Club deny Lee Wallace (and Simon Lappin) rumours

[Frankie 8,150]

Yes. Wanting people and getting them are two different things though. As I aluded to with the player transfer remark.

 

 

 

No doubt. Same again though. Wanting to change things is one thing, being able to or being let to another. You can have all the right plans in place, if you lack the finances or the people, what can you do? At this moment and time? I for one doubt though that they will go public with any plans they have about investement et al, unless it is done and dusted. I reckon any chairman or CEO would handle it the same way. It#s not that King runs about telling everyone what he's doing right now or is actually planning to do - be it at Rangers or any of his companies?

 

 

 

What can the currrent board do about this then? The had that fan survey - roundly ridiculed by the opposing fan organisations. They started a (finance-wise) rather low-key membership scheme and look for supporters' input. First time in recent history that this has happened. Yet again, roundly ridiculed by certain factions. So why not hand out some answers what you would do in their stead - just for the sake of the debate. No 70m rewind, take the board and their status quo as it stands right now.

 

 

 

What are you looking for? A weekly business report? Just asking.

 

 

 

No-one is making excuses, so why bringing it up? I ask questions. As I said above, shelling out flak like their is no tomorrow on a sitting duck is rather simplistic. Trying to look at what is actually possible is another. Remarks about too high salaries and shadowy owners won't do. You read all the criticism and think: cool, people must have far better answers and plans and contacts at their fingertips to get the club going again. Know agents of upcoming talent with a burning desire to play for us (almost for free). If so, let's hear these ideas, plans et al.

 

I'm all for change at the top, ridding the club of leeches and undesirables. Yet as things stand, they won't go. So until they do, why not look at their situation as well, whether you like it or not? It's not that anyone slips into Wallace's pants because of that ...

 

Sorry for delay in coming back to you.

 

1. The club should have a range of candidates for the job of DoF and also Chief Scout. Not being able to appoint one of these 4-12 months down the line is completely unacceptable. No excuses.

 

2. Again you mention King - this is about the club. Other than generic reviews, they've offered no guidance or engagement with fans on how they intend to return the club to the pinnacle of the Scottish game. Such guidance can be done privately with fan groups - instead they've hidden from this, even ignoring direct questions. Meanwhile, they've went against their own review recommendations. Again, uninspiring and unacceptable.

 

3. I've not seen much ridicule of their fan engagement efforts - just strong and valid criticism. The online surveys were fine but basic and open to abuse. The new fan board is exclusive and difficult to judge. I've already said how they could improve this by making it completely free and open for the first year. If not, that excludes some fans from the debate which I'm not comfortable with. In any case how many open meetings have the club held with fans in the last year or more? None. Again, uninspiring and unacceptable.

 

4. Ah this newly found sarcasm you seem to enjoy. Of course I don't expect weekly updates - just evidence of the review working. It's not - in fact by the signing of four players approaching, around or well into their thirties as well as the failure to appoint a scout of DoF, and the lack of general investment the review just looks like the delaying sop many people felt it would be. Uninspiring again - especially when, as Zappa notes, large amounts of funds go towards off-field issues.

 

5. There's a big difference between asking questions and making excuses. Asking questions is fine and I enjoy the opposing opinion and debate - that's healthy. However, once these questions are answered and shown to be pretty much redundant, it's then counter-productive to continue to ignore the evidence in front of your eyes that the club is struggling and struggling badly. I've answered all your questions and shown clear issues at the club which, with all due respect, you excuse or deflect from. That's unhealthy.

 

6. I'm stunned you think all I'm doing is offering 'flak'. I resent that - what I'm doing (or trying to do) is offer constructive criticism of the club's failures. One is high salaries for poor performance which is completely applicable to where we find our club. I'm also stunned you suggest highlighting that 'won't do'. As for expecting the fans to have the answers well, that's improbable. While I certainly agree our criticism should never be gratuitous or unfair, I'm not paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to consult or act for the club. Others are and until their performance improves then criticism is fair game and should be encouraged. Indeed, this very website put together a standards report for the club over five years ago so our record on such is pretty reasonable.

