Next Season

[craig 5,195]

45 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I may be wrong or in the minority (wouldn't be the first time for either 😀), but isn't it the Executive Boards job to look at ways to improve the club and to move it forward financially? 

 

It's not "entitlement" or having our cake and eating it, it's simply wanting the best for our club and holding the board accountable. 

 

So many things wrong with the club and one being any medium to long-term goals or vision. 

 

The Aussie friendly was the final straw for many. Whilst we all know we need money, but why choose to help fund our rivals at the same time? 

 

Would a historic touriment against genuine friends of our club create much less? Say Rangers, Arsenal, Hamburg and D.Kiev - weekend of football at Ibrox. Sensible priced tickets, merch, catering, sponsorship, TV coverage, corporate - can't be far off £3M and would have almost 100% fan engagement

Re your first sentence.... is that not what they did with the Australian debacle ?  They were looking to move the club forward financially.... and were soundly rounded upon (rightly so IMO).  But, again, you can't ask them to move the club forward financially and, when they do, moan at them trying to move the club forward financially.... surely you can see the hypocrisy in that ?

 

How do you know they dont have any medium or long term goals or vision ?  Is Edmiston house not a medium term vision ?  One which, hopefully, will result in an additional revenue stream ?  Or is that to be put in the "they should be doing that anyway" bucket ?

 

Whilst you and I can see what happened in that Oz debacle, there could, reasonably so, have been a feeling from the Club that it was sizeable monies to be earned from a mid-season break and one which represented good value financially, ignoring who the opponents would be.  Should they have foreseen the fallout ?  Probably.  Would the fall out have been as big as it was had Celtic not used it as a convenient press release on the same day their class action was approved ?  Who knows.  But the Board werent to know Celtic would use it for that convenience.

 

How do you know we would make 3 mill off a tournament like that ?  How much would those clubs charge as appearance fees, how much security would there be, what would be the other running costs to get to 3 mill profit ?  Who takes the risk in that too ?  The club would take the risk whereas with Oz they just get an appearance fee and the organisers pay all other costs.  Zero, or limited, risk.  Oz would be the easier, less risky option.  For the avoidance of doubt.... Oz was a disastrous move IMO and I didn't support it - but playing devils advocate I can see why the club did.

[CammyF 6,781]

56 minutes ago, craig said:

Re your first sentence.... is that not what they did with the Australian debacle ?  They were looking to move the club forward financially.... and were soundly rounded upon (rightly so IMO).  But, again, you can't ask them to move the club forward financially and, when they do, moan at them trying to move the club forward financially.... surely you can see the hypocrisy in that ?

 

How do you know they dont have any medium or long term goals or vision ?  Is Edmiston house not a medium term vision ?  One which, hopefully, will result in an additional revenue stream ?  Or is that to be put in the "they should be doing that anyway" bucket ?

 

Whilst you and I can see what happened in that Oz debacle, there could, reasonably so, have been a feeling from the Club that it was sizeable monies to be earned from a mid-season break and one which represented good value financially, ignoring who the opponents would be.  Should they have foreseen the fallout ?  Probably.  Would the fall out have been as big as it was had Celtic not used it as a convenient press release on the same day their class action was approved ?  Who knows.  But the Board werent to know Celtic would use it for that convenience.

 

How do you know we would make 3 mill off a tournament like that ?  How much would those clubs charge as appearance fees, how much security would there be, what would be the other running costs to get to 3 mill profit ?  Who takes the risk in that too ?  The club would take the risk whereas with Oz they just get an appearance fee and the organisers pay all other costs.  Zero, or limited, risk.  Oz would be the easier, less risky option.  For the avoidance of doubt.... Oz was a disastrous move IMO and I didn't support it - but playing devils advocate I can see why the club did.

I suppose it is but it was naive and a disastrous move / suggestion. Our rivals would have ended up making much more than us due to the Ange factor. I don't mean in appearance fee but in spin-offs. Also, I can't be the only Rangers fan who is uncomfortable with us cosying up to Celtic and being part of "Ange Homecoming"? That's before you even get into the ongoing court-cases and actions.

 

My suggestion was just to throw an alternative out there. How viable it is is open to debate but we have done similar previously and it seemed to work. All the risk needent be on Rangers, I'm sure we could get someone to sponsor / organise it? 

 

Edminston House is a welcome move but also a gamble - look what happened to the last one. Look forward to it opening.

 

However, the medium to long term vision I'm looking for would incorporate the footballing side of things. If we do have a vision, it would be good to see it.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by CammyF

[ian1964 10,415]

 

[CammyF 6,781]

1 hour ago, ian1964 said:

 

Are we implying some bias in his performance based on his background? 🤔😏😉

[Bill 13,717]

23 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Are we implying some bias in his performance based on his background? 🤔😏😉

Bloody teachers eh!

Edited April 5, 2022 by Bill

[Bill 13,717]

It's not that they're the first or only ones, or that there haven't been some in the past who might have favoured Rangers, but in my assessment Clancy and Collum are cheats who have deliberately disadvantaged Rangers. It's the easiest thing in the world to do, given the first two alternative conclusions most people reach is that it's either just incompetence or the usual biased bellyaching from bluenoses. While some refs have been hounded out of the job, I'm not aware of any that have been removed for deliberately cheating. To do so would bring into the question the entire basis of the game in Scotland, so everything has be be continually swept under the SFA's carpet. In this climate of corruption and denial I see absolutely no hope that VAR will be anything other than a tool to maintain the status quo and protect refereeing incompetence. Of course in time-honoured fashion, anyone who suggests this will be dismissed and ridiculed as a sore loser. To get fair refereeing you first have to control the SFA.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

5 hours ago, Bluedell said:

We made a loss of £17m in 19/20 season, and I'm not sure how we go from that to break-even with the Gerrard cash and a couple (?) of extra games in Europe.

 

We also need to look at next season's finance. If we go out early in Europe we'll be looking at another big loss and where is the cash tor that coming from?

sorry i meant to include patterson on the list and of course the return of crowds. 

[compo 6,138]

13 hours ago, Bill said:

It's not that they're the first or only ones, or that there haven't been some in the past who might have favoured Rangers, but in my assessment Clancy and Collum are cheats who have deliberately disadvantaged Rangers. It's the easiest thing in the world to do, given the first two alternative conclusions most people reach is that it's either just incompetence or the usual biased bellyaching from bluenoses. While some refs have been hounded out of the job, I'm not aware of any that have been removed for deliberately cheating. To do so would bring into the question the entire basis of the game in Scotland, so everything has be be continually swept under the SFA's carpet. In this climate of corruption and denial I see absolutely no hope that VAR will be anything other than a tool to maintain the status quo and protect refereeing incompetence. Of course in time-honoured fashion, anyone who suggests this will be dismissed and ridiculed as a sore loser. To get fair refereeing you first have to control the SFA.

There was a Scottish referee sacked for accepting the hospitality of an Italian club a few years back 

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,205]

2 minutes ago, compo said:

There was a Scottish referee sacked for accepting the hospitality of an Italian club a few years back 

Steven Conroy admitted lying about disclosing his team as Dumbarton so he could ref big games despite being a clear celtic fan and no one has batted an eyelid. Kenny Clark had/has a season ticket at the scumhut.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

16 hours ago, ian1964 said:

 

looking right at it same as the handball.