calscot
-
Posts
11,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by calscot
-
All I want for Christmas is an AGM...
-
As it is now being shown by the main exemplar championed for this kind of thinking, QotS, doing that may drastically delay actually getting there, and the results and performances could be less palatable than last season. I can't see how that is a viable option. There is also the point that saving when your income is restricted makes life hard while not producing a significant amount in regard to your foreseeable increased earnings in a few years time. Why have so much pain for very little gain? It's like a teenage boy who saves all his pocket money to buy say a moped in the future, meaning he can't do anything with his mates and has a miserable time for a couple of years, and then he finds his first job's pay packet is more than his savings, and so he could have spent his money and enjoyed himself and saved the same amount in the first couple of months of working. There is not much point cutting back on the squad to save for the SPL as the money we save won't make much of an impact and could jeopardise us getting there while having to bear a poor team on the pitch.
-
Maybe like tennis they should make a list of songs that are decided by the authorities, then we are given three challenges a year to be debated in front of a truly independent panel (hopefully foreign and experienced judges) - and every time we win, we get another challenge. If we win the authorities pay, if we lose, we pay. If we sing a song that has been challenged and failed, we get hammered. At least there would be some accountability on both sides. To ensure fairness, perhaps you should be able to challenge another club's song that has not been banned, in order to get it banned.
-
I would say it should still be commensurate with our income which should increase. I think our whole budget should be designed around running a grade A club and providing the playing, coaching and management staff to allow compete at the best level we are able to for our finances while breaking even every year. To compete we have to pay competitive salaries but we can't pay more than we can afford. Whether you think Ally worthy of the job at the wage provided is another debate. For me it's the same whoever we appoint - hopefully a decision that is carefully made, but of course is never guaranteed to be a successful one. When we're back at the top, I for one don't want to see Celtic bringing in a blue chip manager for 1m a year while we look for someone to do the job at 200k (unless that's all we can afford).
-
I don't disagree that his wage should have been renegotiated although I think the Div 3 manager is a bit erroneous. You couldn't compare his wage in the SPL with other SPL managers either. It's saying that Rangers are just another team in the league which is blatantly untrue. He wasn't any division manager, he was the RANGERS manager and as such the clubs in any of the divisions are no comparison. So, he should have been paid an appropriate wage for our income - which should still therefore have been the second highest in the country but a fraction of what he earned in the SPL. You could say the same for the board and the players.
-
I thought Van Vossen was a pretty good player till his infamous missed sitter against Celtic. He completely lost his confidence after that and even Walter was saying how he'd somehow been replaced by his twin brother who wasn't any good. That view of him was cemented home when I watched the season review on Sky that year.
-
I also disagree about Ally's wage - he didn't set it and he TUPEd over from the old company. I'm presuming it was less than he earned as a player and the job as manager is supposed to be a promotion. It was appropriate for the position Rangers were in before selling to Whyte as the top Scottish club. You can't pay your players 20k a week and expect your manager, with the higher responsibilities and who ultimately carries the can, to be on something like 6k a week. However, when the new company took over, they should have attempted to renegotiate Ally's wage (and that of his backroom staff), explaining the situation and the new financial constraints, perhaps with an appropriate rise with each promotion and maybe a bonus when the company made a decent profit. BUT this could only be done in the context of similar parsimony for the new board's remuneration. In the end, the failure here is that of the board and not of Ally who just collected the wage agreed in his contract. When you look at what he has done in his job as well as what he did to help the club in its transition to the new company and league status, I at least think he deserved what he earned far more than Green, Ahmad, Stockbridge and Mather. And he at least achieved the minimum expected of his position in results, leadership and as a representative of the club, while those four all failed miserably in all those regards. Putting Ally in the same category is fallacious for quite a few reasons.
-
I think you read all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order. If you want an argument, try room 12a. But in the meantime, try to chill out...
-
Actually, sometimes you end up falling out with everyone...
-
Diplomacy? I don't see governments sending diplomats round the world to tell everyone they agree to disagree at the first challenging of policies... And a diplomat does not crack and descend into a personal attack on a public forum at the first mild cajoling to engage him in debate. He should also be wise enough to understand that by doing such a thing, there will probably be a reply. Here's a wee tip, I don't know AJ enough to have that much to say about him, but I suspect most people have a pretty large tome when defending their character - maybe you don't get irony. Anyway, I sincerely apologise for suspecting there was a chance you had a well reasoned point to make that might be interesting to the debate. It's a mistake that won't be made twice.
-
They will still have their shares, but some may become a less powerful voice than they'd like. They have the same choices as any shareholder: buy more, sell up, or just keep what they have. Some may vanish from the public eye due to lack of influence - which for us could be a good thing.
