calscot

I can't see how we can get investment until the tax case is resolved so don't think Whyte can be pressed about future investment when it is not yet timely. However, if his promises are smoke and mirrors and just juggling the normal finances of the club then he could be walking down a dangerous road - for him and the club. I can't see fans supporting an owner who blatantly takes the piss out of them and a season ticket boycott would seem likely to me. It almost finished Celtic but in the end it turned their fortunes big time. It might be our turn to take the club to the brink to get rid of Whyte and bring in a real saviour. However, jumping the gun before we really know if Whyte is fish or fowl would be incredibly stupid on our part.

How to get ahead in advertising script (Bagley is an advertising agent who sometimes works for cigarette companies and has suddenly acquired a conscience): Businessman 1 (Donald Hoath): I see the police have made another lightning raid... Paddington drug orgy. Priest (Gordon Gostelow): I suppose young girls was involved? Businessman 1: (reading the newspaper) One discovered naked in the kitchen...breasts smeared with peanut butter. The police took away a bag containing 15 grams of cannabis resin... it may also contain a quantity of heroin. Bagley: Or a pork pie. Businessman 1: I beg your pardon. Bagley: I said the bag may also have contained a pork pie. Businessman 1: I hardly see a pork pie's got anything to do with it. Bagley: Alright then, what about a large turnip. It might also have contained a big turnip. Priest: The bag was full of drugs. Bagley: Nonsense. Priest: The bag was full of drugs, it says so. Bagley: The bag could've been full of anything. Pork pies, turnips, oven parts... it's the oldest trick in the book. Priest: What book? Bagley: The distortion of truth by association book. The word is "may." You all believe heroin was in the bag because cannabis resin was in the bag. The bag may have contained heroin, but the chances are 100 to 1 certain that it didn't. Businessman 1: A lot more likely than what you say. Bagley: About as likely as the tits spread with peanut butter. Businessman 2 (John Levitt): Do you mind? Priest: The tits WERE spread with peanut butter! Bagley: Nonsense. Priest: It says so! Who's the man you are to think you know more about it than the press? Bagley: I'm an expert on tits. Tits and peanut butter. I'm also an expert drug pusher... I've been pushing drugs for 20 years... Businessman 2: Look here, I've had enough of this. Bagley: ...And I can tell you a pusher protects his pitch. We want to sell them cigarettes, and don't like competition, see? So we associate a relatively innocuous drug with one that is extremely dangerous, and the rags go along with it because they adore the dough from the ads.

Then we should have brought someone in - Sandaza? From what you're saying we could have brought in similar players to the rest of the SPL with the same fees and wages than them and still had a better side. Whyte said McCoist could have had Sandaza if he wanted him... I'm not sure who is to blame here but someone got it wrong when we didn't sign a replacement for Jelavic when Naismith and Lafferty are injured, Healy is mince and Fleck is loaned out... The thing is we're currently playing no better than Hearts, ICT, Aberdeen and St Johnstone; however, at the beginning of the season our results were in competition for the best SPL team for the last 12 years. That shows Ally can do something with a half decent squad but remove his three best attacking options plus two first choice right-backs, drop the form of his midfielders and send any potential replacements out on loan and it's not hard to see why we're struggling. You may argue he should be able to motivate what he has left but surely that is also incredibly difficult with what is happening behind the scenes and sensationally playing out in the media. We are in a right mess which is not of McCoist's doing but the question is - should he realistically be able to cope with such difficult circumstances? That's the crux of it for me and why I'm still ambivalent. If the answer is yes then he's not up to the job, if the answer is no then he should be given more time and given dispensation till this crisis is over. The only good points I can see at the moment is that we still have a slim chance of nicking the league and we're not yet in danger of finishing third. However, that's not a very strong mantle to hang your hopes and dreams on. The oft asked resultant question is, if Ally's not able to cope with these most difficult of circumstances, do we really know who is?

