calscot
-
Posts
11,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by calscot
-
Fears for the future at Ibrox as chairman David Somers admits:
calscot replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Sometimes in business you have to be a bit heartless just to survive. You can't have the heart to employ people when you don't have the money to pay them, all you do is eventually put the rest of your staff out of a job. -
Fears for the future at Ibrox as chairman David Somers admits:
calscot replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
I'm sceptical about the 15% wage cut. Reading between the lines of subsequent events, I think there is a possibility it may have been a 16.7% pay cut - ie not paying them for two months. On a £6m wage bill, say, that would be a saving of outgoings of £1m and negated the need for a wonga bridging loan. I think he knew then exactly how short we were but it seems he may have lied about it. Whoever said the wonga loan was market rates was also pretty much lying - and I think it was also Wallace. There may be technicalities where you could argue he didn't lie, but he certainly was not telling the truth as we know it. If he wasn't lying then he comes across as either stupid or incompetent - unless there is a better interpretation. -
NewsNow rankings are all about the headline. Once you've clicked it's counted and the actual story could be about cats in trees...
-
This is what people want instead of Ally? http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/peter-odemwingie-malky-mackays-football-6700746
-
Maybe, but that story is one of a team who have never amounted to much bar the Welsh Cup - they are no Rangers history-wise. However, the huge irony is that they love him for doing pretty what McCoist is doing for us - getting results, promotion and good cup runs, despite being without much champagne football. They must prefer results over the style of play and so their love of him says something about the fans as well as it does of him... The fact that the bashers can only complain about Ally's style of play but then hype up Malky, who was sacked for just that, as a replacement for him, is hilarious. But even when you boil down to the realism, if Malky is as good as is being hyped here, he will surely be snapped up by a top championship or battling Premiership side, and we won't be able to pay his million pound wages or attract him with our shoestring player budget.
-
Police in talks to keep Dundee United fans safe at Ibrox
calscot replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
They ask the police a loaded question, they police give their normal reply, and the story is put in the subliminal way that Rangers fans are dangerous. The anti-Rangers media bias is really becoming endemic. -
It's hard to think how any affordable and gettable manager could have surpassed what McCoist has achieved results wise this season. Won the league with 8 games to spare, now 32 points ahead after 28 wins 2 draws and 0 losses, in the final of the Ramsdens, in the semi of the cup, with the only real blemish being the league cup where he wasn't allowed to play his best players. Who realistically expects better standards than that? Any criticism of McCoist really boils down to a subjective view of how the side plays rather than the results. Even then the criticism has struggled to have much reality to it - last season it came out as, "it's the worst Rangers team ever": but after what we went through added to players walking away and a transfer embargo, it SHOULD have been. What excuse would a previous Rangers side that didn't go through this have to be worse? People still don't seem to get that and keep comparing the side to that of Advocaat's that failed specacularly in 2001 against much cheaper opposition and it was that spending that pretty much put us where we are now. So who is being championed to be much better than Rangers legend, McCoist? Malky Mackay, an ex Celtic player who saved Watford from relegation, then went to Cardiff and with a very large budget lost in the promotional playoffs and took his team to the league cup final - with a pretty easy route, a bit like ours in the cup this season. Then won the championship which is reasonable enough but struggled in the Premiership and sacked for among other things (with results being the first), the "style of play". Here's a couple of paragraphs on him from an online site: http://thinkfootball.co.uk/archives/13617 There is no guarantee that any manager will be a success at the club and Rangers' recent history demonstrates this - Advocaat ultimately failed despite a suicidal budget, the most promising young, Scottish manager, Eck, struggled, and the French football messiah of PLG was a complete disaster (although many of McCoists critics somehow still rate him). Few wanted Walter the first time and he was an immense success till he was driven out by unrealistic expectations of European success, and few wanted him back when he went on to be an immense success again. If we're replacing the manager it should be for good reason, and for a measurable improvement, but the reasoning behind sacking a successful manager and replacing him with Mackay makes no sense whatsoever.
-
While I see the point that the RFFF should stick to their original mandate, this action could in the end cost nothing at all as it could force Easdale to reconsider the law suit which to me looks frivolous, with the sole purpose of intimidating someone who doesn't possess the means to fully defend themselves. I don't think he's much chance of winning substantial damages and so it's like having a poor hand but threatening to put in a huge raise against someone who can't afford to call. Once they are bankrolled the bluff can be called, and so the raise in stakes probably doesn't happen.
-
Do you not think, that if it was that simple, then everyone would be doing it, and indeed would be stupid not to? But the fact the is that the last team that I remember being lauded for this type of football, was Falkirk under Yogi. The result? They were relegated and he got the sack.
-
I wasn't saying he is actually incompetent, I'm saying that he appears so, which is a major fault in itself. When you nail your colours to the stupid mast, your are publicly admitting to being stupid. But at best, it means he is nothing but a yes man with no substance. When you look that obviously stupid in your ordinary laymen's eyes, your credibility as someone who is supposed to be able to run a company, is shot. I can't help finding it weird that Celtic say 1.5% is market rate and Rangers say 30% is market rate. I still think 9% is high but our company has yet to establish a decent credit rating and the lend is promising to invest the proceeds. At least it seems to be unsecured. But the point is that most of us are not that ignorant about finance that we'll just nod and say that's ok.
