buster.

Rest assured, people would have found something different to hare after.

 

As for Wallace signing his contract, you wouldn't have done so if you were him, right?

That response illustrates perfectly where the weight in this particular argument lys.

How do you think contract negotiations went and led to said non-specific 100% bonus ?

I think everyone should read this post and read it carefully as it seems to me like the most accurate description of where we are now.

 

The Rangers board and their auditors should also be reading it and consider the fact that even if 20,000 of the silent majority also renew this week and/or before August, we will have lost around 33% of such income for next season. Hence, the going concern qualification in the recent accounts now becomes a clear and present danger.

 

That should worry everyone.

What I think we can take from this is that the actions of the main fans groups alongside KIng has helped spark an awakening within the general support with the main gripe being an unhappiness with executive control from the board in areas such as finances, a lack of transpareny and ensuing lack of trust etc.

We now come to a point where we realise that there is no easy route out of this,...........only pain in whichever direction we turn.

Everyone will make-up their own mind,................. I can't stomach a future of having to bendover to people who can't be trusted, won't be transparent aswell as Laxey who will have their eyes on Ibrox and continue the reputation of hedge funds involved in football clubs.

I agree with Tannoch that it'll be down to the fans to make the continual drive towards a better place and IMO that has to start at this particular crossroads.

Relying on the charity of ex-players is hardly a sustainable or long term strategy.

It would tie-in beautifully with that of the board and the current football operation.

ie. help keep an omnishambes in place.

Relying on the charity of ex-players is hardly a sustainable or long term strategy.

It would tie-in beautifully with that of the board.

You can life with that mantra and believe it. Unless it becomes clear that this still happens, I, for the time being, assume that it has stopped or at least has come down to a "normal" level ... as with any club.

 

The very first act of Graham Wallace on November 19th 2013 was to sign a contract that contained a bonus clause of 100%.

What is wrong with that ?

Apart from the amount of money involved, the criteria for triggering said bonus was unspecific and open to abuse.

Had it been related to specific's that improved the club's numbers in a way that would be able to pay for it then it could less controversial.

far better than giving them free reign for a year with season books.

 

will anything keep this board honest? not really i suspect but it's still the far better option.

The support's main tool of leverage and a very strong one.

We don't realise because we've never looked to use it before.

The board have said they could weather the cashflow storm and therafter they would be (including the football operation) more accountable.

A general point on the subject of ex-players returning.

It harks a little bit like a swan-song that keeps us locked in the past and doesn't go as planned.

Shall I take that as your attempt to volunteer for my ignore list? If so, try better!

Not at all.

Better to debate matters and this was what I was looking for.

I apoligize if you took my reply as being flippant, it was intended as an even response to your initial post with a little bit of humor thrown in.

Going week to week keeps the board honest? You seriously believe that?

"Honest" is a word the board wouldn't know the meaning off but the first thing it might do is oblige the need for a regulatory notice/warning to the markets regards projected numbers. The point being is that they will only be seen to act when they are forced to.

One should keep this thread bookmarked for future reference.

Perhap's one should expand with some detail for that day in the future when you open the thread again.

Did it take you 120 minutes (plus eight to type it) to come up wth that reply ?

who is he?

See posts above in conjunction with link below.

On 24 February 2014, the Company announced that it had entered into two secured short term credit facilities for an aggregate amount of up to £1.5 million. These credit facilities were provided by Laxey Partners Ltd ("Laxey") to the amount of £1 million (the "Laxey Facility") and Alexander Easdale to the amount of £500,000 (the "Easdale Facility").

 

Laxey has, pursuant to an agreement entered into today, transferred all rights and obligations in relation to the Laxey Facility to Mr George Letham including all its rights in relation to the standard security granted as security for the Laxey Facility. Mr Letham is a shareholder in the Company and a lifelong Rangers fan.

 

The Laxey Facility, now transferred by Laxey to Mr George Letham, remains subject to the same terms and conditions with the exception that the premium payment has been reduced to £45,000 and remains payable in shares or cash.

 

http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/374

Zappa

Yes, that was it !!

I remembered there being something that detailed a 'quick payment' but having looked at the regulatory notice was beginning to wonder if I had been imagining this.

I remember thinking at the time that the terms that Laxey 'negotiated' had been generous given timesacles involved.

My memory of the sending off is Hateley running straight down the tunnel. Nothing of the actual red card.

Hately clashed with a defender but what seemed to get him the red card was the subsequent hand that went for the upper body/head of the rival and pushed him to the ground. You knew what was coming as soon as he did it.

We did very well to win that game but the Hately suspension didn't help thereafter.

