simplythebest 0 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 People are paying for their ticket price to watch the team and you want to tell them say only 15% goes towards that team while a large chunk goes on erroneous consultancy fees and other strange expenditure? Sorry, I really don't know where you're coming from. Rangers fans are paying to see the team not Charles Green, there are other costs involved but they want a decent chunk spent on a decent enough team rather than just enough to win the league - with a huge risk of not doing so. You're arguing against yourself by condoning Green's wages and pay-offs and again when you comment on how bad the team was to watch. I'm actually not condoning anything, i'm just saying there's hypocrisy when someone is complaining about Green's return due to his wage and potential financial struggles, yet they aren't concerned in the slightest by our football costs. Either you're worried about the finances overall or you aren't. Basically at least admit it's nothing to do with cost, you simply don't like Charles Green. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Maybe we should have been looking at the boardroom in general when Chuck was at the helm though.. No ? Wouldn't have fit in would it.... Our turnover was what, 20 mill ? And we paid almost 4% of that turnover to Green alone. He got paid the equivalent of an experienced internationalist, not including his shares, and just what did we actually get from him as a CEO ? Our financial predicament still looms, and much of that we're from HIS policies !!! My preference would be to take a look at all costs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,376 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I'm actually not condoning anything, i'm just saying there's hypocrisy when someone is complaining about Green's return due to his wage and potential financial struggles, yet they aren't concerned in the slightest by our football costs. Either you're worried about the finances overall or you aren't. Basically at least admit it's nothing to do with cost, you simply don't like Charles Green. Name one person on this thread who isn't concerned in the slightest about our football costs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Name one person on this thread who isn't concerned in the slightest about our football costs. Craig and Calscot seem rather comfortable with them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Davison 0 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 I genuinely admire the consistency of STB in his support of CG. I would like to be convinced but in this role of a consultant, Just what has the man got to offer. Before he arrived at Rangers, there is no record of his having achieved anything much in the business world, failure to be truthful cannot be helpful nor is lack of judgement in considering when it is best to speak and when to keep quiet. Consultants are not normally required to sit in on full board meetings but are invited to attend to bring a consultancy report. It will be interesting to hear of CG's reaction if he is treated in that way. To my mind this title of consultant is a sham but only time will tell and I suspect that the time will be of a short duration before the true reasons for his return comes to the surface. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 This reminds me of the mind-boggling overspending when we apparently opened a London office and appointed a London based marketing consultant under the Whyte reign except I think that chap was probably an honest pawn rather than a lying shyster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Great wee snippet from an article back in May 2012: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ A report on Saturday morning claimed that one of Green's companies completed a £30m deal with Close Brothers 12 years ago. Whyte, under whose ownership Rangers plunged into administration, sold off future catering revenues at Ibrox to Close Brothers during his ill-fated reign. Green confirmed he had given Whyte £1 – the same value paid – for his 85% stake in Rangers, and said: "I gave him a pound out of my own pocket too, so he has made a 100% profit." On any suggestion of a previous connection, Green said: "It was complete rubbish. I met Craig Whyte for the very first time a week last Tuesday in London." _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,066 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Article from Richard Wilson: Charles Green could never be expected to leave quietly. It is only two months since he stepped down as a director, having previously relinquished his role as chief executive, but already he is back at Ibrox. The role of "consultant" seems vague, but then Green wasn't an orthodox figure anyway. The tendency is to focus on personalities, but the significant issues around Rangers are found in the bigger picture. Green remains the club's largest individual shareholder, having held 7.8% before transferring some of his stock to Laxey Partners, in what was described as a private transaction. It is acting as the figurehead of a larger group of shareholders by which he assumes his authority, though. Green and Imran Ahmad, the former commercial director, are believed to claim to be able to call upon the voting support of up to 51% of the club's shareholders. Rangers had entered a period of relative boardroom calm, so today's timing is significant. More than 33,000 season tickets have been sold, so essentially this year's income has been secured. Although Green raised £22m in the Initial Public Offering of shares last December, it is understood that less than £10m remains in the bank. Some informed sources believe the club will run out of money during this season, and will need to raise additional external funding. The only investors likely to be interested are those who want to buy or control the club outright. What is being played out now is a tussle over the cost of buying Rangers. The share price fell dramatically last month, when a series of fairly significant shareholdings were sold, and from a launch price of 70p, the market value is now 41.5p. Buyers would only pay around half that, though, since the club's financial situation, and the need for further investment, has to be taken into account. Green, who cannot sell until this December, and his original investors want to maximise their price. Disinformation is rife, which leaves Rangers supporters frustrated and anxious. They will look to the one figure they trust beyond all others for an indication of the state of their club. Walter Smith was brought on to the board by Green and is now chairman, but how he reacts to the former chief executive's return will influence how the support acts. While the share price might not move in line with the mood of the fans, if the support agitates, and other investors do the same, another period of turmoil awaits. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/analysis-the-bigger-picture-of-charles-greens-shares-and-rangers-future.1375452575?_=78a72822ca2038493ef79ca4cc4bf311eb0c0023 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Craig and Calscot seem rather comfortable with them. I am completely comfortable with the football costs if we're 33% of turnover or below and are getting reasonable value for money. Doesn't mean I'm not concerned about them. If we're bringing in 34k+ season ticket holders and average in the 40ks attendances then if we're making a loss, the problem does not seem to be the players wages. As I said before it means the other costs a disproportionate - and I don't see where it's hypocritical to start looking at strange consultancy fees, overblown CEO wages, bonuses and pay-offs as well as pretty much every other expense. 33% is very low for a football club and other clubs get away with up to about 60% - with our 90%ish uptake on stadium capacity we should be able to break even unless the board are doing something very wrong. If you can't run a team on 33% of turnover with 90% capacity then you I would suggest you are incompetent at running a football club and need to hand over to someone more able. To prioritise reducing the players wages from 33% to much lower to break even while employing useless consultants suggests that you are not in it for the football! Your arguments are very strange and you seem to have a unique definition of the words "concerned" and "hypocritical". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,367 Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Welcome back Charles. Looking forward to hearing his comments on what his new role entails. Obviously Frankie, this somewhat contradicts your opinion that he'll be far and away before the first financial results become known. Maybe they are not that horrible as some might predict? 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.