bluebear54 0 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Regarding EH, it's perhaps a white elephant, but the wifi should certainly be capable of earning money. I just hope that someone in the background hasn't done a nice wee 20 year deal. 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 Here's a question were trying to punt Wallace just to plug this gap pre loan? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 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. As I said ... where do you start with these "cuts"? I mean, it is all fine and well in theory, but laying off staff will - I would assume - come at a cost. Laying off players will have the PFU at your doorstep the next day. I remember the public outcry when it was mooted that the old board wanted to sack the tea-lady (methinks). Of course, we might have shut down the youth teams or sent the Ladies and Girls packing, though most of the latter actually pay to play for us. So again, where do you "cut" costs effectivly? NB: I found it rather interesting that the report noted the income made from the Newcastle United game ... and instantly thought, hey, why didn't they arrange some more of these friendlies then? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Not everything is easy or can happen yesterday, and I will be asking a few questions myself if the 120 day review has nothing. The 120 day review will have a load of management speak that will sound like there's a fantastic plan in place that cannot fail... You will have to interpret it into plain English. I think it will be hard to find much that is tangible. It's what management are paid for. The very first thing we need to do is to increase income and not just by bumping up the ticket prices. Other clubs bring in far more than our total turnover in commercial income alone - and we're supposed to be a huge club who before TV money was related to population size, were consistently in the top 20 in Europe. We have at least a third of all Scottish football fans so what is the difference between us and other big European clubs besides the European exposure and small domestic population? The latter should be overcome by the lack of regional competition. All I can think of is that associating yourself with Rangers could alienate the other 2/3 of the country plus with the toxic image portrayed by our enemies and the media, it could also alienate the non-football following population. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The 120 day review will have a load of management speak that will sound like there's a fantastic plan in place that cannot fail... You will have to interpret it into plain English. I think it will be hard to find much that is tangible. It's what management are paid for. The very first thing we need to do is to increase income and not just by bumping up the ticket prices. Other clubs bring in far more than our total turnover in commercial income alone - and we're supposed to be a huge club who before TV money was related to population size, were consistently in the top 20 in Europe. We have at least a third of all Scottish football fans so what is the difference between us and other big European clubs besides the European exposure and small domestic population? The latter should be overcome by the lack of regional competition. All I can think of is that associating yourself with Rangers could alienate the other 2/3 of the country plus with the toxic image portrayed by our enemies and the media, it could also alienate the non-football following population. It's unlikely you'll see the review in a positive light when you're anticipating it in such a negative manner, there has to be an element of an open mind. 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 I said ... where do you start with these "cuts"? I mean, it is all fine and well in theory, but laying off staff will - I would assume - come at a cost. Laying off players will have the PFU at your doorstep the next day. I remember the public outcry when it was mooted that the old board wanted to sack the tea-lady (methinks). Of course, we might have shut down the youth teams or sent the Ladies and Girls packing, though most of the latter actually pay to play for us. So again, where do you "cut" costs effectivly? NB: I found it rather interesting that the report noted the income made from the Newcastle United game ... and instantly thought, hey, why didn't they arrange some more of these friendlies then? Companies do it all the time 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Here's a question were trying to punt Wallace just to plug this gap pre loan? No doubt about it. We also tried to cut wages but it was rejected. We are being run terribly and needed money somewhere just to stop another insolvency event. The only reason we turned down any offers was because they were far too derisory. The fact is we received no offers for our players worth accepting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,245 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Companies do it all the time And I am to assume you would congratulate the club for sending staff away and b) handing players severeance packages that they are entitled too? 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 And I am to assume you would congratulate the club for sending staff away and b) handing players severeance packages that they are entitled too? What's the alternative continue to spend a million more a month than we earn. It's tough at the top but that's exactly what's required. That or secure the investment needed to sustain the losses. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Nope, I'm asking the question what the board, or for that matter Easdale, could have done to increase the figures you requested. And yes, I'm not amongst those who are standard-bearers of the blame-mentality, be it the club, the finances, or the results on the park. I like to look at the "why's" first. (And usually they are hard to come by.) We - I assume - all agree that Scottish football is financially as down as it gets, with no improvement in sight. We are where we are and it was highly unlikely that these figures mentioned above would be good, or increase. Rather on the contrary, which eventually happened. Scottish football got restructered, got new broadcasting and sponsorship deals, all not up to scratch of this day and age. We get a drop of that as we are just a 3rd tier club. So what e.g. could Easdale have done to the figures then? It's not that people are queuing up in those areas of concern, are they? And nothing of the above defends the board, btw. It is their JOB to try to increase these figures. Next you will be saying that the club just operates on auto-pilot. What a nonsense. 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.