craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I agree with this but at least with Rangers men it rapidly diminishes the risk of them attempting to fleece us. Doesn't mean they'll be competent though. Agreed. Personally I think that us wanting "Rangers Men" is little more than a comfort blanket. If they have the credentials to get us back to where we need to be then PERFECT. But I would rather we looked to people who had the credentials before we look to Rangers Men. My point was merely that if we keep the mantra of "we need Rangers Men" then we could very well be filtering out high caliber, high wealth individuals or groups who could be perfect for us - and all because we want the comfort blanket of Rangers Men. There are absolutely no guarantees regardless of allegiances. The ONLY thing I want is someone, or group, who have the credentials, desire and wherewithal to get us to where we rightfully belong - if they are Rangers Men wonderful. If not, I wont lose sleep over them not being blue noses. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Based on my lifetime experience, every millionaire I've met was the same. Granted some millionaires help out a sporting institution e.g. Elton John, Jack Warner, Dave Whelan but they were local and supporters of their clubs. What's in it for him? It makes no sense that he is being philanthropic plenty he could do in the US. How many have you met ? I would urge you to read a little about Warren Buffett. At one point the richest man in the world.... lives in the same little house he has for 40 years (went to Southern Cali for a couple of years, hated it and moved back home). Gave away the VAST majority of his personal wealth and then teamed up with Bill Gates to form a massive foundation to help impoverished people. Warren Buffett doesn't get involved in businesses for the power OR the money - he does it because it is a game to him. Don't tar them all with the same brush is the motto here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Agreed. Personally I think that us wanting "Rangers Men" is little more than a comfort blanket. If they have the credentials to get us back to where we need to be then PERFECT. But I would rather we looked to people who had the credentials before we look to Rangers Men. My point was merely that if we keep the mantra of "we need Rangers Men" then we could very well be filtering out high caliber, high wealth individuals or groups who could be perfect for us - and all because we want the comfort blanket of Rangers Men. There are absolutely no guarantees regardless of allegiances. The ONLY thing I want is someone, or group, who have the credentials, desire and wherewithal to get us to where we rightfully belong - if they are Rangers Men wonderful. If not, I wont lose sleep over them not being blue noses. You keep insisting on peddling this 'Rangers Men' inaccuracy, and completely ignoring the responses you get. So I will repeat it again . This is turning into a complete distortion of reality. The support for the 'Rangers men' versus the support for the American is a complete load of nonsense, and do you know what, if he is Ashley's man put in there to divide and conquer the anti-Ashley support he is doing a damn good job already. No, scratch that remark - we're doing a good job on our own. It's not about 'Rangers men' versus others. As I said earlier if Brian Kennedy was back in trying to save us (with enough financial backing this time) he would be getting full support from the fans, and he is a Hibs man!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Do you feel the skills are transferable Craig? American sport is quite different from European sport, the franchise system, the manufactured equality of the league, the fact the NFL, NBA and major league baseball are basically the Champion's League not some backwater provincial league. Liverpool are on their second American owner, the first guys were deeply unpopular, John Henry seems more popular but Liverpool are still punching well below their weight globally. Aston Villa fight relegation every season and Man Utd are being milked as a cash cow. Rangers aren't a franchise and our culture means anyone making money out of the club will be despised by the support, it's not how our sport has evolved. We are are run at breakeven by people who care for the club or at a loss by wealthy people as a hobby. I'm not sure any other system works in the UK. It is a good question John, one which has some history but sadly none of which would prove indisputable. You have Hicks & Gillett at Liverpool who were a complete bust, Randy Lerner at Villa who is a bust and the Glazers at Man U who split opinion. Then you have John Henry. Hicks & Gillette - owned NHL teams, Dallas Stars did OK for Hicks but ultimately he defaulted on loans and had to sell at auction. Gillett owned Montreal Canadiens and they have been perennial bridesmaids. Sold them back to the Molson brothers. Not outstanding successes but the Stars did win a lot of divisional titles and the Stanley Cup for Hicks Lerner Lerner - owns the Cleveland Browns - up until this season one of the worst franchises in the NFL. Few franchises were worse than the Browns. John Henry I think is somewhat different to the other two. Everything I read about Henry he completely immersed himself in Liverpool prior to making his purchase, getting an understanding of the club, it's history, culture and expectations. Liverpool may be under-achieving this season but under Henry I think they have improved greatly, on AND off the field. He is someone that comes across to me as "getting it". When he took over the Red Sox they were similar to us, or Liverpool. A globally recognized brand sports club who were under-achieving. He took the Red Sox and turned that franchise around tremendously (though they are languishing a little again right now - concentrating on Pool instead of the Sox perhaps ??). But he is someone who seems to know how to operate sports clubs. So there has been some success and some failures with US owners. So nothing empirically conclusive. As for the skills being transferrable - good question, not easily answered. One thing that the US sports market do well is market themselves - even teams like the Cleveland Browns manage to put bums on seats and get people "into it". Marketing is something we are sadly lacking. There is manufactured equality as you put it and that makes it somewhat easier to remain competitive (unless you are the Oakland Raiders....) but clubs still have to generate their own income too - the higher their own income the higher their salary cap is which allows them to attract better players - so you still have to do SOME stuff on your own to improve and enhance the brand value. With regards to this guy the Phoenix Suns have been a fairly successful NBA franchise though hasn't won much for a few years now - in his first three