Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Also a pretty expensive playing squad, coaching staff, backroom staff, the bills.

 

Not everything is so simple.

 

Do you know of any other clubs where the non playing staff wage bill is larger than the playing staff wage bill apart from Queen's Park of course?

 

Do you know of any other football club where the CEO is the highest remunerated employee?

 

Do you know of any other football club where the Finance Director gets a !00% bonus for football results but denies any responsibility for the financial results?

 

 

Looks pretty simple to me .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know of any other clubs where the non playing staff wage bill is larger than the playing staff wage bill apart from Queen's Park of course?

 

Do you know of any other football club where the CEO is the highest remunerated employee?

 

Do you know of any other football club where the Finance Director gets a !00% bonus for football results but denies any responsibility for the financial results?

 

 

Looks pretty simple to me .

 

I've not denied that the director wage and bonus culture has been too high.

 

But it still doesn't equate with this idea that none of your season ticket money is going into the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Money going to spivs is simple. We are a football team paying players is ok. Paying 1.5 million for a years work to two ceos is not. Returning ipo money to greens pals is not. Paying cleaners and pie sellers is ok. Wonga loan interest to greens pals is not.
But boycotts will also hurt the players (in a manner of speaking), the cleaners and pie sellers, employees like your cousin.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not denied that the director wage and bonus culture has been too high.

 

But it still doesn't equate with this idea that none of your season ticket money is going into the club.

 

I always think of Rangers nowadays as a loved but wayward son.

 

Would you keep giving that son money if he was pissing it up against a wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree a boycott is the way forward. If it gets the numbers required to be noticed it's going to be bad for the club. If it doesn't then it will be bad for the cause. I think protests should continue instead and I'd like to see them being more focused on the more common goals amongst the support of getting rid of Stockbridge and Irvine.

 

As much as I'd like to see those two joined at the exit by every board member except Wallace, I think we need to send a clear and ever present message to the board (and institutional shareholders) at every home game that we won't let up on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree a boycott is the way forward. If it gets the numbers required to be noticed it's going to be bad for the club. If it doesn't then it will be bad for the cause. I think protests should continue instead and I'd like to see them being more focused on the more common goals amongst the support of getting rid of Stockbridge and Irvine.

 

As much as I'd like to see those two joined at the exit by every board member except Wallace, I think we need to send a clear and ever present message to the board (and institutional shareholders) at every home game that we won't let up on this.

 

somers has proven the impotence of protests. they simply kid on they never happened

Link to post
Share on other sites

somers has proven the impotence of protests. they simply kid on they never happened

 

He can maybe wave them away as a misunderstanding once. He can't continue to play that card though. At some point he's got to realize he's only making a fool of himself with such nonsense.

 

No doubt they'll make an effort to black them out on Rangers TV and might even get heavy handed with the stewarding. The fans just need to stand up to them en masse instead of walking away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree a boycott is the way forward. If it gets the numbers required to be noticed it's going to be bad for the club. If it doesn't then it will be bad for the cause. I think protests should continue instead and I'd like to see them being more focused on the more common goals amongst the support of getting rid of Stockbridge and Irvine.

 

As much as I'd like to see those two joined at the exit by every board member except Wallace, I think we need to send a clear and ever present message to the board (and institutional shareholders) at every home game that we won't let up on this.

 

That's it in a nutshell UCF. Continue and even ramp up the protests, although I'd add what I said in D'Artagnan's thread too, that the threat of boycotts could be a powerful weapon, so maybe shouldn't be written off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.