Frankie 8,148 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The main method of changing those figures was/is to cut costs. We've not done that since administration and, in fact, they've increased in this report. It's unacceptable we have operational costs so high without the means to meet them. As unpalatable as they may be, staff cuts should have been made and the purchase of apparent assets such as EH and/or wi-fi internet appear to be white elephants. That's bad enough but clearly we also need investment so, the board have also failed - despite a committee set up to organise this - to raise the funds required to ensure the club is successful going forward. This may well change via the 120-day review but I won't be holding my breath. The club's performance is poor and the future a concern due to the inconsistent actions of those running it. That's all people are saying and I find it completely counter-productive for people to try and excuse it at every turn. Sure, some criticism is OTT but that doesn't make it invalid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Neat overview by MD of FF there, yet, as I asked above as well, what could he or others had done to improve the figures as they are. IMHO, the only thing King would have brought to the club had he been called in would have been his money, as since the season started deals were in place, no other income streams in sight (another shirt sponsorship perhaps, selling naming rights et al apparently were no option?) and while we could have and did send a few players and high-ups away, how would you cut cost without e.g. sacking folk (and usually at a cost too)? So it is all fair and valid to say the results are dire, but the main issue still is: what could others have done to make it look any better? It would be quite cool if those asking questions would have some answers handy too. The club is hanging on for ST money? Sure it is, as are all other clubs bar the Yahoos these days. Not least when it is a club of our stature. It isn't ideal, of course, but unless you got some decent back up from a bank, a wealthy businessmen or investors, you always stare at the end of the barrell. Obviously, the whole boardroom-fiasco up to the AGM meant that investors were sure not queuing up either. You'd hope Wallace and Co. have some decent business plan handy for the immediate future or else ... they have been in place 4 months and no cuts have been made. easdale was there in july before the season started and no cuts have been made in his 9 months. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 As someone who is a dumb fool where accounts etc. are concerned, are there still accounts overdue? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The main method of changing those figures was/is to cut costs. We've not done that since administration and, in fact, they've increased in this report. It's unacceptable we have operational costs so high without the means to meet them. As unpalatable as they may be, staff cuts should have been made and the purchase of apparent assets such as EH and/or wi-fi internet appear to be white elephants. That's bad enough but clearly we also need investment so, the board have also failed - despite a committee set up to organise this - to raise the funds required to ensure the club is successful going forward. This may well change via the 120-day review but I won't be holding my breath. The club's performance is poor and the future a concern due to the inconsistent actions of those running it. That's all people are saying and I find it completely counter-productive for people to try and excuse it at every turn. Sure, some criticism is OTT but that doesn't make it invalid. The figures show improvement, it was always going to be gradual rather than overnight. Nothing wrong with asking questions but the constant stream of negativity regardless can get too much. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The figures show improvement, it was always going to be gradual rather than overnight. Nothing wrong with asking questions but the constant stream of negativity regardless can get too much. What improvement? The club barely avoided another insolvency event... What happens in February next year when we need another (secured) loan? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 What improvement? The club barely avoided another insolvency event... What happens in February next year when we need another (secured) loan? Losses are down, is that not improvement? Wallace's business review is the point of avoiding the need for that in the future, he's explicitly said costs need cut and we can't go on as we are. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Losses are down, is that not improvement? Wallace's business review is the point of avoiding the need for that in the future, he's explicitly said costs need cut and we can't go on as we are. Why, in that case, has he not cut costs already? Why have his colleagues on the board not demanded such cuts? Why have they failed to source suitable investment? Why did the club appointed PR guru attempt to block suitable investment? For the life of me, I've no idea why any Rangers fan would rather avoid asking these questions just because they may be seen as negative. Such questions are difficult to stomach perhaps, but not negative. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 As someone who is a dumb fool where accounts etc. are concerned, are there still accounts overdue? good question. the club ones may be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Why, in that case, has he not cut costs already? Why have his colleagues on the board not demanded such cuts? Why have they failed to source suitable investment? Why did the club appointed PR guru attempt to block suitable investment? For the life of me, I've no idea why any Rangers fan would rather avoid asking these questions just because they may be seen as negative. Such questions are difficult to stomach perhaps, but not negative. Not everything is easy or can happen yesterday, and I will be asking a few questions myself if the 120 day review has nothing. But I still believe in giving people some element of faith and time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 As someone who is a dumb fool where accounts etc. are concerned, are there still accounts overdue? Yes. However it can take a couple of days for them to be processed by Companies House so they may have been submitted but they are certainly still detailed as being overdue. 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.