-
The difference with Durrant was at least we got quite a bit out of him both before and after his injury. With Kuznetsov - and Rosenthal, they came with massive reputations and expectorations which they were never able to deliver in more than half a game or two. They're a couple of the many intriguing Rangers what-ifs...
-
I feel the touchy nature of this post requires a reply even though it's a bit late as I wasn't on here much at the weekend except for info on the game. I feel I need to remind you that forums are generally for debating - if you refuse to debate your opinion from the word go then I'm sorry but in MY opinion, it comes across as if you haven't much faith in putting it up for debate, which for me is a big part of the reason for being on here. To me this is a place for forming and testing your opinion, not for just preaching it. Plenty of people have pretty random opinions that they form without thinking or reasoning it much and without analysing any evidence or counter opinion. They tend stick to like it's gospel, and they obviously don't like debating them because there is not much substance to them. How am I to know yours is any different if you point blank refuse to debate it? I don't like YOUR attitude of saying, "we'll agree to disagree" when you haven't even started to debate the points and counter points. It comes across as an arrogant, "we'll just say I'm right and you're wrong, end of discussion." You don't HAVE to justify anything, but one wonders why you're here and how great your admiration is when you refuse to share the reasoning behind it. I don't know the guy at all, but I understand what an opinion is, which is a best fit, rational model of any situation, given the information you have and bit of time thinking it through, taking into account the evidence and different ways of thinking and viewpoints, including those of others. Of course the more effort you put into that, the more solid your opinion will be. If you give me a compelling argument then I may end up admiring the guy too. I'm pretty open to that, but I only know what I see in the news for him about Rangers, and after weighing that up it doesn't look so admirable to me. He seems to be part of the failure at Rangers but comes back stirring the pot like he's the soothsayer, without actually telling us anything we can use. They say that people often judge others by their own standards and that seems to be happening here. If you think I have a black and white view then I put it to you that either you're just not playing attention or maybe you form random, snap judgements on people without evidence or reason. I think if you look at my posts the evidence is there. For one I'm happy to explain my reasoning and evidence behind my opinions in great depth if necessary and also happy to counter the other side with reasoning. I also like to explore things from many angles - sometimes in a way that others are uninterested in looking from or taking the effort to understand. That's possibly boring to those that have their mind set from the start but incredibly hard to do if you see things in black and white - that's when people say things like, "We'll agree to disagree". You pretty much cement your way of thinking by saying, " I have my view that will not change." That is where we are very different. I am always very open to change my opinion, given compelling enough an argument or new evidence. It's how I form my opinion in the first place, with it being refined and built on by subsequent rationale, counterpoint and knowledge. It does sometimes make my opinion quite strong in that if I've built it up with a lot of thinking, debate and evidence, it's hardly going to be completely u-turned by a counter argument that has little depth. The sad part is that you say there is no area in between, when you haven't even debated it yet. If we'd being debating for a while and getting nowhere then I'd understand that, but you took this entrenched position right from the start, which is why I cajoled you into entering the debate but instead of doing so, you wrote this antagonistic reply. If he has no evidence then what good is he doing selling pot stirring speculation to a newspaper we hate? It doesn't even have to be concrete but this smacks of boy who cried wolf. We have had many people stir things up with speculation and half truths - who are we supposed to believe? Something Keith Jackson wrote? AJ doesn't have much credibility for me, and that's because he doesn't give us anything we can use. He's scaremongering us with some vague threat and the way he tells it, it's so ethereal that there's nothing we can actually do about it. He'd be as well warning us about the bogie man (which is kind of what he's done). I really don't see how this analogy works. The train has already hit us and AJ didn't have enough credibility at the time for people to heed his unsubstantiated warning which was as late as a Scott Brown tackle. I'd say that may be his failure rather than ours. If Whyte is about to hit us again, he should at least tell us where the rail track is that he's coming on and what we can do about it. We're still very busy clearing the mess from the last disaster and other very imminent dangers.
-
I'm coming to the conclusion that if you're a super rich businessman and have no convictions, the likelihood is that you've just not been caught yet... Or perhaps you've been immensely clever at skirting round and bending the rules without technically breaking them. The business world comes across as an incredibly dirty and corrupt place... Maybe in this kind of case it's a choice of choose your favourite, rich "bastard".
-
Never thought I was right in any way, just saying how it comes across to me. I'm happy to be corrected.
-
If SARS are happy and he's paid up in full, I would assume he avoided a criminal conviction - intuitively you can't evade tax by paying it. But it seems a very complex subject to me. From the reports it seems it was "pay up or go to jail", and by all accounts he paid up.
