Club deny Lee Wallace (and Simon Lappin) rumours

[Rangersitis 0]

The current board....the old board....the same powers are still calling the shots.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Generally ...

 

Okay then, the board get it left, right, and centre. The current crop (CEO, FD), essentially in from December onwards. What they face is a financial mess from the old guard, a support going ballistic about the old guard's actions and a support and King coming up with their successful ST boycot plan. All since essentially April. We were a third tier team at the time, are now in second tier team - with a good brand name and massive fan base. It is all fine and well to blast them for their "apparent ineptness", but cast into perspective, do you think they can conjure up wealthy business folk or whatever and create an interest in the club out of nothing. With the whole financial mess that clings to the company? We did not even create that great an interest when we were available for under 6m, mind you. That is the current board's status quo and they were probably happy to secure Puma and 32red at all. It is in a way like all the "we should buy quality player" demands you can hear so frequently. They have to be available, affordable, and need to be willing to come. Wishful thinking does not make them sign, nor is solely the club at fault if they don't. I for one doubt that the board sits just there and waits till something happens. We have essentially no clue whom they have tried to get interested and what the answers were. At the end of the day, they probably have to take the worst if anything else declines to work with us/them.

As for "inspiring people to buy STs" .... after all the propganda-like campaigning done about that "legally binding" assets stuff, how likely was that? Or rather, what would you have done to change that if you were them? Sign an essentially worthless "legally binding" paper?

 

And that is no defense of the board, BTW. Just not an angle certain factions like to take. It's far easier to simply blame them for all and sundry and ask for next to impossible solutions, and pronto. "But they could have taken the King offer!" ... nope, because there was no way to get him in via shares at the time and still is not. The AGM has to decide on that, IIRC. At this moment and time it is like shooting sitting ducks. A touch more realism and looking what is actually possible would help.

 

An excellent summation of the whys, wherefores and somesuch!

[Zappa 0]

It's Meep Meep....Not beep beep...

 

So it is! Thanks!

[Zappa 0]

All they had to do was call an EGM to get king in.

 

They might not have enough cash spare to pay for an EGM.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

They might not have enough cash spare to pay for an EGM.

 

I'm sure Mr King of SA would be happy to lend them it at nil interest for a short period.

[Frankie 8,150]

Generally ...

 

Okay then, the board get it left, right, and centre. The current crop (CEO, FD), essentially in from December onwards. What they face is a financial mess from the old guard, a support going ballistic about the old guard's actions and a support and King coming up with their successful ST boycot plan. All since essentially April. We were a third tier team at the time, are now in second tier team - with a good brand name and massive fan base. It is all fine and well to blast them for their "apparent ineptness", but cast into perspective, do you think they can conjure up wealthy business folk or whatever and create an interest in the club out of nothing. With the whole financial mess that clings to the company? We did not even create that great an interest when we were available for under 6m, mind you. That is the current board's status quo and they were probably happy to secure Puma and 32red at all. It is in a way like all the "we should buy quality player" demands you can hear so frequently. They have to be available, affordable, and need to be willing to come. Wishful thinking does not make them sign, nor is solely the club at fault if they don't. I for one doubt that the board sits just there and waits till something happens. We have essentially no clue whom they have tried to get interested and what the answers were. At the end of the day, they probably have to take the worst if anything else declines to work with us/them.

As for "inspiring people to buy STs" .... after all the propganda-like campaigning done about that "legally binding" assets stuff, how likely was that? Or rather, what would you have done to change that if you were them? Sign an essentially worthless "legally binding" paper?

 

And that is no defense of the board, BTW. Just not an angle certain factions like to take. It's far easier to simply blame them for all and sundry and ask for next to impossible solutions, and pronto. "But they could have taken the King offer!" ... nope, because there was no way to get him in via shares at the time and still is not. The AGM has to decide on that, IIRC. At this moment and time it is like shooting sitting ducks. A touch more realism and looking what is actually possible would help.

 

I asked two questions in my last post which you seem to have missed.

 

1. Don't you think eight months is long enough to identify affordable staff?

2. Don't you think eight months is long enough to identify the club's financial challenges and offer clear guidance out of such?

 

I strongly believe eight months is more than enough, especially when we consider the beneficial ownership is effectively the same. It's because questions such as these haven't been answered that many people - myself included - have not renewed their season ticket. I'd also argue that many fans - again myself included - cared little for King's rhetoric in coming to that decision. King and the UoF are not running the club.

