calscot 0 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I based it on what I watched on the park ALL season, not just using post-administration guesswork. Given the Dundee United SC performance was prior to February 14, I struggle to see what negative effect the onset of administration really had. More of the same, if you ask me, but it gave a handy wee excuse for the players and management team. Maybe you should base it on what you've seen on the park in WHOLE of the last ELEVEN seasons. You're playing guesswork over the whole of next season so why is your guesswork more valid than mine? Besides wasn't the whole season affected by our financial situation or do you actually think we were fine until the date of administration? You don't think uncertainty can affect players? You don't think the fact that McCoist couldn't bring in his first choice players so then had to scrabble around at the last minute had any effect? You don't think that one of the smallest and weakest and underfunded squads we've ever had is any mitigation? Rangers history has been littered with poor SC knock-outs (Berwick Rangers anyone?) - it's the nature of cup ties, and that makes it a pretty hotch-potch way to judge a manager. However, our history hasn't been littered with threats of bankruptcy and fly by night owners who seem intent on making a fortune out of a crisis situation throwing the club into all sorts of uncertainty. We're struggling to stay on the subject of football on this football fans site with all the stuff that's coming up all the time - you really think players aren't going to be affected by it? Some people seem to think that being professional means being some kind of robot... Maybe it's excuses or not but the fact is, even under the circumstances the team haven't accumulated significantly less points than what is the expectation value for Rangers in the SPL - in fact we're talking one point. If you HAVE been watching the team all season then I can't see how it is possible that you can see three losses in four games is "more of the same" - please explain... Funnily enough though it coincided with administration and negotiation to reduce the players wages significantly. Maybe the players haven't been as professional as you expect under those circumstances but I don't think it's something you can really lay at the door of the manager - and even if you do, what is the likelihood of McCoist having to deal with that situation again? But the big question, is there someone we can realistic bring in that would have done a better job under the circumstances? I really can't see it, but you've already disqualified yourself from an opinion - as that would be "guesswork", wouldn't it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Yes info on all bids is way too thin for us to make an informed definitive opinion, but even then we matter not one jot for the gift won't be in our hands. Bit concerning the consortium members won't show their faces (sauce for the goose and that!) Has Bill Ng now or in the past ever met or ever done business with David Murray Interesting question. Let me try and find out. What I do know is that, despite claims elsewhere, he's never met Paul Murray. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 For clarity: Bill has never done business with SDM or any of the proposed Board. Of course you may ask why does he want to appoint them if he has never dealt with them? Answer is, Bill's advisers in UK (including KPMG) have recruited them as the ideal team to deliver the objectives. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 For clarity: Bill has never done business with SDM or any of the proposed Board. Of course you may ask why does he want to appoint them if he has never dealt with them? Answer is, Bill's advisers in UK (including KPMG) have recruited them as the ideal team to deliver the objectives. Last time an accountancy firm recommended a director, we ended up with Donald Muir. The fact that the potential owner doesn't know any of the proposed board doesn't fill me with confidence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 For clarity: Bill has never done business with SDM or any of the proposed Board. Of course you may ask why does he want to appoint them if he has never dealt with them? Answer is, Bill's advisers in UK (including KPMG) have recruited them as the ideal team to deliver the objectives. In the same way as LBG recruited Donald Muir to deliver their objectives? That worked a treat. So we're supposed to accept that a firm of accountants has scoured the country to find top quality Rangers supporting businessmen to sit on the board and run the club but we're not to be told who in fact they are ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Last time an accountancy firm recommended a director, we ended up with Donald Muir. The fact that the potential owner doesn't know any of the proposed board doesn't fill me with confidence. To be fair KPMG are only one advisor but I agree with your general point. Hopefully once the names are released we'll feel a bit more comfortable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Last time an accountancy firm recommended a director, we ended up with Donald Muir. The fact that the potential owner doesn't know any of the proposed board doesn't fill me with confidence. What accountancy firm was it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 The fact that the potential owner doesn't know any of the proposed board doesn't fill me with confidence. While I agree with this....the flip side also means there is no "old boys club" or personal loyalty - purely business. Therefore, if anyone is under performing, they can be removed without personal/emotional issues etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 In the same way as LBG recruited Donald Muir to deliver their objectives? That worked a treat. So we're supposed to accept that a firm of accountants has scoured the country to find top quality Rangers supporting businessmen to sit on the board and run the club but we're not to be told who in fact they are ? I'm sure their names will be released soon enough... Also, KPMG are only one advisor. Recommendations will also have come from more relevant people. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,059 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 What accountancy firm was it? PWC I would imagine iirc they are LBGs' accountants. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.