Funny that when that happens in Scotland we're accused of having a Mickey Mouse league. What happened to the EPL being competitive?

For me I think a manager should be given time while he's within touching distance of the league title. Although I do think Ally has now lost the confidence of the support, especially with regards to turning round the downward spiral we've had for the last few months. But then again it seems funny that many wanted to give PLG more time when he had no chance of winning the league and Ally is certainly doing better domestically than the Frenchman - at least in the main competition. A second difference is that McCoist also seems to have the stomach for it and be up for the fight whereas PLG had no will or backbone to speak of. I was still behind McCoist until this result which due to the manner of it, has given me huge doubts that he has what it takes to be a successful Rangers manager. He did magnificently in the league while everything in the squad was rosy but it seems he's incapable of getting the team working in an effective manner when the chips are down - that was something Walter excelled at and deserved a lot more recognition for. Ally has had his hands tied and been handicapped all the way, with the injuries to Naismith and Lafferty and Jelavic being sold severely limiting his options; however, most people would still expect slightly more from the squad he has left against teams who were not blessed with such talent to start with - or the supposed talents that our manager still has at his disposal. While we shouldn't be expecting to steam-roller over the likes of Dundee Utd, you'd expect any loss to be one where we showed a better quality of game than the opposition and showed determination to overcome our problems and at least grind out a result - and so if we lose it should at least be a hard luck story. But then if the team are playing like we expect them, the number of hard luck stories should still be rarer. The frequency of bad results and the manner of them suggests that the management don't have the adaptability that is needed to gain the consistency of results required at Rangers. We need a manager who can steer us through these difficult times and I think everyone is starting to come to the conclusion that Ally's not up to the job. However, the question is, who is? The only person I can think of is Walter Smith but he's now out of the equation. While Ally's coat is on a very shoogly hook, I still think he should be given one last chance to redeem himself - but the only way to do so now, would be to win the league. I usually forgive managers for not winning the title but only if they compete well in the championship race and also in other competitions. When they fail everywhere and in most cases pretty abysmally, they leave nothing to suggest they can do a long term job. I think the tide is turning strongly against our current gaffer and if he wants to continue, he needs to show what he's made of - he may have many problems out-with his control but we need someone who is able to cope somewhat with that.

I don't think we should pay, as without a written contract offer there is no real proof of intent to re-sign the player. The verbal offer could have just been lip-service to make the claim for compensation. I doubt another club in financial difficulty would gift us the money if we made the same mistake.

It seems to me that the truth lies somewhere in between and all parties are trying to word it to let them off the hook with the fans. Basically I think Jela wanted to leave and Whyte wanted the money to help balance the books due to lack of CL income - but neither of them want to admit it as it rankles with the fans. If Whyte wanted Jela to stay he would have had to stay whether he liked it or not and so his statement is erroneous. I think Jelavic wasn't too bothered about the ACTUAL move until an EPL mainstay (Everton) came for him and then he started to play hard-ball. It seems West Ham didn't really light his fire. There's always a lot of double speak to the press and I think we should be careful of knee jerk reactions when it happens and learn to read between the lines. Basically, nothing said to the press is the whole truth and most of it is spin.

I've no idea what he's actually done or intends to do, but if nothing else I see the tax case as his "excuse" for the moment. If that is favourably resolved then he will have no excuses left.

Could I be turning you to the dark side? I've noticed we agree on a lot of stuff - with the exception of the religious side of things. I think that's the only aspect we've actually argued about...

Part of the point I'm making is that he CAN'T fulfill his promises until the tax case is resolved..

