der Berliner 3,249 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 But some of it will be needed just to make us sustainable. We aren't right now. So on face value, King's money would be used like nigh all money we got since 1995 or the like, i.e. keeping the club afloat? Be that as it may, it would be great if we would get a whisper from King and Co. and their views on how they would like to change that? Their communication on that part is even worse than that of the board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So on face value, King's money would be used like nigh all money we got since 1995 or the like, i.e. keeping the club afloat? Be that as it may, it would be great if we would get a whisper from King and Co. and their views on how they would like to change that? Their communication on that part is even worse than that of the board. Well someone's money is needed to keep the club afloat and apart from issuing the 43m shares that they are empowered to issue which can do no more than buy a few months grace there's no sign of the board being able to secure the necessary funds is there? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 But some of it will be needed just to make us sustainable. We aren't right now. We haven't been for the last twenty years or so. Dave King, NTL, Joe Lewis, MIM underwriting share issues. That, and more, is where the investment came from back then and it was all sunk in the chase for CL football. King is now planning on doing similar all over again. He hasn't canvassed for support by revealing detailed plans for a scouting network, he has done it by saying Rangers need to spend big in order to challenge Celtic for the Scottish title. What he hasn't explained is what will happen when it doesn't work out like that, or if it does, what an exit from Europe before the schools go back will mean to the finances. The days of automatic entry into the group stages are over, and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, so any scheme which starts off by having a standard of player which costs too much for the likely prize at the end is sheer folly. Just look at the last two years for proof. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 We have a history of over paying for players....then selling on for a loss (bar one or two examples...) Throwing money at the playing budget will simply continue this "tradition". Tens of millions may not be needed to compete, but good scouting is definitely required. Ceptic have a very large pool of players, but due to the fact that they don't pay huge wages to the majority, they are able to keep their costs manageable. We need to spend wiser not bigger!!! I get the impression that folk expect the bulk of DK's proposed investment to be blown on expensive "quality" players..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So on face value, King's money would be used like nigh all money we got since 1995 or the like, i.e. keeping the club afloat? Be that as it may, it would be great if we would get a whisper from King and Co. and their views on how they would like to change that? Their communication on that part is even worse than that of the board. I hope it won't. Be used like the ipo money. Given to green and his pals. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 We haven't been for the last twenty years or so. Dave King, NTL, Joe Lewis, MIM underwriting share issues. That, and more, is where the investment came from back then and it was all sunk in the chase for CL football. King is now planning on doing similar all over again. He hasn't canvassed for support by revealing detailed plans for a scouting network, he has done it by saying Rangers need to spend big in order to challenge Celtic for the Scottish title. What he hasn't explained is what will happen when it doesn't work out like that, or if it does, what an exit from Europe before the schools go back will mean to the finances. The days of automatic entry into the group stages are over, and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, so any scheme which starts off by having a standard of player which costs too much for the likely prize at the end is sheer folly. Just look at the last two years for proof. We were very sustainable through 9 in a row and then after the advocatt era. Outside a few years of madness we have been perfectly sustainable throughout our history and top of the pile as well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 We were very sustainable through 9 in a row and then after the advocatt era. Outside a few years of madness we have been perfectly sustainable throughout our history and top of the pile as well. June 2007 - £5m loss June 2008 - £7m profit June 2009 - £13m loss June 2010 - £4m profit Each one showing the toss of a coin that is European income. Madness. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 June 2007 - £5m lossJune 2008 - £7m profit June 2009 - £13m loss June 2010 - £4m profit Each one showing the toss of a coin that is European income. Madness. Not the full picture of course but far from the 20 years you quoted. In fact you only showing a loss 2 years. I assume you have cut out 2006 for a reason. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Not the full picture of course but far from the 20 years you quoted. In fact you only showing a loss 2 years. I assume you have cut out 2006 for a reason. I haven't cut out anything for any reason, so feel free to add whatever years you want. I was merely highlighting the stupidity of gambling on getting entry into Europe. It could be four years of profit or four years of losses, but it still wouldn't make make it a sensible plan, just as Murray conning 'investments' out of people wasn't sustainable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 No one is suggesting we gamble on anything especially not king. 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.