-
This really should be an academic conversation as after raising 22M in the IPO, our board should have been able to budget so that we didn't need more money until at least to the end of next season. 22M plus all income lasted about 15 months. Complete incompetence at best (although I suspect something worse). That's another thing that gets me about Wallace, he blamed the previous board for wasting that money, but was brazenly unperturbed about needlessly throwing away over 100 grand in one flippant go.
-
The most positive I can say is that Wallace in my opinion has been shown to be completely incompetent and not able to understand basic finance and stuff like what's a good APR for a loan. If I was negative, I would be thinking something more nefarious happened where he tried to pull the wool over our eyes and insulted our intelligence. He had his chance and blew it at the first opportunity. A man who thinks that that loan was normal market rates or tries to sell that line to his shareholders is clearly not suitable to be the director of any public company in my opinion. I'm now not sure whether to mistrust his words or his judgement but either way it was a straight red card for me. At best it's a second yellow where you could even say the first yellow card was saying we didn't need a loan when we obviously did.
-
I think the whole thing was a huge mistake even on their own selfish part. Just as Wallace was convincing the fans to give the board time and how he could be trusted, they unmask the whole charade. Any credibility the board had left after ditching Stockbridge and pretending to be a new broom (more like Trigger's broom), was swept away in one stroke. People were even lauding Wallace until he tried to sell us snake oil over that snafu.
-
The board deserve vocal credit simply for NOT shafting the club? Then there are thousands of people every week who deserve much more vocal credit.
-
Maybe I'm being dazzled but King does seem to come across as pretty much the brightest spark in the assessment of Rangers predicament. As he pointed out, he was the one who said that administration and liquidation were inevitable and I'm sure he also predicted we'd be running out of money about now and needing a loan or further funding. Whether he can deliver what he preaches is something else but he is definitely saying a lot compelling stuff. He hasn't given much details but when you're playing chess, you don't lay out your strategy until it's the right time. It at least it feels like we may have some sort of secure future.
-
Both Old Firm Youth games behind closed doors
calscot replied to der Berliner's topic in Rangers Chat
And vice versa, like the Leeds games. -
Both Old Firm Youth games behind closed doors
calscot replied to der Berliner's topic in Rangers Chat
Since the story is from the official site, I would infer that it was us being the first party who were having the "consultation with" the others... -
What hasn't been discussed is that for the Easdales to sue for £200k they will have to show £200k of loss - in this case loss of business. They will have to prove that their potential clients read these posts and because they believed the content, chose not to do business with the Easdales. Reading those posts, I think it would be a very difficult case to convince anyone of the loss they feel they have incurred. Just because something may be found to be defamatory does not mean you will be due £200k - the main thing is to prove that loss. It seems to me that they may just be bluffing as I think their chances of winning look very slim in my eyes with the evidence provided, but the cost of calling their bluff could be huge in solicitors fees. Some wealthy businessmen use the threat of suing for huge amounts as a tactic to intimidate those without the resources to defend against spurious legal action. However, there is a chance they could be bitten by the Streisand Effect.
-
I take it that the lamb was particularly succulent?
-
Seeing as they are not able to sell half the tickets, does that mean they forfeit their share of the takings? That seemed to be their thinking last year for the Tannadice game... Their hypocrisy is the one consistent thing about them - and the media.
-
If all the disgruntled fans don't go back, there will be no company. Even if you treat fans as customers, they have to keep them onside as you are nothing without them. Many companies have either bowed to customer pressure for their wants for how the company is governed, or gone under. At the moment, ethical pressures can be huge. Telling your customers that if they don't like it, they can piss off is naive in the extreme.
-
Scottish Cup success would mean Rangers have had a better season than Celtic
calscot replied to a topic in Rangers Chat
Neither Rangers nor Celtic can be judged on winning their respective leagues as neither have a difficult task. It's more like a disaster if they don't win. They have both done it pretty comprehensively so you can't say that one has had a better season than the other. Celtic have been terrible in the CL group stage and the cups and so their only achievement was the CL qualifiers which were still a bit dodgy. Rangers then are judged on the three trophies they are in. The League Cup was a disaster but then there is the mitigation of the restriction of player choice that Celtic have not had to endure. The Ramsden is not much to shout about but should really be the equivalent of the League Cup to Celtic seeing as we were put out at the first opportunity. Therefore if we win that we will already be ahead of them and in fact are basically ahead now due to reaching the final and also the semi final of the cup. We've already had a better season than them. But if we win the two cups, it will trounce their season and indeed be an exceptional achievement for our extenuated position. We still have to do it though and our chances in the main cup are not clear cut one way or the other. -
It's all getting really weird with nobody in the press able to say anything remotely intelligent. If DU fans are so desperate to see their team they have about 7k empty seats at Tannadice to take up every second week. If they want to see their club play at Celtic Park they can easily get 25k tickets for that. It seems they're not interested in DU, just Rangers. We're the only team in Scotland to regularly fill out a stadium. There have only been two games so far that are massively oversubscribed and they both involve Rangers (Ramsdens final and SC semi).
-
So in a semi against Celtic they sold very close to 1/3 of what their fans are demanding... We are definitely by far the main show in town.
-
There are also still some amazing arguments that if it was Celtic the tickets would be split 50/50 - yes, because they and Rangers similarly average over 40k ticket sales every second week and Ibrox holds 51k. DU average about 7k. They are getting almost double their normal amount, both Rangers and Celtic would be getting about half. The stupidity over this is astounding.