What have the current board done right?

[Calgacus 8]

20 second google-search yielded:

 

 

Daily Record

 

And we were neck-deep in the reds back then. Hardly anyone know what Bain exactly did to earn his money back then (despite the high praises in that article), whereas Wallace has a "real" job on his hands (no matter what our point of view on that is).

 

EDIT: @ gunslinger ... just noted that you replied to that somewhat later.

Bain was running a much bigger operation, that was achieving significant success on the field and had a much higher turnover than at present. There is no comparison between the two situations.

[bluebear54 0]

Anybody have any idea how much, say a £600,000 salary costs the Club. Are there additional administrative costs and contributions that the Club have to bear?

What I'm trying to ascertain is if we are correct when the £600,000 figure is bandied around, or is it actually more?

[JTP 0]

Anybody have any idea how much, say a £600,000 salary costs the Club. Are there additional administrative costs and contributions that the Club have to bear?

What I'm trying to ascertain is if we are correct when the £600,000 figure is bandied around, or is it actually more?

 

His fringe costs (pension, healthcare etc) will be considerably higher than your average employee should his pension contributions be a percentage of salary.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Bain was running a much bigger operation, that was achieving significant success on the field and had a much higher turnover than at present. There is no comparison between the two situations.

 

I can recall that quite a few people told us that Bain was Murray's lapdog and many suspected that it was Murray (and his folk) who did most of the running, administration stuff and decision-making at the club. Much like with Somers, McClelland, or Malcolm Murray, I assume we can hardly tell what Bain's actual job was and how much effort he put into the club. But you are correct, in more than one way there is no comparison between the two situations.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Also how can he get a full bonus for 6 months work.

And the timing of august is convenient so this won't be in the accounts.

[Zappa 0]

IIRC Imran turned down £500k claiming he had a deal for £20m then had to back cap in hand for one of £250k.

 

Thanks, I was sure it was £500k for some reason, but that must explain why.

[Stimpy 0]

Ok I'll give it a shot as purely as Devil's Advocate - I would request people see this in the context Shorerdbear and I discussed - and not as support of the current board.

 

Firstly lets start with our CEO - Wallace

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoll-says-wallace-is-a-man-of-steel-for-rangers-143996n.22831596

 

In all the players who have taken the stage thus far JM has by far impressed me the most. He calls it as it is and does not engage in petty argument and propaganda and' date=' more than many, brings a sense of integrity and professionalism.

 

His endorsement in that article of not only Wallace but the whole board suggests to me we have a capable board in place, known and respected throughout the business world. Such a vote of confidence should lift us above puerile digs such as "****s" & "wigs" - unfortunately it hasnt - but I think such conduct is only self-defeating for those who resort to it.

 

Of course Stockbridge remained, though not for long - perhaps he was the sacrificial lamb or perhaps Wallace saw through his incompetency who knows - but it demonstrated the new man was listening to the demands of fans. The later departure of Irvine was also welcomed and again appeared to be a response to the desires of almost all fans/fan groups.

 

Wallace asked to be judged on 120 days - and initially that was agreed. Our accounts did not make comfortable reading and it is clear our club is bleeding money. Some of those costs are attributed to unrealistic salaries to staff which the current board had no part of - though they did try to reduce it and it was rejected of course. At some point, no matter who is on the board, those unrealistic wages are going to have to be addressed and such a culture brought to an end.

 

As is pointed out in another thread new sponsors have been found, though the details have still to be published, and also a fan engagement survey is underway. It is of course too early to give any plaudits regarding the latter - the proof will be in the implementation of the issues raised by fans.

 

Then of course we come to Easdales - and I make it no bones about it - I would much rather persons with a more positive public image were involved at our club. But if we are going to get into the moral argument then Dave King fares little better after his brush with the South African Tax Man. If King says the integrity button has no on/off switch does that mean the man who was labelled a "shameless glib liar" will behave in the same manner at our club ?

 

The opening link I posted also makes reference to Colin Kingsnorth & Laxey. Again Wallace appears to rate him in that article and appears to have no concerns regarding him nor the investment. Furthermore as was seen recently Laxey were happy to step aside for the benefit of the club when a more favourable loan/credit rating became available from George Letham. Despite the fact that Easdale's loan was interest free he seems to have collected none of the plaudits enjoyed by others despite offering the most generous terms.

 

But the loans/credit facility is where it goes particularly pear shaped. Despite Wallace's assertions even in January that there was sufficient money to tide us through the board's actions suggested quite the opposite - and the speed with which the money seemed to be required was additionally alarming. To date the board have failed to explain this anomaly between statements and action. Perhaps it was, as some have suggested, as a consequence of Imran's court case - but to date we are all still in the dark. Not good enough.

 

But I dont think the UOF have helped their own case - at times they have appeared to be hyper-critical and deliberately confrontational. When King is saying some fans are spoiling for a fight - I think its perhaps time to check yourself. Also I think the links between some in the UOF and Paul Murray make people wary. Not that Im saying there is anything wrong with Paul Murray, but if you are putting yourself out there to challenge the board then perhaps it would be wiser to not to be involved with parties who may have a vested interest in the demise of the board, as that could seen as an agenda rather than an atruistic crusade.

 

The last thing is there are clearly fans who care not a jot for individuals but purely the club. They will buy ST's as they feel doing otherwise could seriously harm or endanger the club.

 

Post Edit

 

Sorry SB I think on re-reading that it seems more like a SITREP than an actual direct answer to your original question.[/quote']

 

Thanks again, D.