years of ownership they won 3 divisional titles. Are the skills transferable ? Some will be, some wont I suspect. Marketing, fiscal prudence, transparency, corporate governance and operating within your means are all things that are transferable. We need those at RFC right now for sure. To be competitive in non-US sports you often see those spending the most money are the most successful, but that doesn't mean that you cant come from the US and create the infrastructure to be competitive without breaking the bank. This guy founded a bank, sold it, bought another one and sold that again - for a LOT of money - so he definitely seems to know how to "build a business" - whether he can rebuild us rather than a bank ? No idea. I'm not hanging my hat on this guy, and I'm not even endorsing him - my point is that what I personal would prefer is someone who has the credentials to get us back to where we need to be, regardless of allegiances. Could this guy be that person ? We won't know unless he gets the reigns to the Club. Could Dave King be that person ? Same response, we wont know until he gets the reigns to the Club. And that is the $64 million question..... we will have NO IDEA who is BEST for the Club - all we can hope for is the incumbents ARE the best for the Club - but I prefer to hope it is the right person for the Club based on credentials, not allegiances - though I DO understand those who want "Rangers Men" because with Rangers Men you can trust that they will be looking after the Club's best interests - they may fail, but not for nefarious reasons. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) You keep insisting on peddling this 'Rangers Men' inaccuracy, and completely ignoring the responses you get. So I will repeat it again . This is turning into a complete distortion of reality. The support for the 'Rangers men' versus the support for the American is a complete load of nonsense, and do you know what, if he is Ashley's man put in there to divide and conquer the anti-Ashley support he is doing a damn good job already. No, scratch that remark - we're doing a good job on our own. It's not about 'Rangers men' versus others. As I said earlier if Brian Kennedy was back in trying to save us (with enough financial backing this time) he would be getting full support from the fans, and he is a Hibs man!! And you ignore my referral to post 396. Either read it or not. But someone stated "we need Bears running the Club". Now, how that can be construed as not meaning Rangers Men is not for me to fathom but you. You can copy and paste your previous post as often as you like. I will continue to point you to Andy's comment in #396 and my response in #490. Now, have at it - but there clearly ARE fans who want nothing other than Rangers Men running the Club. So please lets not argue that it is a distortion of reality when I have already pointed you in the direction of someone who wants Rangers Men. Then, of course, we had the "Yanks No Thanks" embarrassment. But have at it. Edited January 9, 2015 by craig 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 The above was published a few days ago. I'd like to ask how Mr Sarver managed to conduct due diligence (4th line) ? Aye and you would think that a "historian" would heed the lessons of history. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 How many have you met ? At least 20 that you would have heard of, but what if it was 1000 or 1? My point is still the same. I would urge you to read a little about Warren Buffett. At one point the richest man in the world.... lives in the same little house he has for 40 years (went to Southern Cali for a couple of years, hated it and moved back home). Gave away the VAST majority of his personal wealth and then teamed up with Bill Gates to form a massive foundation to help impoverished people. Warren Buffett doesn't get involved in businesses for the power OR the money - he does it because it is a game to him. Don't tar them all with the same brush is the motto here. I know all about WB his primary motivation as a young man was to make money, nothing wrong with that. He has pledged to give most of his wealth away through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that is true. I don't see how using WB as guide gives us any insight into Sarver. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Absolutely spot on Craig. Many fans are hung up on the "Rangers'Men Only", so much so as it could put the Club in real danger or, at the very least make us unable to reach our full potential. You only have to look at every successful football club throughout the World...foreign managers, coaches, players etc. Long gone are the days when "they" won the big trophy with local boys. Possibly the only time it's ever happened! Yet their Board of "ce..ic" men pocketed a great deal of their fans' money for their own personal gain. So, the myth about have former players, fans etc coming back to run the Club is just what it is, a myth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 And you ignore my referral to post 396. Either read it or not. But someone stated "we need Bears running the Club". Now, how that can be construed as not meaning Rangers Men is not for me to fathom but you. You can copy and paste your previous post as often as you like. I will continue to point you to Andy's comment in #396 and my response in #490. Now, have at it - but there clearly ARE fans who want nothing other than Rangers Men running the Club. So please lets not argue that it is a distortion of reality when I have already pointed you in the direction of someone who wants Rangers Men. Then, of course, we had the "Yanks No Thanks" embarrassment. But have at it. Oh I see - you are being selective and only reading what suits your (false) theory. But as you say - "either read it or don't". Quite what this is about in relation to my posts I don't know - "Then, of course, we had the "Yanks No Thanks" embarrassment". But have at it, as you so diplomatically put it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 And you ignore my referral to post 396. Either read it or not. But someone stated "we need Bears running the Club". Now, how that can be construed as not meaning Rangers Men is not for me to fathom but you. You can copy and paste your previous post as often as you like. I will continue to point you to Andy's comment in #396 and my response in #490. Now, have at it - but there clearly ARE fans who want nothing other than Rangers Men running the Club. So please lets not argue that it is a distortion of reality when I have already pointed you in the direction of someone who wants Rangers Men. Then, of course, we had the "Yanks No Thanks" embarrassment. But have at it. What was embarrassing about not wanting the involvement of Club 9 Sports and Bill Miller? They were part of the on-going scam. 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.