I am sure that we shouldn't get into a they said we said debate but I wonder if your view isn't just a little influenced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of posters on RM are against DK/1972/UoF/ SoS etc; whereas the opposite applies here.

 

That said and without wishing to bad mouth that site, it is clear to me that the moderation here is somewhat stricter than it is there!

Simply a critical and accurate look at historical general judgement trends on the site that was being discussed.

Nothing whatsoever to do with comparing one group/site to another.

That is what you seem to be bringing into the thread with the quoted post above.

One of our most respected posters D'Artagnan posts there as do some others I believe including rbr, STB and Frankie, the owner of this site (not saying they're not respected either!).

 

I am sure they will appreciate you categorisying them "as an embarrassment to Rangers FC".

What would be generally accurate but not abusive would be..................

'Serial misjudgers of the ongoing Ibrox soap opera even when the blindingly obvious stares them in the face'.

The ironic thing about it is that many of those who shout loudest are those who get it wrong time and time again.

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

George Santayana

I didn't actually say that but one of the digs we kept getting in the summer of 2012 was how we'd all drift away and Ibrox would be near empty. I'd rather keep proving them wrong

You seem to easily forget and be able to seperate the fact that Green&Co were leading us up the garden path quite deliberately in 2012 as we queued up to give them control of the ST money.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

George Santayana

Hateley spoke about this last night when a bear asked him what the highs and lows of his career were. You could sense anger coming from him and he seems convinced his sending off against Bruge was part of the bribery.

Hatley's red card was down to him and no-one else.

It was such a stupid way to get sent off, any speculation about bribery would be aimed at him and not the ref.

....................................................

We had our chances away to Marseille. We didn't take them. Given that we were unable to beat CSKA, did the alleged bribery really make a difference? I do think what could have been, but bribery isn't involved in these thoughts.

 

FWIW, given the type of team we had, I think we could have beaten Milan in the final if we had reached there.

 

As an aside, listening to those about get married in the dinner thread takes me back to the fact that I couldn't go to the Marseille match as I had run out of cash as I was getting married and had been at all the other away games that season (apart from Leeds where we were not allowed).

I agree with most of that.

I remember at the time as the minutes ticked down in Marseille, urging Rangers forward and instinctively knowing that our real chance to finish top was to win the game. I have a hazy recollection of Peter Huistra bearing down on the penalty box but for it to come to naught.

I was resigned to Marseille winning in Bruges.

Had I been a betting man, I'd have lumped it on the French to help dull the then inevitable dissappointment.

The other game that comes to mind was when we went to Bruges got a draw but should have won.

They say quality makes a difference and as far as those two games in Belguim go, it went by the name of Alan Boksic.

I ask again, how do these schemes guarantee what you have in mind? Even going along with the thought financial difficulties would force the current regime into a sale, what if more 'hedge funds' buy us? Exactly what is the next move then?

 

In the meantime we'll be stuck in the lower leagues for who knows how long after a 25 point deduction next season stops us getting promoted.

There are no "guarantees" with Rangers and it would be foolhardy to pretend that there are.

We are in a very bad place and the future looks dark.

I believe that our best chance to get out of the cycle/process we have entered is to starve them out, get our club back and build on solid foundation with the longterm and reasonably ambitios future of the club as the sole priority, not having to be a cash cow. That includes changing the business model into one that is sustainable.

I agree with GW in that we have to think 3 and 5 years down the line.

The difference being that we'll still be here and Wallace won't stick around to be held accountable when we are passed on to another lot blaming the last lot.

We have to think of 3/5 years with a view to actually carrying and financing plans all the way through.

You are still to tell me of a club who prospered with a hedge fund at their backs ?

Thus far we have found that Graham Wallace can appear to talk a good corporate game.

Indeed put that beside his legendery CV and we should be glad to have him on board, no matter what the price and foggy criteria to pocket it.

Or should we ?

Wallace is cutting his teeth in his first CEO role and it shows. When he is forced into details, instead of general and broad corporate nothingness he invaribly falls flat on his face with blatant contradictions, economies of truth and misleading lines.

Sandy Easdale said in December that GW would be the public voice of the board. What has actually happened is either though design or a change in plan, Wallace has been reluctant to face an inquiring independent media. His press conference when presenting the business review was the first time in ages that he had braved the spotlight. He prefers a friendly RTV or more controlled interventions with the media (with expensive spin-doctor sitting beside him). The latest "engagement" being his twitter Q&A which ended up being more a O&G.

Previously he had been a Chief Operating Officer (COO) at Manchester City and in the week the club is advertising that position I'd venture that this is a job that would better suit Wallace.