 

7. Finally, my main point, which you've consistently ignored is that because of all the above tens of thousands of Rangers fans are uninspired or critical or unhappy or frustrated or disappointed enough not to renew their season tickets. Once again that is completely the responsibility of the club to address and I've clearly shown why that is. Unfortunately, the effort to retain or regain such people has been poor or next to non-existent. No open meetings, no demonstrable plans, no humility and certainly no leadership. All this can be done for nothing so cost isn't an issue. Ultimately the club is failing again right in front of our eyes and instead of working with the fans to address this those responsible for the club refuse to engage. That's why we only have 20,000 season ticket holders. And that's the ultimate stat which should condemn this board in the eyes of every single Rangers fan.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

I most surely did not miss that point Zappa.

You miss the point in every single post you make.

[der Berliner 3,245]

Frankie ... I replied in general and did not say that all you doing is offering flak. It is what the board gets. You do not hear a whisper about what could be done if people were in their stead, with their ressources and lack of funding.

 

4. Ah this newly found sarcasm you seem to enjoy. Of course I don't expect weekly updates - just evidence of the review working. It's not - in fact by the signing of four players approaching, around or well into their thirties as well as the failure to appoint a scout of DoF, and the lack of general investment the review just looks like the delaying sop many people felt it would be. Uninspiring again - especially when, as Zappa notes, large amounts of funds go towards off-field issues.

 

I was asking a question, no sarcasm involved whatsoever. McCoist identifies targets, not the board. Would you trust Wallace, Nash or the Easdales with football issues? What do we know about their work towards a scouting network? They were roundly ridiculed for their attempt to get Nerlinger and even the DoF role as such was put into question. But now you list it amongst their shortfalls?

Where do they get investment from when there is no-one interested? How do we know that they are not trying? Because they do no give us a list of those who declined? So that those who may be addressed next think that they are fifth or sixth choice? These are just things that sping to mind in such a debate - no excuse whatsoever. At times you actually get the notion like someone asking the priest of the "allmighty" god to stop the sun going down in the evening ... and if it does, they keep pressing on and harrassing the priest that the all-mighty god should be able to do that. Or, in fact, you writing Follow Follow and looking to sell it, the publishers demand that you do, but the audience is lacking. But the publishers keep pressing on even if the market is "sated". As I said, I expect the board looking for investment and whether they get it is not in their hands alone. As it would be with any company on this planet. Not guilty unless proven.

 

 

Unfortunately, the effort to retain or regain such people has been poor or next to non-existent. No open meetings, no demonstrable plans, no humility and certainly no leadership.

 

I listed what they have done in the above. Some of the greater support organisations have shot themselves in the foot with rather "direct" statements. We've seen time and again what their demands are and how they go about that. "Hardliners" spring to mind. I doubt that an open debate between these supporters and the board is possible under those circumstances. Hence, the ST stand-off and that financial shortfall. (BTW, I don't understand why you stated that it is the board's responsibility to up the ST sales ... when it was rather plain why they went down?) Nevertheless, the board at least tried to contact the fan base and wants to create the fan board. That the anti-board faction ridicules it and attacks their fellow Bears is sad at best. Whether the fan board has any input remains to be seen, realistically such input is rather low anywhere else in the world too. But at least the board gets some direct feedback from the support and perhaps vice versa. And I for one think that talking directly is always better than attacking one another via the gleeful media.

 

The engagement you refer to ... what are you looking for then? The "boycotters' HQ" asked for a legally binding agreement for which there is no legal basis. Still they pressed on and on and on. The "saviour" joined those ranks knowing fine well that it was propaganda at best. All they did was destabilise the financial daily running of the club and forcing the board into looking at unwanted avenues to keep it going. For which the board gets FLAK again. Essentially becaused they are still there, have not publically humiliated themselves and committed honorable suicide afterwards? For that is what it all comes down to, if you read some boards.

 

I will bring King in if it keeps the pendulum swinging both ways. For I simply do not believe that he - being chairman or CEO or owner - will fulfill all those demands of the support either. Nor does he do it at any of his companies - transparency, strategies, plans et al. It is not how companies and owners work, at least AFAIK. I was under the impression that all of you had a far better understanding of capitalists and their mindset than me. I'm sick and tired of this stuff ... and that includes any would-be investors playing games or whatnot.

