buster.

Nope because I fail to see how this ridiculous scheme could seriously convince anyone

Do the current incumbents of the boardroom convince you ?

Probably because at the very least he'll be due a bit of power out of this

What kind of power ?

Do you not think it may be that he sees the football club in the hands of corporate vultures and it's time something was done about it ?

I think Traditionalist mentioned that he was from the VB's.

I encoutered him on another thread (Wallace Bonus) and his logic was so flawed and empty that I almost felt sorry for him.

ps. I see you have a 'Merlin' icon available on here, I just hope he isn't a Gersnet 'icon'.....LoL !!

I really think that's pretty rich from a man who lives in California and not long ago was saying that Rangers were dead.

Do you think Gough cares about Rangers and if not why would he bother himself getting involved ?

Wallace's contract signed on the 19th November 2013 also states that should he be voted out by the shareholders at the AGM on December 19th 2013 he would be entitled to receive 6 months salary and benefits receivable within 7 days of him asking for it.

What does that say about the disproportionate motives of GW ?

Given finances and in particular cashflow, what kind of board would give the OK to that ?

Not something you can blame on Mr Wallace.

Mr.Wallace and his advisors would have negotiated his 'Golden Renumeration Package'.

When GW was appointed, the chairman Mr.Somers was talking about corporate goverence, transparency and an end to the (unjustifiable) bonus culture. In short Mr.Somers said that he would look to put together a 'professional' board who would sort out the mess.

Back to negotiations, between the different parties they decided that the GW contract should contain a bonus worth 100% of a salary.

Why would a company with financial problems do that ?

Perhaps because he would set specific targets that would be at levels where the CEO led company would generate enough money to justify them ?

or

Perhaps because the company needed and pushed the mind-set of the 'Golden CV' to keep the heat off as things were to get ever hotter in the kitchen. For the "Golden CV" to take the risk/hit he needed big bucks. But they couldn't award a salary of 630,000 so they come up with the 100% bonus idea (they have previous for it) and a contract that is foggy and imprecise regards the trigger. If it were transparent and proper it would have specific conditions.

So GW and his advisors started off at Ibrox by helping put together and signing a contract that was designed to decieve. It would not be transparent but would almost certainly see him take a package that all included will cost the club up to around 800K.

Sorry, I wasn't aware this was another Chris Graham influenced forum. I think I'll head back to VB.

Can I just say that the gentleman you name doesn't influence my opinion.

I am grown up enough and sufficiently grounded in our trials and tribulations of the past few years to form my own opinion.

Your obvious want or need to name "cabals", "Chris Graham" and whatever or whoever else, points to a need to apportion blame rather than actually debate about the real issues at hand.

I'd prefer you stayed and debated the issues more deeply so as we could better understand our respective viewpoints.

However I'm going to go out and won't be back for a few hours. I will reply to any of your posts later on today or tomorrow.

So we keep hearing.

The man with the Golden CV, we now learn is more the man with the Golden renumeration package (that just happens to be light on detail regards what triggers the main bonus).

Sorry, I can't dumb it down any further.

 

I've stated my opinion, and if it's not to your liking, or understanding, I can't help that.

 

Back to your 'denial' statement.......care to explain?

No, you can't explain it because the premise of your post was deeply flawed and relied on plucking a convenient thought from the air and inserting it as if it were scientific fact.

"Denial" refer's to your seeming refusal to recognize that the current board is a continuation of the misleading shambles aflicting Ibrox for years. To the extent that you apportion blame to "cabals".

I'm not altogether sure that he either gets a 100% bonus automatically. I'd imagine it was linked to him doing a good job. Him doing a good job would easily equate to him earning his bonus.

 

Its still nowhere near what the joker in the dug out recieves, for coining a catch phrase yet failing to impress as a football manager.

Not altogether sure ?

You must be inferring that his contract doesn't make it clear ?

That has always been the way. The charlatan David Murray treated the fans with contempt & the club as his personal plaything for years. As one who stayed away for long periods of Murrays tenure, I just find it amazing that people who stood back and said nothing whilst he trampled on everything we believed in, are now up in arms against what appears tome to be a well qualified man to help get us out of the mire. That said, I'd have a lot more faith in him if he were to show McCoist the door, and send McCulloch, Black, Simonsen, Forster, Cribari, Daly, Faure, Hutton, Bell, Templeton and several others packing too.

 

I'm not sure what it is I'm in denial about however.

You are not making sense.

How exactly do you bracket those who didn't speak against SDM in a timely way uniquely with those who are unhappy with the way the club has and is being run (post SDM) ?

Just my opinion here, but anyway...

 

Wallace has an impressive CV, and he has been given a poison chalice of a job. The level of suspicion and hysteria around our club at present is beyond a joke. Whilst I personally cant fathom why he needs a bonus for the teams promotion, I'm sure he never drew up his own contract.

The point of my post however is this. The cabal of ****-friendly media who conspired to kill our club and failed miserably have seized upon this issue and are using it to hinder the recovery progress of our club. Scratch beneath the surface & you will find that stories such as this are not designed to inform the Rangers support of how things are going, but rather to cause trouble & infighting amongst ourselves. In short, we are being played like idiots, and its to the benefit of the disgusting beasts across the city.

With all due respect and IMO you are living in utter denial.

Open your eyes and and have a look over the past few years, right up until the present day.

We are being played for idiots though, but by our own club.

Unlike us our coaching staff and medical team have had him for month so I'm sure they will be able to make the correct judgement (no laughing please).

Scenario

Signing injury prone players over 30 years of age

Question

What Happens Next ?

Percentage Answer

You don't get value for money spent.

Suggested Action

Simply don't do it and adopt a signing policy that looks for value for money, including potential sell-on value.

ps. You could see it coming with James Beattie and was doubly sore because of fee paid.

And since he left "himself open to be fair game", another journo needs to follow his media friends and jump in. Wonder how often the press will give us the same stuff time and again this summer.

What would you recomend, to ignore it ?

He's not really following his media friends.

It's more a case of the media as a whole covering a specific within the ongoning soap opera that was prompted by the intiative of a shareholder/supporter.

No Billy Paterson and No transparency on this.

What else lys beneath the veneer of spin and rhetoric that comes from the board that we cannot trust.

Even with a contract laid bare we are still left guessing as to what may trigger the main 100% bonus, so you could say that fog is also inserted into contracts, just as regulatory notices to the stock market have been used at times to contribute to the spin.

I don't have an issue with signing him. In fact I think it would be a good idea of he's fit, stays fit and is back to his top form.

Could we be thinking of an over 30's team rather than thinking about the under 20's ?

Probably best to re-enforce the medical department aswell.

I'd very much doubt this will happen simply because of the scarcity of resources and the obvious need to spread it towards more needy areas in the squad.

If Ally was looking to put any pressure on the board regarding signings/budget , the last player you'd pick would be an injury prone goalkeeper who has hardly played for about 4 seasons.

The sad state of affairs throughout the club very much includes the football dept. but the priority is the boardroom.