I think the answer to the question about Whyte could be a very complex one? Similar questions are, "Why do people spend a lot of money and time supporting a football team when it makes no financial sense?" "Why do people spend time playing 'Football manager', 'Fifa 2012' or other video games when they could be doing something more constructive or spending the time making money?" I don't know how rich Whyte is, but when you've made say, £100M, when you have that much money, what is the next challenge? Make more money (when do you stop)? Go on Dragon's Den? Buy a football club? The latter seems reasonable to me - however, as a businessman you probably want to run it properly and you probably don't want to lose a penny of your own money if you can help it - especially due the incompetence of the previous owner. If you're a billionaire (or even half-billionaire) then it probably doesn't matter so much but if you're worth only £100M and it's all tied up in your ongoing businesses then you're probably a lot more careful. Also, if you're talent for business is turning companies around and you then use that as your hobby - to "win the game" and beat the challenge, shouldn't you be using the skills you have to do it without cheating by throwing a load of money in? And finally surely there are large bonus points for finding a way of indirectly making a load of money from the whole thing?

Weren't we calling for honesty and openness from the RST a few years back? We're still waiting... In fact we're still waiting for more clarity about a financial scandal in the RST a year ago - and surely a certain resignation is still way overdue? To me the old regime were a bunch of charlatans who treated us with no respect - I can't see why anyone would take them seriously. We will never get the truth from them - the only stuff they will come out with will be to advance their own agenda.

Does this mean that he has only borrowed £7M from Ticketus and that this will rollover for three years or has he borrowed say £21M up front to pay back over three years? For someone trashing the allegations he was pretty vague and lacked any clarity. I can't see how we CAN borrow three years in advance as we need our yearly income EVERY year. If we spend the money now and give it back over the next three years, how do we pay our bills? What are we spending the money on? So it makes far more sense (when you're a mushroom) that the deal is for three years but it's a rolling deal where you get the ST money up front each year. I can't see us being a going concern otherwise. However, for long term security and cutting interest costs, it would seem prudent to gradually adjust our spending until we are spending the money AFTER we've received it. The equivalent of settling your bills after you've been paid instead of using your credit card and then paying it off when your salary goes in. At best we seem to be living one year ahead of our income, at the scary worst it could be three. The former means we have something like a £7M hole to fill to get back on an even keel, the latter means more like £21M-£24.4M. The annoying bit is that Whyte was supposed to provide working capital and seems to be passing that responsibility to the club. I'm still giving Whyte the benefit of the doubt until the repercussions of the tax case are clear as I think a lot of things will be cleared up then and in fact a lot of the criticism seems to really strangely ignore the tax case. Some of it comes across as almost moronic - Whyte - "We can't sign off the accounts and have an AGM until the result of the tax case - it should be done by the end of March." Critic - "We still haven't had an AGM or the accounts signed off - why?" It's not that long to wait till the end of March so why can't we hold off the hysteria until then? In fact I think we should wait till the end of the season before making rash judgements and decisions. There is not much we can do in the meantime and it could be that damage is done to the club and then it turns out that Whyte is not so bad.

I completely agree with what Craig is saying but also agree that what is stopping it is the lack of accountability. I also think that the supporters need something in return - even if it is the equivalent in shares in the club. It's difficult to donate money when it looks like it's a drop in the ocean with nothing in return for it and most other people not paying their share. For the fans to pay £50M, I think we would be due 2/3 of the share holding of the club. It's amazing to think that the fans who went to Manchester spent about £40M with countless others who didn't go who would have been willing to had it been a bit easier or cheaper. The thing is, the glamour friendlies we had were effectively a whip round for transfer money and you actually got some entertainment for your dosh - but there wasn't a great take up on it even though it's a bit like a charity game - with Rangers being the beneficiaries. Back to raising share money: Perhaps in these days of internet social media a new form of fan ownership could be invented with full on-line voting for many policy decisions. Your vote is weighted by how many shares you have. There could be a new share issue every year as a "membership" fee which after paying back any tax bills, goes towards a transfer budget, with the vote weighting of old shares being diminished with a straight line "depreciation" over 10 years. For electing the executive you could go down the party politics route having three parties that stand for different viewpoints and so you vote for the party. Anyone can join each party and they each select candidates for the executive election. The executive then have many autonomous powers for a set period but with some decisions requiring a general vote to keep things on an even keel. There's a load of things we could do but it seems that it's easier to spontaneously organise an expensive trip with a booze up that benefits the trains, alcohol producers and Manchester businesses than coordinate anything that actually benefits Rangers.

