time would it? The only comment from nerlinger was one saying he didn't want to comment on the story but he loved the club.Again no confirmation of any approach.

 

according to the 120 day plan phase 1 of scouting will not happen till after money is raised in Autumn. Why would they then look to hire someone with the specific job of structuring our scouting and player development when they couldn't even tell him what budgets he would have to operate with? Who would take that kind of job without knowing if the club has the resources to financially fund any plan you brought?

Or maybe they end up making cuts that they may not have had to make?

 

 

 

That sounds good but I just don't see this board of directors thinking or reacting like that.

your right. So far they have not paid any attention and seem happy to think it will all blow over.

 

Common sense says there must be a tipping point, but where that is or what it will take is anybodys guess. I think the board truely believe they are doing a good job and the fans are only unhappy because of instigators and the job done by previous boards. Had really hoped with the removal of Irvine that wrong assumption would go to.

 

unfortunately i think it will take near extinction until this board realise fans are not going to support a club in huge numbers that runs with such a low wage ratio, no scouts, no football people in positions to make change and with no real vision or detailed plan of where we are going. All i want is the majority of my season ticket money to be used to build the best footballing side we can afford. So far it seems to me this board are more concerned with diverting my cash into future revenue streams than what those streams should be used for. Football first.

I don't really get that. OK, it stops the club spending cash on transfer fees or signing on fees, but whether you give the cash in July or October, it ends up in the same place and will just "disappear" later rather than sooner, if that's what you think will happen.

 

 

 

Surely if you want to do that, you don't attend the games?

 

it means the club cant wait till after the deadline to make cuts they didnt want to make before renewal. Everything upfront first instead of trying to minimize customer opinion. It also means the club has to consistantly over the season strive to encourage support, instead of concentrating only on the business side which seems their want. It means fans if things dont improve can threaten cash withdrawl week in week out. IE bring in a football director in the next month or we will not buy tickets for x games. basically just opens up more options than if you had already paid for the whole season, kind of forcing the board to do their job and concentrate on the football week in week out instead of them just giving sound bite in the run up to renewal then not doing anything the fans have asked for once they recieve the money.

Richard Gough to be trustee.

No from King.

 

Thanks mate

Statement imminent.

 

Statement from the club?

April 18th I think the 120day plan is due. Will be very surprised if we hear any of it till may

the fact this was printed in the middle of the paper instead of the front page tells me how much credit the sun give it.

especially when it comes to youth academy representation on the board. All the clubs with success in youth development state the most important part is representation in the heart/board of the club with a clear development plan in place with clear yearly goals.

With all the talk this year on youth and whether we are utilizing and funding our scouting and youth academy correctly, thought it might be interesting to see what other teams are doing.

 

http://www.ecaeurope.com/Research/ECA%20Report%20on%20Youth%20Academies/ECA%20Report%20on%20Youth%20Academies.pdf

 

if link doesn't work cut and paste into browser.

 

for those who would like to see us copy Ajax some info

 

Youth academy costs 6m euros a year

55 scouts- 50 in Netherlands 5 outwith

13 coaches- ideal coach is an ex player with experience

All youth players when old enough to sign professional contracts are paid 20k euros a year

 

training times per week

 

u12 -3 x 2 hour sessions

over 13 - 4 x 2 hour sessions

 

 

 

Porto

 

5m euros a year

150 scouts (not a typo!)

340 youth players

34 coaches (ex players ideal candidate)

50 residents stay in own facility

 

2002 to 2012 they earned 95m euro's in transfer fees from academy players with costs of running the academy over the same period of 50m euro's

They also have a naming rights deal on their academy with puma for 500000 euro's a year.

 

training per week

 

u13's 3 x 1 1/2 hour sessions

over 14's 4 x 1 1/2 hour sessions

With all the talk this year on youth and whether we are utilizing and funding our scouting and youth academy correctly, thought it might be interesting to see what other teams are doing.

 

http://www.ecaeurope.com/Research/ECA%20Report%20on%20Youth%20Academies/ECA%20Report%20on%20Youth%20Academies.pdf

 

if link doesn't work cut and paste into browser.

Thanks mate.

Using a tablet stupid bloody predicative text!!lol?

Lots of top businessmen are dyslexic and struggle with reading and writing, Richard Brandon is one and think Sir Alan Sugar is another

they have 12% as far as voting goes but it represents 9% of the company.

anymore detail on the bones of the deals with puma etc.