Graham Wallace Statement

[Frankie 8,148]

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 make 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 then 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'm 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.

 

Excellent appraisal mate...

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I'm not happy about the loan but boardroom decisions and all that and if it really is to pay off Ahmad then good the sooner we get clowns like that away from us the better.

 

Dave King's answer to the financial situation is just to throw yet more money at us and that isn't the answer just because he says he loves Rangers and he's a Rangers man doesn't make him right. We need proper business people in charge of the company at Rangers and proper football people in charge of the team. I don't know if we have that with the company at the moment but I'm willing to give them the 120 days to see what they come up with

[der Berliner 3,240]

Much of what amms writes is absolutely correct. I'd be somewhat hesitant to say the club's owners are all here to make hedge-fund style money. AFAIK, Laxey (at 12 %) are a hedge fond. Others might want to look for selling their shares at a profit too, but are they here for the "quick buck"? The motives of Blue Pitch and Artemis are pretty much in the dark. Ashley got his Sports Direct deal. The Easdales are in for their very own reasons too, no idea whether they get/got anything in return. That is probably the main problem at looking at our current owners. It is not that big owner we were used to, but a an oligarchy with quite a few oligarchs working on their own. Quite a few people paint a very dark picture indeed and that has - sadly enough - been accepted as the current status quo. No matter what. You'd hope Wallace will finally open the door to the gallery and present us some brighter pictures.