Whyte's statement to the shareholders

[Zappa 0]

There would be a lot of pain (perhaps some players sold?) but I've seen a few pre-packs and the companies can often just carry on.

 

I'm sure the club would get through a period of administration and carry on, but the biggest concern for me is that being forced into administration once is the first step towards going into administration a second time and that's where (historically speaking) football clubs tend to get into really serious trouble.

[bmck 117]

I'm broadly satisfied with what has happened as we need to live within our means. I'm tired of Murray boom and bust. The players brought in so far look like the players we badly needed to give the squad a degree of depth. What's missing is the one or two quality players we really needed to progress - particularly someone with genuine presence and ability in the middle of the park. Given that the 5 mil is per season, we still have the january window to consider. I think I'm the one person who values Ortiz - when players, unusual though it is, actually make intelligent runs off the ball - like would happen automatically in Spain - he finds them every time. Semantic quibbles aide, Whyte gave the impression he would spend at least a net 5 mill on players, and if that doesn't happen we'll need some sort of honest explanation of why it never happened.

[Zappa 0]

The point is that if Whyte is pushed on the "you said you'd spend �£5m, and you haven't", he can quite rightly argue against that and provide evidence to support his claim. In essence, he has done what he said he'd do!!!

 

I don't think he has done what he said he'd do, but as you point out, there's different ways of looking at it. To my mind he hasn't invested �£5m in the playing squad at all. Even if you ignore other player transfer income such as brand new money from the Charlie Adam and Danny Wilson deals and purely look at players in vs players out in this window, then you're talking about him having spent no more than �£4m while bringing in �£1.7m for Bougherra. That's no more than �£2.3m spent on new players. Stick a million or so on top which should cover a good chunk of the cost of the new contracts handed out to McGregor, Davis and Whittaker and it still only adds up to under �£3.5m spent.

[rbr 1,247]

The �£5 million was also in excess of what we had already budgeted for/profit wise this year

[chilledbear 16]

Economical with the truth, I think is the phrase.

 

I am all for living within our means, what I don't need is sugar coating.

 

That's not just Whyte, but goes for the Management as well.

[Danny 0]

I'm feeling let down by this regime. When we got a new owner, in light of the threadbare squad, the only realistic option was serious investment to the tune of quite a damn few million quid.

 

That simply has not happened and we've been left with a bunch of low cost players who may expand the squad size but haven't enhanced its quality much at all.

 

We just haven't spent like we had to, and I feel slightly cheated.

[forlanssister 3,050]

He is an astute business man, who specialises in turning struggling companies into successful ones.

 

Can you give one example of him turning a struggling company into a successful one ?

[craig 5,199]

I'm not saying that the argument is justified.....but it is a proven fact and backs up the initial statement regardless of how much "extra" is brought in.

 

If more is brought in than goes out....that opens up a whole new argument.

 

The point is that if Whyte is pushed on the "you said you'd spend �£5m, and you haven't", he can quite rightly argue against that and provide evidence to support his claim. In essence, he has done what he said he'd do!!!

 

The one very important thing you are missing here is that Whyte's statement did not say "we will make 5 million available to spend on the playing squad". What the statement said is "we will make 5 million available for investment in the playing squad"

 

That single word difference between "spend" and "investment" is enormous.

 

Your argument holds water when using the term "spend" because you can say you spent 5 million, regardless of cash inflow.

 

However, the word investment implies that it will be money which is provided on top of what comes in. Investment means , effectively, additional funds.

 

Some less financially savvy would be blinded by the verbiage. But investment is a far cry from spending.

 

He could also, though, hide behind the "available" statement. Making funds available doesnt mean they need to be spent.

Edited August 30, 2011 by craig

[Bluedell 5,355]

There are 2 issues:

 

1. Good financial management of the club - I think that we would all agree that we don't want to return to the boom and bust way of running the club that the previous owner instigated and we would like to be run on a sound footing and only spend what we can afford.

 

We have just been knocked out of Europe and understand the need for belt tightening.

 

2. The cash that Whyte committed to spend as part of the takeover - it appears that he bought the club cheaply due to his commitment to spend money. That money could be looked upon as being part of the purchase price of the club and if Whyte can't afford to pay it then he should not have committed to spend it. It should probably be looked at separately from the day-to-day finances needed for the running of the club.

 

Whyte can possibly get out of spending the whole �£5m by using an interpretation of the words that many didn't take. He is entitled to do that, I guess, but it's not what I'm looking for from the Chairman of Rangers and I expect a higher duty of care from a Chairman of our club than weasling out of commitments made to the support. We have been there before I don't want to go back to feeling let down so soon into the new reign.

 

Mr Whyte has until tomorrow night to make good his obligations. We need a striker now, not in January.

Time to step up and pay.