der Berliner 3,283 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Thats a full out lie from King. Very disappointing. While the decision was ratified by the board, this was a done deal by Graeme Park from day 1. Information 100% accurate from an involved party. But how can anyone verify either, your ITK chap's stuff or King's? Chairman’s Statement https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/chairmans-statement/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 But how can anyone verify either, your ITK chap's stuff or King's? I think that there's large element of truth to both statements. It just depends on what emphasis you put on the board's decision making/ratification. A board normally take collective responsibility over such decisions but that's not to say that most of the leg work and the recommendation didn't come from GP. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,485 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 The Caxinha answer is a strange one. A simple 'we thought he was the right man, but it didn't work out, that happens in football' would have killed that question and been a truthful answer. Everyone knows the search for our next manager is taking far too long, I'm not sure what anyone expected to learn on that front today. In the end there are guys on our board who have invested a significant amount of money into the club, money there is a real risk they might not get back. I can understand why they're being cautious over this appointment. They're only human, I'm not sure how much the Pedro appointment has cost the club but it'll be a fairly big sum. They'll be very reluctant to lose that kind of money again. That nervousness will inevitably lead to caution and time being taken. It's not ideal as a fan but I can understand it from their perspective. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 The Caxinha answer is a strange one. A simple 'we thought he was the right man, but it didn't work out, that happens in football' would have killed that question and been a truthful answer. Everyone knows the search for our next manager is taking far too long, I'm not sure what anyone expected to learn on that front today. In the end there are guys on our board who have invested a significant amount of money into the club, money there is a real risk they might not get back. I can understand why they're being cautious over this appointment. They're only human, I'm not sure how much the Pedro appointment has cost the club but it'll be a fairly big sum. They'll be very reluctant to lose that kind of money again. That nervousness will inevitably lead to caution and time being taken. It's not ideal as a fan but I can understand it from their perspective. One thing is the individual that is chosen to be our next manager. Another is managing the expectation levels in a realistic way that are is relative to projected timescales and levels of financial support. If the latter is allowed to mushroom into unrealistic territory, then we'll get plenty more practice at appointing managers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,447 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 I'm not sure we should need Europe to break even - it's too risky. I've always thought that we should break even without Europe, and structure our wages to be a bit lower basic and include larger bonuses for it. If a player doesn't like it, then he's not confident in his ability or ambitious enough. Football is a results business and I think wages should be structured more around that as income varies wildly with it. The balance of that should go to the transfer kitty - or pay off the previous year's if we speculate to accumulate somewhat. Breaking even would mean reducing our staff costs from £17.6m to £11.0m. It could be done but the quality of the playing squad would theoretically deteriorate significantly. As for restructuring the way we play players, we would really struggle to attract anyone. Players don't want to take the risk and would go elsewhere if we were the only club doing it. Sounds good in theory but just wouldn't work. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Breaking even would mean reducing our staff costs from £17.6m to £11.0m. It could be done but the quality of the playing squad would theoretically deteriorate significantly. As for restructuring the way we play players, we would really struggle to attract anyone. Players don't want to take the risk and would go elsewhere if we were the only club doing it. Sounds good in theory but just wouldn't work. Yeah, I agree BD. I like calscot's way of thinking because I do believe that there should be more performance related pay in our financial structure, from the Board all the way down to the tea lady. The problem with things such as win bonuses is that a player is not solely reliant on themselves to guarantee that. They need the help of up to 13 others on any given game day - and this season even that sometimes isn't enough when you look at the performances of some officials in our games. "Pay as you Play" could work - but even that has its perils too - a player coming in would be confident that they would be playing every week if they have the belief in their own ability - but if injured then they lose a chunk of money through no real fault of their own. In theory the structure is the right one. But in practical terms players will go to other clubs for the security of guaranteed wages - it is human nature and difficult to question. An example, though poor how it turned out, is Joey Barton. Burnley offered him more money than we did but on a 1 year deal. We offered him the security of a two year deal. He wanted the security of playing longer and took our deal. Some balance can be sought though - even if we could shave 10% from basic salary and have it as performance-related the club get some level of financial relief in the event that player isn't playing or if the team aren't getting results. But there is a very real risk of not getting the players you desire in having such a policy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,283 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Going by the money being splashed about, reaching the CL group stages in the not too distant future would probably be monumental to our finance situation. EL is nice, but the income would be fractional. You wonder what friendlies like the one in Florida will yield? Or some paid-for exhibition games in ... who knows, China or the like? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,215 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Probably similar answers to similar questions this time next year , but at least we have our club back from the charlatans who only sought to fill their own coffers . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Breaking even would mean reducing our staff costs from £17.6m to £11.0m. It could be done but the quality of the playing squad would theoretically deteriorate significantly. While I get the point, I don't quite think the numbers are correct as our revenue should theoretically increase to about £35m without Europe, considering pre-Whyte figures. But all it leaves us is with a larger wage that shareholders have to fund when Europe doesn't work out. It just seems pretty risky. As for restructuring the way we play players, we would really struggle to attract anyone. Players don't want to take the risk and would go elsewhere if we were the only club doing it. Sounds good in theory but just wouldn't work. Yeah, I get that, but my fuller premise has always been that this should be brought in the football rules where basic wages should be covered by a worst case scenario and then augmented by performance related bonuses. There are a lot of clubs running too much debt as so many are speculating to accumulate but it's not a business where everyone can win. However, there are many times where we seem to pay players too much too easily - can you really imagine the likes of Windass turning down a huge pay rise plus excellent bonuses for the doing well in League, cups and Europe? Thing is, if we had such a system, I don't think you'd see so many players downing tools. 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.