I'll touch on one specific issue, scouting.

Wallace has talked about the importance of this since December.

When outlining what the 'extra long business review' (xLBR) would cover it included.....

- "Develop and implement a Football Player Asset Strategy to take in First team squad, Youth Development and Succession Planning."

http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/363

It was also said that where possible/necessary, ongoing decisions and action would be taken before the xLBR was published.

In January this year GW said the following in an newspaper article.............

"At a time when this club needs to be identifying and scouting talent and acquiring talent at attractive levels our scouting and recruitment was largely dismantled. A small example of short-termism."

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/tom-english-interviews-rangers-ceo-graham-wallace-1-3275716

This type of infrastructure usually takes time to bear fruit so is it unreasonable to expect some of the building blocks to be put in place as quickly as possible ? The months passed by and nothing was or has been done.

Then came the xLBR and this is what it contained regards scouting or similar.

Business Review – Assessment of Current Operations

There is no proper talent identification and scouting operation in place for professional players and

at the time when investment in playing talent needed to focus on identifying value acquisitions, the

Club dismantled its scouting and recruitment network.

Future Strategy

Invest in Academy Players – An Academy Development Fund will be created with dedicated

annual investment, increasing over time, committed to the acquisition and development of

high calibre young players at different stages of their careers with the target to increase the

number of Club trained talent coming through to play in the first team at an early stage.

Develop Player Asset Management – Developing playing talent is one of the major

challenges at any football club. The Chief Football Operations Officer will also have the remit

to develop the Club’s player asset strategy which will build a long term structure and plan to

deliver playing talent for the Club and maximize value from player trading.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/RangersBusinessReview.pdf

To wait 4 months for that level of detail with vague pointers to how it will be funded is extracting the Michael.

They seem to be in no hurry despite targetting the Scottish League title within 3 years.

Wallace talks the corporate talk but doesn't or isn't allowed to start walking.

Mind you he needed to bring in a spin-doctor to help him with the talking.

Importance to the Board: Spin > Scouting

Ann Budge / Day One

Talks of the future based on academy/ good scouting system and appoints chief scout.

 

 

Graham Wallace / Day One

Signs a contract with a 100% bonus clause based on 'foggy criteria'.

 

GW / Day 156

Talks of the future based on academy/ good scouting system and appoints spin-doctor

 

Anyone thinking 'benefit of the doubt', 'let's see what happens' may want to look at how this board have gone about business and tell me why they should be trusted.

What strikes me is that the consistent MO of the various incarnations of the boardroom in recent years is to mislead,.... lie,.... play for time,.... talk of 'X' ambition,... vanish with a sackful of our money before accountability can kick-in and a new lot come in......... and start a variation of the process again.

Wallace is an empty vessel but it's those in and around the boardroom who have him as their 'Pied Piper' leading us down the road towards footballing obscurity.

Who's going to be scouting for us at this world cup

Is that sarcasm ?

The reason why such players have come to Ibrox in the past has been 'loads of money', those days are gone.

The scouting has to be done at other levels.

Those were nearly the days !

What strikes me now is that we can no longer seriously have aspirations to go that far.

The dice are financially loaded and that's not even taking into consideration our 'situation'.

Just as well that he has an indomitable spirit, well, according to his official autobiography anyway.

Perhaps instead of making sly digs, we as a support might want to ask ourselves about our role during the last few years.

Speaking generally and critically we have been found wanting.

We hold ourselves up as being as loyal as they come and we probably are but if harsh truths are faced up to, then it's also as gulible as they come.

Up until this point, the phrase 'blind loyalty' has fitted like a glove. I think that this factor was taken into account by sp.ivs before they decided to play their 'joker' on Rangers.

With that in mind and appreciating that every individual makes his own decisions, perhaps it's a time to mix loyalty with some critical longterm thought. TBF I think many have and are reaching this stage now.

"It's hard to believe I am asking for the stadium to be empty. But if that is what it is going to take to get this board out then that's the way it has to be. There are easier ways to solve this problem but some people don't want to listen. That's why we must take a hardline approach. I'm sorry, this board just has to go."

 

thats exactly what its going to take.

Aye, the only language sp.ivs understand is money.

They will be wanting a prohibitive price for their controlling interests (way, way above market price).

So the support can fund this executive board's continued presence and look forward to a future in the Coventry City, Leeds Utd mould............

(anyone name a club that a hedge fund got involved with that ended in a happy story ?)

.................Or they can say enough is enough, that we'll accept another difficult year but at least be free of the lead weights in an around the current board and start to build with one aim in mind, the longterm future of the club.