-
With all the leaks and phony propaganda war I can see why King is playing his cards close to his chest, in fact I think it makes him look like the better man in many people's eyes. Silence may not always be dignified, but sometimes it does comes across that way. However, comes a time after silence for clean, decisive action - playing your ace in the hole when the cards are laid on the table, and it seems that time should be at the AGM.
-
People didn't think tax avoidance or even tax evasion was that bad until Rangers were in the news for it - after all, most people hate paying tax and have either avoided or evaded it themselves at some point or run into some perceived unfairness with the tax man. With the btc, it was manna from heaven for the yahoos even though they don't quite get that there own club and many people connected with it have done similar stuff - and with the likes of Diamond, even more aggressively. (And I think it was weird that Lennon's failed tax avoidance scheme was not more ironically reported.) They don't even quite get that they had an EBT too. Just because they paid the tax eventually doesn't excuse them, and the argument is there that Rangers would have paid what was due if HMRC had not been so unethically relentless and the tax case had been decided before Murray was pretty much forced to sell to Whyte. However, it has now become a national obsession to vilify tax avoidance with tv stars and Starbucks etc and so our club and the likes of Dave King will suffer from that.
-
I think people are missing the point. Jackson is someone who spews out anti-Rangers stuff all the time. Just because he's right for once in a negative story, doesn't mean he's worth listening to. Wilson is a different kettle of fish - he doesn't write with an agenda, he's an actual journalist and news reporter. If Rangers fans are uniformed then please get them to read another paper, otherwise they will only be indoctrinated rather than educated.
-
Irrespective of whether it was a one off payment, Mather received 375k for 3 months work, that works out at 1.5m per year of work. Or if you like, about 30k a week. The point is that there is a massive flaw in that contract and it has no basis in any morality. At worst (for Rangers) the moral thing would be to pay the guy for the next year, any difference in the amount he earns below his Rangers wage. I can't see why you should be installed against many shareholder's wishes and then paid off with 4 times the actual time you did the job. I'm sure we could have saved money in court. But the contract itself may be legal but it is sheer incompetence to agree to it in the first place. Any reasonable person can see it's stupid and an incredibly poor business decision. If it wasn't for cronyism, you'd have to wonder how those guys earn much at all. We need proper employment contracts for our employees and if they don't like it we get someone who does. You could pick someone out of the crowd and I believe they'd do a better job. A company in the financial situation that Rangers is in cannot afford these wages and then multiplying them by 5 to include payoffs. What happens if the next CEO resigns after 3 months - after all it seems a nice wee earner and better than working for a living? And the next, and the next? We could easily be paying out 1.5m a year for the position of CEO - I can't see how we are capable of preventing this. We need a proper contract where if you are crap you can be removed without too much cost - it actually seems necessary for such an important and highly paid position. There would still be plenty of takers.
-
Really? Wow. Ok, three months is a quarter of a year, so to get the yearly equivalent you have to multiply the money earned in that time by four. £375k x 4 = £1.5m. Note in case you still don't get it: obviously he didn't earn this, it was just his yearly rate equivalent... Or... could we not wait until the imminent agm where he could be voted off the board? Or does he still have to be sacked? Seems that it would be better to have a CEO in place to make sure the AGM is organised smoothly. Seems to me it would be cheaper to hire somebody at twice the price but with a sacking clause in the contract.
-
Can I just point out, the only reason that this article is being accepted as truthful is that we already know the truth of the story which tallies with it - as we already know it, what is the usefulness of the article to us? In the end, all it is, is another negative story to spread to those outside the family, for our enemies to gloat over and to help, pull the wool over the neutrals and turn them against us.
-
As alluded to in my previous post, when you genuinely make a fool of yourself, your enemies can be as accurate as they like in their disparaging commentary. It doesn't make what they do any more welcome or useful. In fact, the danger is, by our negative actions allowing them to be accurate for a change, is that they receive credibility for their subsequent and previous lies or twisted propaganda. It's easy for them to be accurate when the facts are very negative, when they are not so negative is when they twist things and when it's positive is when they lie.
-
Care to explain why or do you just have an opinion picked at random that you like to hang on to?
-
"David - this guy Whyte is an imposter - get rid!" "What evidence do you have?" "None that I'm going to tell you." "I'm worried that Whyte is still lurking in the shadows pulling strings" "What evidence to you have." "None that I'm going to tell you." You can't really base decisions on other people's hunches when they won't give you a reason for them. AJ cares about his ego, he's not done much to show he really cares about Rangers.