Seems to be that so far, all Whyte is guilty of is not being a benevolent and generous owner - or being squeaky clean which I think is something you'll never find in the successful, entrepreneurial world. If he manages the club in a fiscally prudent way, what is wrong with that? Ironically, Murray ended up being reasonably generous and benevolent, but he mismanaged the club in the first place and left us in a poor position despite him losing millions. I think what we're looking for, just doesn't exist.

I condemn him doing this as a Rangers player - when he's not with us he can do what he likes. I condemn Celtic players doing the exact same thing and their upbringing doesn't wash. A lot of them feel that the IRA was the only thing that stood between them and the RUC as well as the UDA, UVF and others. The point is your argument is their argument - who is to say who is right? Or are they both right or both wrong? If there was good reason for him to do it then fair enough, but to court such controversy while representing our club is pretty stupid, tarnishes the club's name and reignites all the crap that comes with it that should be left out of football. There is a responsibility to live up to when you play for Rangers and Healy has failed there.

The plan is to break even on what can be considered as our "guaranteed" earnings of about £35M a year. Seems to me like the only way to run the club for the long term but it's going to bite now - especially if Celtic don't follow suit. The trouble is that £35M is less than an average EPL club gets from TV alone and it seems we have to get used to the reality our reduced standing in the football world. It gives us no money to spend on fees unless we earn money in Europe, and even then there are expenses that come with that. I can't see how you can blame any new owner for this - although the way Whyte is going about things doesn't make it very palatable. it's also got to be said that Rangers fans are highly contributory to the situation and many are highly hypocritical in there criticism. How can you complain that the club are spending no money at the same time attendances are well down (44,000 at the weekend) and the lack of support for pretty glamorous friendlies that were the equivalent of a whip-round, but actually getting some entertainment for the money? People are entitled not to spend their money, but they can't then complain about the club cutting costs or not spending money they don't have due to the non-spenders. Even with the friendlies, I couldn't believe some people's attitude at a time when the club needed them. Fair enough, don't go, but some of the reasoning behind it was highly cringe-worthy and showed little love or care for the welfare of the club. We have far too many "customers" and not enough "supporters". There is nothing wrong with spending your money elsewhere but when your rivals have more loyal fans willing to spend their money then you are handing them a distinct advantage and it's pathetic to then complain when we subsequently fall behind them or when we don't buy as many players due to lack of money. You may be the best fan in the world and spend a load of money on the club but it's a numbers game so if you're not joined by enough fellow supporters, your club will suffer compared to better supported rivals. You might baulk at the argument that Celtic deserve to be above us but it's hard to argue against the fact that they are more likely to be there with the extra resources they have. Rangers fans have to start working out where the money is supposed to be coming from.

That's pretty poor of Healy and I condemn it if he knew who the guy was - but you do have to wonder who would be outraged except some fantastically extreme hypocrites - unless of course they are outraged by any sympathy for the IRA... You really have to wonder what they are outraged at? To be honest the outraged sound retarded at best - and psychopathic at worst.