 

Now, of course I'm not suggesting running a football club is easy. Far from it. However, I think it should be easier than some make out. Yes, there will (or should) be difficult decisions to make (such as making people redundant) but these are the decisions that make the club more viable going forward. A clear roadmap and fan engagement alongside such actions would also help people buy into a new future. This is what should have happened in 2012 and certainly in the period since; more so when we consider the £70m spent over the last two years.

 

None of that has been offered. Instead we have a general 120 day review that says nothing a few people on here could have put together in, I'd guess, a few weeks. Add to that the lack of progress in the four months since, then that's the lack of inspiration I'm talking about.

 

Just to be clear, none of the above has anything to do with Dave King so let's not deflect onto him when discussing such issues. The club is the club is the club. And it's failing yet we want to make excuses for people getting rich off the back of it. Pull the other one.

[Darthter 542]

I asked two questions in my last post which you seem to have missed.

 

1. Don't you think eight months is long enough to identify affordable staff?

2. Don't you think eight months is long enough to identify the club's financial challenges and offer clear guidance out of such?

 

I strongly believe eight months is more than enough, especially when we consider the beneficial ownership is effectively the same. It's because questions such as these haven't been answered that many people - myself included - have not renewed their season ticket. I'd also argue that many fans - again myself included - cared little for King's rhetoric in coming to that decision. King and the UoF are not running the club.

 

Now, of course I'm not suggesting running a football club is easy. Far from it. However, I think it should be easier than some make out. Yes, there will (or should) be difficult decisions to make (such as making people redundant) but these are the decisions that make the club more viable going forward. A clear roadmap and fan engagement alongside such actions would also help people buy into a new future. This is what should have happened in 2012 and certainly in the period since; more so when we consider the £70m spent over the last two years.

 

None of that has been offered. Instead we have a general 120 day review that says nothing a few people on here could have put together in, I'd guess, a few weeks. Add to that the lack of progress in the four months since, then that's the lack of inspiration I'm talking about.

 

Just to be clear, none of the above has anything to do with Dave King so let's not deflect onto him when discussing such issues. The club is the club is the club. And it's failing yet we want to make excuses for people getting rich off the back of it. Pull the other one.

 

Didn't take Ann Budge 8 months @ Hearts.....a club that has gone from being a complete basket case, to victors over us (@ home), and appear to be settled.

[Frankie 8,150]

Didn't take Ann Budge 8 months @ Hearts.....a club that has gone from being a complete basket case, to victors over us (@ home), and appear to be settled.

 

It amazes me how easily people want to make excuses for well paid executives who appear to be under-performing.

 

Rangers Football Club, its ownership and board of directors are wholly responsible for the state of the club. That state is fragile and the future ominous.

 

Just how long are we to give these people to address the many failings that exist. How long does it take to appoint a scout or DoF? Over eight months? Seriously...?!

[calscot 0]

I'm always sceptical about management stuff as a lot of it seems wishy-washy business speak. When it comes to a "road map" for the future, it sounds an ideal thing which is clear and concise measures of what the plan for the future is, but then thinking about how it will be delivered, it conjures up the reality of stuff like the 120 day review.

 

Even that review to me, seems like it was a project for a business student to hand in a report, which Wallace duly did (like a typical student, a bit late), and like a student's report, that was that. There is no visible implementation. And the very sad thing is that it seems to me that the report was a C- at a very optimistic and totally lenient best. Scarily, this mediocre student is getting paid up to 600k for his troubles or lack there of. Maybe he's spending it on beer and dope...

[Frankie 8,150]

I'm always sceptical about management stuff as a lot of it seems wishy-washy business speak. When it comes to a "road map" for the future, it sounds an ideal thing which is clear and concise measures of what the plan for the future is, but then thinking about how it will be delivered, it conjures up the reality of stuff like the 120 day review.

 

Even that review to me, seems like it was a project for a business student to hand in a report, which Wallace duly did (like a typical student, a bit late), and like a student's report, that was that. There is no visible implementation. And the very sad thing is that it seems to me that the report was a C- at a very optimistic and totally lenient best. Scarily, this mediocre student is getting paid up to 600k for his troubles or lack there of. Maybe he's spending it on beer and dope...

 

Exactly.

 

I've seen nothing from the club to suggest a bright future. Nothing.

 

I'm not saying there aren't people working hard and trying their best - but at almost every level the results seem mediocre at best. Since when did that become good enough for our fans?