Darthter 542 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 It's their fault that guys like black got over a 6 grand a week pay rise to join us. Even Wallace admits that Don't disagree..... However, McCoist targets the players. It's then up to the board to actually acquire that players services, and is certain instances paid over the odds - to ensure the manager got his player!!! So what were the board really to do - McCoist says "I need Black in order to ensure promotion". Do they say "no, he costs too much" and risk promotion, or pay more to secure his services and hopefully the much needed promotion. If they didn't get the player, and didn't get promoted everyone would be saying that the board didn't support the manager by bringing in the required players. When Black etc were brought in, they HAD to provide some sort of encouragement - we were in the bottom tier of Scottish football. Essentially the board(s) have done what was needing by the manager. If these players are not performing etc, it is not down to the deal done by the board, but by the manager. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I'm sure in an absolute minority (and don't mind about that), but IMHO Black is a decent enough footballer (sic!) who played a good season and helped us winning promotion twice. "Exactly" the type of player we needed down there. Is he on "too" much money? Well, for us poor normal souls he sure is, as are many others. Is Rooney worth 120k a week though? Was Whittaker worth 25k a week? Such debate is at best interesting, but not of much use and not exactly objective. We do not pay our highest paid chap even a thirdthese days compared to years pre-admin, which is a start. We still pay Rangers wages though, not those of East Fife or Hearts or ICT. Whether it will always be money for quality is up for (usually not very objective) debate. When we start paying the wages of the aforementioned though, we will attract players of their calibre, not ours. And over the course of time, we may (sic!) end up being like them and not Rangers. Whether intentionally or not, McCoist brought in players who had to do a job, i.e. get us out of the fourth and third tier. Quality football or not, he did that. Spending some 800k in transfer fees. Next challenge is the Championship and if he navigates that as well, people can argue about dire football all day long, the prime objective for him, club, and company will be fulfilled. Winning gimmes will never be enough for Rangers Football Club. Also, Black is gash. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Don't disagree..... However, McCoist targets the players. It's then up to the board to actually acquire that players services, and is certain instances paid over the odds - to ensure the manager got his player!!! So what were the board really to do - McCoist says "I need Black in order to ensure promotion". Do they say "no, he costs too much" and risk promotion, or pay more to secure his services and hopefully the much needed promotion. If they didn't get the player, and didn't get promoted everyone would be saying that the board didn't support the manager by bringing in the required players. When Black etc were brought in, they HAD to provide some sort of encouragement - we were in the bottom tier of Scottish football. Essentially the board(s) have done what was needing by the manager. If these players are not performing etc, it is not down to the deal done by the board, but by the manager. That is precisely what a board is there to do. The reason for them shirking that responsibility(ego, bravado, a smokescreen to allow plundering to take place unhindered), is immaterial. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The whole shooting match needs sanitised from the owner to the pitch. There is no aspect of the club being run properly and nothing the club does yields - crucially - value for money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted June 28, 2014 Author Share Posted June 28, 2014 OK this is from twitter and an account by 'insiderman' who has been active the last week. Whether he is accurate I have no idea but I will post his last two tweets from this morning. Inside man @insiderman2 2h There will be major news next week on deals being struck for B.P.H/M.H shares got a feeling the press will have enough to start running it. Inside man @insiderman2 43m If successful It won't be just B.P.H/M.H. shares there are institutional investers who will follow suit and then laxey so It's a huge week. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 King buying the club, this guy claimed last week. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,258 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 King buying the club, this guy claimed last week. Can't see it somehow unless investors agree to sell at a massive loss 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Can't see it somehow unless investors agree to sell at a massive loss :D Bricking it! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Can't see it somehow unless investors agree to sell at a massive loss 19m odd penny shareholders would be making massive gains not losses. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 FS , I thought there were only 3 who recieved the pennty shares , Green , Richard Hughes and McCoist 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.