 

I truly want to believe the current directors want the best for Rangers and I think every bear does. The problems we encounter are obvious links to hedge funds. Hedge funds are out to make money and nothing else. Laxey have already shown complete disregard for the club when the main guy admitted Stockbridge was useless but would vote for him at the AGM. That was a clear slap in the face to the majority. I know folk would argue on the majority but anyone with a half a brain knows where the popular vote was, and it was not for Stockbridge. On Laxey forgoing the loan, I honestly believe they tried their hand at poker and lost. In the past three years wealthy Gers men, bar a few, have all come up short at putting their hands in their pocket. This time we got one who wasn't shy.

 

The McColl thing: he went further than I can ever have imagined but in the end he played the 'let's be friends' card and let his team down and the support. Before Jim's involvement became public I was asked if I'd felt the support was there. Right away I pointed out his two recent bottle jobs (1st with the RST and the more recent req stuff), and I was assured he was in it for the long haul. The fans forum was his farewell. Trust me on that, D, it was nothing to do with Wallace's competence.

 

Asking for time to survey the landscape from Wallace was very sensible. Thing is, the 120 days was always suspect and he made a rod for his own back that day. He could've said he'd review the club's expenditure and report back by February, which by then two pay days would have passed and sufficient invoice payments by then. Instead Wallace asked for enough breathing space so renewals could commence without assurances the board are working for the club's best interests. The review may prove to be groundbreaking but sadly we are about to be handed some heavy bullshit IMO.

 

As for the sponsors, is it okay to say well done to a very public organisation whose loyal customer base is unwavering for obtaining sponsorship? I expect my local supermarket to have food on their shelves. I also expect football clubs, no matter their stature, to have their very own sponsor. In the past the club under Murray always trumpeted corporate deals, the current board don't. The question is why and it has nothing to do with commercial sensitivity. Quick glance at the business pages snows a variety of businesses announcing corporate deals with numbers attached. That said though, I'm glad we are away from cheap lager and tied into a growing market. Perhaps a stronger board will negotiate something more appealing.

 

As for the Easdales - holy fuck. Bottom of the barrel investors.

 

The Union of Fans have still to get their Trust up and running and I'll hold off on some aspects for now. However, some personalities involved, they'll remain nameless, are nothing but attention seekers. SoS lads are fine as is the RST, who I know to be genuine. I've doubts but willing to forgo those doubts for the greater good.

 

I keep saying there's 3/4 years of shit left and in that time the support is going to have to make the biggest decision they'll ever make. It'll be one of two IMO: either get involved in collective share buying or boycott STs and force change. A few other options available but those two are the biggest.

 

Anyway, not sure this thread has delivered. Only reinforced my feelings on the people who want my cash for dross.

[D'Artagnan 173]

Thanks for that SB - some of that was a learning curve for me - particularly the McColl stuff. But that perhaps underlines the type of problems we face - if I was ignorant of that (and I like to think Im pretty aware of many of the issues just from trawling forums etc) then how many of our fans are also ignorant of this fact ?

 

On the Laxey point that was a real issue for me at the time of the AGM. I didnt really care who got on the board with the exception of Malcolm Murray whom I dont think has carried himself at all well. But there is something inherently wrong when the will and desires of the support on such a subject can be overruled by a Hedge Fund Investor. im not so dead set against this type of investment as yourself but in the right circumstances - which brings me to my last point and something you touched upon - the future.

 

I can only see a favourable end to all this if we rise to the challenge of fan ownership. It wont be easy, nor will it be without considerable obstacles to be overcome - but I do feel its the best option for our club moving forward. Having a significant shareholding will minimise the power of the hedge funds without loss of investment.

 

I just hope the possibility of this coming to fruition is not hampered by some kind of begging bowl membership scheme within the 120 day review - with Bears signing up to a scheme which does not allow the mechanism for the exercise of power.

Edited April 19, 2014 by D'Artagnan
error

[Stimpy 0]

Thanks for that SB - some of that was a learning curve for me - particularly the McColl stuff. But that perhaps underlines the type of problems we face - if I was ignorant of that (and I like to think Im pretty aware of many of the issues just from trawling forums etc) then how many of our fans are also ignorant of this fact ?

 

On the Laxey point that was a real issue for me at the time of the AGM. I didnt really care who got on the board with the exception of Malcolm Murray whom I dont think has carried himself at all well. But there is something inherently wrong when the will and desires of the support on such a subject can be overruled by a Hedge Fund Investor. im not so dead set against this type of investment as yourself but in the right circumstances - which brings me to my last point and something you touched upon - the future.

 

I can only see a favourable end to all this if we rise to the challenge of fan ownership. It wont be easy' date=' nor will it be without considerable obstacles to be overcome - but I do feel its the best option for our club moving forward. Having a significant shareholding will minimise the power of the hedge funds without loss of investment.

 

I just hope the possibility of this coming to fruition is not hampered by some kind of begging bowl membership scheme within the 120 day review - with Bears signing up to a scheme which does not allow the mechanism for the exercise of power.[/quote']

 

Vast majority are unaware of the JM stuff as it was pretty much said in private, although I guessed as much when I met the reqs before the AGM. Not boasting but not everyone got it IMO. The reqs intentions were spot on though. Bears know when they're in the company of genuine supporters and I got that with the reqs I met. Decent, ordinary Rangers fans.

 

The future? I'd love to share that optimism, but the behaviour of RF founders, not the ones we see on a website but at meetings, will ensure it'll never happen. Richard Atkinson Playing the Chico salesman routine as Paul Goodwin tries to lie his way through the SD council is frightening. Throw in the attempted blackmailing of the RsT chaiman, Gail Richardson being thrown under a bus And the attacks by RF members on another member because of he's a catholic tends to back up my points.

 

Perhaps guys like yourself can help bridge the gaps. One momentual challenge.

 

Further crap ahead. Buckle in, folks or throw my thoughts back in face, please!

[chilledbear 16]

Doesn't make easy reading, but thanks for your take on things.