Things haven't gone so well lately and while the coaching staff are not getting brilliant results they are at least doing pretty average and as you'd expect for the resources we have - especially when you factor in the loss of Naismith, Lafferty, whatever has been happening with Wylde, the retrospective bannings, the tax case and transfer speculation for Jelavic. I've been highly critical of Eck and PLG in the past but the point then was that they were miles behind Celtic and struggling to stay ahead of the chasing pack - and in one occasion beaten by a club with a lot less resources. Compare and contrast with one point behind Celtic - despite them having more resources and far less troubles to face than we have, and we're a country mile ahead of clubs with less resources than us. So what exactly have the management team done to deserve a sacking? I therefore can't see the need to replace the management as yet and you really have to wonder not only who would be able to do a better job under the circumstances but also who would actually volunteer for what is an incredibly difficult and obviously totally thankless task with very little job security and with such a huge cloud hanging over the club? Basically we are doing about as well as you could expect under the circumstances - and while our position is difficult to swallow, it's time for us to show some character. If doing an ok job under very trying circumstances and not being the best of the best against very difficult odds is a sacking offence, then I fear most of us should be on the dole...

Is this because some people had the audacity to complain about what was, whether by design or not, a provocative post which required more explanation to give it a lot more tact? We do but stating it pretty much irrelevantly and without qualification at the wrong time is always going to get a rise. I'd be more surprised if there wasn't a reaction to a comment like that... Sometimes people have to realise that what they mean and what people interpret as their meaning can be two different things - which is probably why I'm so verbose most of the time. If you're gong to be concise, you have to be succinct or be prepared for the backlash...

It would probably have been easier if you just fully explained yourself the first time rather than having to deal with the reactions to logical inferences from your post. In fact it might help if you explained yourself now as you're deflecting without doing so... I can't see how Craig is "jumping the gun" when the starting shot doesn't seem imminent any time soon. Unless you really like keeping people in suspense.

He's making an arse of himself. He may not value Jelavic at that price but that doesn't mean he's not worth close to it. Values are subjective and from Rangers point of view, why would we pay 4.5M for him, for him to become one of our most important players only to sell him for a marginal profit? It just doesn't make sense. You could offer me what my house is worth and I'd tell you to bugger off - why would I want to sell my home when I'm happy there? You could then offer me 25% over the odds and I'd still emphatically say no, it's just not worth the hassle and the work needed to find another house I'd be happy in - then the work and expense and upheaval in moving and then to adjust the decor, kitchen, bathroom etc to my tastes. However, offer me twice as much as it's worth and you may have a deal... A lot of the time the selling price has absolutely nothing to do with market value - we're talking about COMPENSATION. If Warnock doesn't want to pay then he can walk away and at West Ham's offer I'd prefer they did too. The point is we don't want to sell, however we can be persuaded if we're compensated in a way that makes it difficult to refuse.

I think most people get addicted to SOMETHING that costs them a lot of time and/or money. I've spent a fortune on cycling last year and it was very addictive - the spending the money part. I got a wee bit obsessed with tricking my mountain bike out with XTR everything and saving grammes in other bits. I eventually failed with that goal as I coudn't get the compatible parts for the XTR controls and so had to make do with XT and an XTR crankset is just silly money, so XT again. However, my hard-tail mountain bike is now only 9.5kg and a bit of a flying machine. This year, I'm getting addicted to upgrading my home cinema system and also looking for a new TV. I'm spending far more time on AV sites than on here - and I spend too much time on here. I wish I was more addicted to upgrading our en-suite as we've been meaning to do that for over a year. However, I see that as the other half's project and if she was as obsessed as I've been about the bikes and cinema, it would have been done ages ago... So being addicted can make you productive - and skint.

I would set the price at 8M or 7M plus add ons. I would say it would make bad business sense not to give McCoist SOME of the money for a replacement - even if it's just 2M. Less than that would be tantamount to surrendering the league IMHO. We need to cut costs and offset losses but it needs to be done intelligently - we are a football club after all and just counting the pennies in any business means you're not going to be a business for long. You need the tools to produce the goods or you have nothing to sell. A farmer can't sell his combine harvester for a nice profit but not buy another one - or make do with one that can't do the job properly. It's business suicide and any layman can see that.

PS It sounds a bit like owning a football club - you spend (bet) some money on new players to hopefully win the league and qualify for the CL in order to bring more money to spend (bet) on new players for the next season...