[Frankie 8,150]

Frankie ... I replied in general and did not say that all you doing is offering flak. It is what the board gets. You do not hear a whisper about what could be done if people were in their stead, with their ressources and lack of funding.

 

 

 

I was asking a question, no sarcasm involved whatsoever. McCoist identifies targets, not the board. Would you trust Wallace, Nash or the Easdales with football issues? What do we know about their work towards a scouting network? They were roundly ridiculed for their attempt to get Nerlinger and even the DoF role as such was put into question. But now you list it amongst their shortfalls?

Where do they get investment from when there is no-one interested? How do we know that they are not trying? Because they do no give us a list of those who declined? So that those who may be addressed next think that they are fifth or sixth choice? These are just things that sping to mind in such a debate - no excuse whatsoever. At times you actually get the notion like someone asking the priest of the "allmighty" god to stop the sun going down in the evening ... and if it does, they keep pressing on and harrassing the priest that the all-mighty god should be able to do that. Or, in fact, you writing Follow Follow and looking to sell it, the publishers demand that you do, but the audience is lacking. But the publishers keep pressing on even if the market is "sated". As I said, I expect the board looking for investment and whether they get it is not in their hands alone. As it would be with any company on this planet. Not guilty unless proven.

 

 

 

 

I listed what they have done in the above. Some of the greater support organisations have shot themselves in the foot with rather "direct" statements. We've seen time and again what their demands are and how they go about that. "Hardliners" spring to mind. I doubt that an open debate between these supporters and the board is possible under those circumstances. Hence, the ST stand-off and that financial shortfall. (BTW, I don't understand why you stated that it is the board's responsibility to up the ST sales ... when it was rather plain why they went down?) Nevertheless, the board at least tried to contact the fan base and wants to create the fan board. That the anti-board faction ridicules it and attacks their fellow Bears is sad at best. Whether the fan board has any input remains to be seen, realistically such input is rather low anywhere else in the world too. But at least the board gets some direct feedback from the support and perhaps vice versa. And I for one think that talking directly is always better than attacking one another via the gleeful media.

 

The engagement you refer to ... what are you looking for then? The "boycotters' HQ" asked for a legally binding agreement for which there is no legal basis. Still they pressed on and on and on. The "saviour" joined those ranks knowing fine well that it was propaganda at best. All they did was destabilise the financial daily running of the club and forcing the board into looking at unwanted avenues to keep it going. For which the board gets FLAK again. Essentially becaused they are still there, have not publically humiliated themselves and committed honorable suicide afterwards? For that is what it all comes down to, if you read some boards.

 

I will bring King in if it keeps the pendulum swinging both ways. For I simply do not believe that he - being chairman or CEO or owner - will fulfill all those demands of the support either. Nor does he do it at any of his companies - transparency, strategies, plans et al. It is not how companies and owners work, at least AFAIK. I was under the impression that all of you had a far better understanding of capitalists and their mindset than me. I'm sick and tired of this stuff ... and that includes any would-be investors playing games or whatnot.

 

1. The manager may decide targets but it's the board's responsibility to refuse them if they're not in line with the club's signing policy. Instead less than a few months after taking four months to write this new transfer policy, they and the manager go against it. That frustrates many fans.

 

2. Some fans may criticise Nerlinger or the DoF idea but that doesn't detract from the board failing to get one in place despite saying that's the format they want to follow. We've had no chief scout for over a year. That's ridiculous. Taking 4-12 months to appoint such staff when you say your going to do it is unacceptable.

 

3. The board promised investment both pre and post review. None has been forthcoming. No-one is interested because of all the failings highlighted. We have an Investment Committee which is failing the club. Dave King is interested but the club refuse his offer because they don't want to dilute their power. That's unacceptable.

 

4. A club which can't take criticism - hard-line or otherwise - is one I worry about. We've had open meetings before that worked quite well yet have had nothing since. Surveys and workshops may be OK but they don't solve the issue and don't inspire anyone. Instead they just lend more weight to accusations of opaqueness.

