Wallace happy with off-field progress at Rangers

[chilledbear 16]

We have been giving people at Ibrox leeway for too long.

[Frankie 8,145]

On the timing Frankie, I agree that this 25th-28th thing looks bad and I accept that we are an unusual times but I have to repeat that I don't think that the outcome of the review is the main deciding factor for most people in their decision whether or not to renew. Let's say the review tells us nothing new, what percentage of fans will not renew on that basis? Personally I think it will have quite a lot to offer if the new sponsorship trailer is anything to go by.

 

The cynics may well be right that the timing was engineered but equally there can be no doubt that a comprehensive review was required. Not much point in bringing in professionals like Wallace and Nash and then saying just carry on in the same disastrous way the Club has been run these past several years.

 

However, how could this clash of dates have been avoided. Shorten the review period, possible; but then Wallace would have argued he didn't have enough time. Delay the ST renewals till May as normal; but we are desperate for money.

 

The review may or may not be a deciding factor for many bears. However, to not publish before the renewal deadline along with a short buffer period reflects very badly on the board who have had more than enough time to complete this review. This puts every single Rangers fan in a difficult position which is my point - it's taking advantage of our loyalty.

 

Let's be honest, if there is to be a 'lot to offer' they'd have released the information by now. This desperation for money is a real concern and it constantly frustrates me how we're kept at arm's lengths while we're supposed to throw our cash no questions asked.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The review may or may not be a deciding factor for many bears. However, to not publish before the renewal deadline along with a short buffer period reflects very badly on the board who have had more than enough time to complete this review. This puts every single Rangers fan in a difficult position which is my point - it's taking advantage of our loyalty.

 

Let's be honest, if there is to be a 'lot to offer' they'd have released the information by now. This desperation for money is a real concern and it constantly frustrates me how we're kept at arm's lengths while we're supposed to throw our cash no questions asked.

 

There's no question that footbal clubs in general and Rangers in particular have relied on the loyalty of their fans over the years and in Rangers case especially the last two years (Canal+ are the latest to film a documentary on this astonsihing phenomenon).

 

That said, think about the places you shop, the other places of entrtainment you visit, your phone and internet supplier (castigated by one respondent if I recall) the utility companies etc (and yes I know football IS DIFFERENT to some extent because we are fans as well as customers) but how many of them tell you the results of their business reviews before you give them your business?

Edited April 16, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[Frankie 8,145]

There's no question that footbal clubs in general and Rangers in particular have relied on the loyalty of their fans over the years and in Rangers case especially the last two years (Canal+ are the latest to film a documentary on this astonsihing phenomenon).

 

That said, think about, the places you shop, the other places of entrtainment you visit, your phone and internet supplier (castigated by one respondent if I recall) the utility companies etc (and yes I know football IS DIFFERENT to some extent because we are fans as well as customers) but how many of them tell you the results of their business reviews before you give them your business?

 

The other companies I use, I don't have any emotional ties with. Rangers I do and recently they've compromised my investment - both financially and emotionally - via bad performance, mistrust and possible criminal actions. If British Gas or Sky treated me the way some at Rangers have in the last few years, I'd simply change supplier - I can't do that with my football team.

 

Thus, the crude attempt to delay (or fudge) a review which could help allay the concerns we all have only adds to my frustration and I'm disappointed any moderate Rangers fan would want to excuse such behaviour.

[Calgacus 8]

Are our new shirt sponsors significant in the betting and gaming industry? I've never heard of them, but then I don't gamble.

[der Berliner 3,231]

The other companies I use, I don't have any emotional ties with. Rangers I do and recently they've compromised my investment - both financially and emotionally - via bad performance, mistrust and possible criminal actions. If British Gas or Sky treated me the way some at Rangers have in the last few years, I'd simply change supplier - I can't do that with my football team.

 

Thus, the crude attempt to delay (or fudge) a review which could help allay the concerns we all have only adds to my frustration and I'm disappointed any moderate Rangers fan would want to excuse such behaviour.

 

What is the "excuse" here if people point out that businesses don't hand all their financial details and plans to public. Of course, football clubs work on a different scale and don't usually have to live with "competition" as such, but they have to live with public opinion, the way the media paints any business' results*, the way competitors for the business-jobs utilize any "failures". Hence it is no wonder that the "company" behind a football club is rather picky with what they release and when. And there is no doubt whatsoever that this is utterly frustrating to the support, who - time and again - are left in the open about what is going on, but are asked to spend their money.

