Graham Wallace Statement

[Stimpy 0]

What I can't understand about this whole episode is that our highly paid PR expert didn't anticipate that this loan arrangement would cause a shitstorm and advise the board to find other alternatives....

 

Quite often Jack promotes himself as a specialist in crisis management. IMO he welcomes this move as it means he's needed. I'd highly doubt he wants peace or a settled board and support.

[Blue Moon 1,113]

640 words which don't really say anything of note other than trust us.

 

Well, that's very difficult when you refuse to answer the most basic of questions.

 

Why does it take 120 days to complete a review? The cynic in me thinks it takes them comfortably past season ticket renewal.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Blue Moon

[ian1964 10,410]

Why does it take 120 days to complete a review? The cynic in me thinks it takes them comfortable past season ticket renewal.

 

I am certain that is what the plan is,I must be a cynic as well

[Juancornetto 1]

Four months to take stock of the job in hand? If only we could all get away with stalling our customers for that long before doing anything to progress the business.

[Frankie 8,148]

I don't think it does take them past the renewal date.

 

The 120 day period is up in mid April and renewals won't be until May with a deadline probably in June.

[Darthter 542]

Looks like I may be in the minority here....I don't see much wrong with the statement.

 

However, the same applies to GW as it does to Dave King - These are only words.....they need to be backed up with action & hard evidence.

 

The 120-day review may be a resounding success so far, but the fan-base needs evidence of this. They need to see that changes & progress are being made. I think GW needs to publish some interim account info ASAP - in a very clear manner that is easy for your average punter to understand.

 

If GW can then clearly show that he is doing what he says, then it will be a step forward in regaining the supports trust. If he can't provide the proof to back up his claims then there is a very serious issue.

[Frankie 8,148]

There's not much wrong with the statement as it doesn't actually say anything of note.

 

Like you say an interim report would be nice but it's just more words.

 

As it stands we can only look at actions and these are unconvincing of a robust business plan going forward. For example, no staff cuts and high interest loans. That's two issues Wallace failed to address in his statement.

[Davie P 4]

I was genuinely pleased when Wallace was appointed, but unfortunately it is clear that he is merely a puppet for the shareholders and has absolutely zero authority. Anyone attempting to 'sell' a 6 month facility that offers a 30% APR secured against assets as the best deal on offer is either smoking his socks, or believes that the support base are stupid. For me, he has lost all credibility through this action, and the subsequent statement really just reinforces my perception that we are being taken for granted.

[der Berliner 3,241]

Well, as I see it, this in-house review takes its time, and I would assume it does not solely remains a review of how things are, but also to check out alternatives for investment from outside. You would hope that is what Somers is looking at, even though we don't see much evidence. Still, if you cast your minds back, it is not that any chairman or CEO before him gave the support any insight into their work or any info with whom their are talking. Given the modern day social-/ media hysteria, such leaked stuff might even deter any investors, given the proverbial shytestorm that greets any statement from the club thus far. No matter whether it makes sense or not.

 

Since the interim results are due by the end of March, you can probably see where this 120 days actually come from. Wallace will have figures to present to the public and say what is needed, where, and why. I for one did not and do not expect any more info about the business as such, at least info given to the public. You obviously ask yourself what people are actually looking for when using the words transparency? IMHO, people want to know where the ST and IPO money went. That is sure interesting and needs to be adressed sooner rather than later, but at this moment and time Wallace has to work with what he has inherited. While I would want clarity on the money apparently "wasted" last summer, I see no reason not to let Wallace work through these 120 days and tell us what is required and how things stand. His primary job is about looking to our future and so far he's doing it like any other CEO would. (BTW, I for one doubt that a Dave King as CEO would be as transparent as he demands from the current one.)

[amms 0]

It's an interesting dynamic at play here. Wallace is employed by the board and so the owners of the club. His job is to deliver their strategy, whatever that strategy might be. I don't think you need to be a business genius to guess the probable business strategy of a hedge fund. They're here to make money, one way or another their entire business is predicated on making money, usually quite quickly. There are a number of ways they can achieve that; they can asset strip, they can structure the business so it creates large profits usually in the short term or they can work to increase the share value and sell out. In between those scenarios are opportunities to make 'smaller' amounts like the loan agreement recently announced.

 

So my point here is that Wallace, whatever some might think of his honesty, competency or ability, is taking 120 days to review how to achieve the aims of the business owners, not the support. At times 'their' aims and 'ours' might aline, but most of us have different aims for the club, simply not making a big loss is acceptable to the vast majority of the support if the football side of the club is performing. Wallace is an employee and his remit isn't to make a league winning side, that might be a welcome by-product of his remit, but it might not be.

 

So King's intervention is fascinating. From everything I've read about King he seems to have been in the right place at the right time to make a significant amount of money. Capitalising in a spectacular way from the sell-off of the public sector in a country going through enormous change he's not the first person to have made money this way, Roman Abramovich springs to mind albeit on another scale altogether.

Either way King has made his money and from his past actions and his present statements he doesn't seem to be looking at Rangers as a vehicle to extract profit from. Of course he might be disingenuous, perhaps he wants the club so he can claw back the £20 million he invested under SDM and go and live large in Sun City. The majority of supporters don't think that's the case though.

 

What is interesting about King's statement for me is its contradictions. He seems certain the club needs more investment, this investment is required so we can compete with Celtic when that time arises. Yet clearly the club is unable to self-generate this investment, it needs rich benefactors to do that. Wasn't that the model we had before that ultimately was a flawed model?

 

I agree with a lot of what King said, however my concern is that King wants to return to the previous model. Although he said this "but I do not believe that Rangers should be under the control of one owner/benefactor. We have already seen the damage that has been caused at Rangers (and many other clubs) when the club becomes a hostage to the fluctuating whims and wealth of a single owner. I see my role as being the lead investor of a like-minded consortium that will invest in the club, along with the supporters, without the "short-sightidness" of an immediate return on investment. An immediate return on investment will guarantee a non-immediate return of the team to the top flight." the return of the club to a point where we require to spend more than we make concerns me greatly. That's not sustainable, that will leave us open to "fluctuating whims" perhaps not of one person but certainly of a small number of people. King's own recent history shows the folly of this, his inability to access his considerable wealth due to issues with the South African government is part of the reason we are where we are. Let's not pretend that can't happen again.

 

I've no faith in our current owners, I truly believe their aims are not in the best interest of the club or will achieve what I and all fans want. By comparison King is very attractive, but caution is required. King seems to be thinking with his heart, talk of stopping Celtic is emotive, but that can't come at any cost. King must be an intelligent man, he's clearly got a business brain, I'd like to hear that side of his personality a bit more and less of the 'fan' speaking.

 

We need clear heads just now.