 

5. ST sales are absolutely the responsibility of the club. You're consistently (deliberately?) failing to recognise all the failings in this debate can be addressed by the board. They are not which is why thousands of fans have withheld their money. This could have been changed via open meetings with the support and demonstrable concessions made - such as board appointments, agreed action points and other signed off targets. Instead we have nothing - other than highly paid staff offering empty promises. You may wish to believe them, I and almost 20,000 other bears do not.

 

As said before, I'm stunned anyone is comfortable in making the suggestion the board are not to blame for the club's appalling situation or want to place attention on King instead. But I respect their right to hold that view so because I'm concious we're going round in circles I'm going to leave this here for now.

[der Berliner 3,245]

As said before, I'm stunned anyone is comfortable in making the suggestion the board are not to blame for the club's appalling situation ...

 

I wonder how often I need to repeat it that I am not "comfortable" nor do I suggest that "the board isn't to blame". What I am neither comfortable is the flak they get for circumstances they have no real influence on. After reading point 3 of your reply I see that there is no further point debating this. For it is the same demanding stuff all over again - apparently ignoring their reality - and King brought in when you know that there was no real way for him to invest. Of course, the board and owners could all jump ship and hand the rudder to him ... (that was sarcasm indeed). Dunno what the AIM would say to that.

 

... or want to place attention on King instead. But I respect their right to hold that view so because I'm concious we're going round in circles I'm going to leave this here for now.

 

What is it that can't be understood about my remark about King. Take McColl or whomever instead. Will they offer the transparency demanded? Fan board influence in a way demanded these days?

 

I'm again baffled by the way people are factionalized despite better knowledge.

[Rangersitis 0]

I wonder how often I need to repeat it that I am not "comfortable" nor do I suggest that "the board isn't to blame". What I am neither comfortable is the flak they get for circumstances they have no real influence on. After reading point 3 of your reply I see that there is no further point debating this. For it is the same demanding stuff all over again - apparently ignoring their reality - and King brought in when you know that there was no real way for him to invest. Of course, the board and owners could all jump ship and hand the rudder to him ... (that was sarcasm indeed). Dunno what the AIM would say to that.

 

 

 

What is it that can't be understood about my remark about King. Take McColl or whomever instead. Will they offer the transparency demanded? Fan board influence in a way demanded these days?

 

I'm again baffled by the way people are factionalized despite better knowledge.

 

People simply apply the Duck Test.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I wonder how often I need to repeat it that I am not "comfortable" nor do I suggest that "the board isn't to blame". What I am neither comfortable is the flak they get for circumstances they have no real influence on. After reading point 3 of your reply I see that there is no further point debating this. For it is the same demanding stuff all over again - apparently ignoring their reality - and King brought in when you know that there was no real way for him to invest. Of course, the board and owners could all jump ship and hand the rudder to him ... (that was sarcasm indeed). Dunno what the AIM would say to that.

 

 

 

What is it that can't be understood about my remark about King. Take McColl or whomever instead. Will they offer the transparency demanded? Fan board influence in a way demanded these days?

 

I'm again baffled by the way people are factionalized despite better knowledge.

 

It has nothing to do with anyone else other than our board, in my experience actions speak louder than words, I see complete inaction from our board other than to line each others pockets

[Super Cooper 0]

The board ain't going to refuse the manager a player unless he's un-affordable. It's not their job to pick and choose who we sign surely, that must be up to the manager. Our board by their own admission know nothing about football so how can they be expected to know if a prospective signing is in line with our signing policy or not.

[Calgacus 8]

The board ain't going to refuse the manager a player unless he's un-affordable. It's not their job to pick and choose who we sign surely, that must be up to the manager. Our board by their own admission know nothing about football so how can they be expected to know if a prospective signing is in line with our signing policy or not.

 

If the policy set by the board is to only sign younger players who have a resale value and everyone the manager signs is over 30 then they should realise it's not in accordance with their policy. They may not know about football but they should know about the football market and how it works. Buying and selling is the same whether it is a football player or a second hand car.

[Rangersitis 0]

Is anyone aware if the Academy Development Fund that was promised in the Business Review has been set up yet?