 

*It was over here in Germany's press (not as large-scale as our admin, but nonetheless) that we made a 14m loss in our first year. Essentially snatched from the ever-reliable folk of BBC (i.e. Scotland via the mainstream BBC, who hardly did a thing about the "impartial" reports from north of the border), giving just a couple of bare facts, smattered with the "134m debt" of administration stuff and "relegation" to the 4th tier. And that is what trickles through the newswires and makes your company (not the club as such) look bad for investors et al. Things we generally don't care about, but the directors certainly do.

[chilledbear 16]

Are our new shirt sponsors significant in the betting and gaming industry? I've never heard of them, but then I don't gamble.

 

They are no Ladbrokes or Hills.

 

They are only an on-line casino type company, so no they are not very big.

[calscot 0]

That said, think about, the places you shop, the other places of entrtainment you visit, your phone and internet supplier (castigated by one respondent if I recall) the utility companies etc (and yes I know football IS DIFFERENT to some extent because we are fans as well as customers) but how many of them tell you the results of their business reviews before you give them your business?

 

Again, I think you're completely wrong here even on the basics. If there is a company that you buy the services for a year in an advance, and that company to most of the customers is being seen as run badly by a bunch of people who are at best unreliable and untruthful and at worst ****s, who are taking huge sums out of the company while the company is making extraordinary losses, the company have no credit worthiness with the banks and choose to accept an incredibly expensive loan which is still secured on assets (to certain vested interests who have friends on the board), the company has had doubts by the auditors about it being a going concern - with all that and promised review and plan to show how the company plan to go forward, would you spend your several hundred pounds for a years services, not knowing whether the company will survive, when their promised review is published late and one working day before the deadline for you to spend your money?

 

In ANY other business, the answer would be no. The DIFFERENCE in football is that many will say yes despite it being objectively an incredibly poor decision.

 

You really seem to have it backwards. Normal companies might not tell you their business, but those in Rangers position quickly disappear. Rangers are only surviving BECAUSE they are not a normal business, but that survival does have some conditions to be met.

 

A better comparison would probably be crowd funding where the crowd want more info before investing - and if the company don't give them it, they don't get funded.

[Frankie 8,145]

What is the "excuse" here if people point out that businesses don't hand all their financial details and plans to public. Of course, football clubs work on a different scale and don't usually have to live with "competition" as such, but they have to live with public opinion, the way the media paints any business' results*, the way competitors for the business-jobs utilize any "failures". Hence it is no wonder that the "company" behind a football club is rather picky with what they release and when. And there is no doubt whatsoever that this is utterly frustrating to the support, who - time and again - are left in the open about what is going on, but are asked to spend their money.

 

*It was over here in Germany's press (not as large-scale as our admin, but nonetheless) that we made a 14m loss in our first year. Essentially snatched from the ever-reliable folk of BBC (i.e. Scotland via the mainstream BBC, who hardly did a thing about the "impartial" reports from north of the border), giving just a couple of bare facts, smattered with the "134m debt" of administration stuff and "relegation" to the 4th tier. And that is what trickles through the newswires and makes your company (not the club as such) look bad for investors et al. Things we generally don't care about, but the directors certainly do.

 

I don't see anyone asking for sensitive information - just a clear roadmap of how the current regime intend to make Rangers the most successful club in Scotland.

 

The problem arises when they promise such a full review then prevaricate over the release and content of it whilst asking for an increase in ticket prices at the same time.

 

There, IMHO, is absolutely no reason why the review could not have been completed in conjunction with the renewal announcement by being published in full along with evidence given for new and substantial forthcoming investment or, if that wasn't available, ideas for achieving that ahead of 2015. That would have given fans around 14 days to judge the review on its own merits and come to a fair decision on their renewal.

 

Instead we're given unclear comments about review 'updates' and people who understandably need to pay over £300 in instalments are given next to no time to make up their mind. Yet, we're supposed to nod our heads and accept it.

 

Have we learned nothing from the last few years? Did it even happen for some people?

 

Are fans somehow disloyal for wanting more than this repeated request of blind faith year on year?

[TheTinMan99 0]

This is nothing more than the board softening us up for the rejection of King's money. When we're 20 odd points behind the ******** in our first season back, maybe then the King doubters will realise the urgency that we needed the major investment.

 

I don't think they actually want to refuse King's cash, but they are probably worried he will find out where the bodies are buried. They will literally do, and say anything, safe in the knowledge that a certain percentage of fans will renew regardless. If this renewal/review date farce doesn't convince people, then nothing will. They know this review will be all pish and air, and anything short of a commitment to an imminent share issue will only further prove that they don't have the interests of the club at heart, as if we didn't know that already.