UCF2008

Ticketus? :fish:

Goes without saying really

I think that's why Walter was appointed. He's not a director of football either in title or function, but I think he is there to be a voice on the board for the footballing side if the business.

I'm not sure on this point tbh. I understand and agree with a lot of the strong feelings against these players, but for some of them at least, if they wanted to come back on a free and play for an acceptable wage when we're back in the SPL, I'd probably accept that. Coming back as fans - I think they should be able to do so without fearing for their safety. I don't think they should expect a hero's welcome though.

Fair enough point mate. We didn't have much time though. It's all fine and well to point out players who'be looked the part in a game against us, but are they playing at that level week in week out and if they were would we have known about it? Were we even scouting at this level?

I think you are wrong stb. Unless Charles Green had just come back from the future and stepped into an interview slightly confused that is.

Well, with the amount of time we had available to replenish the squad, we didn't have a lot of options. We could have gone for cheaper players who were only good for this level, but what's the point in that? It's not as if most players will accept a 1 year deal either so if we're planning to be back in the SPL in 3 years, then a balance has to be found. Fans are complaining as it is about a lack of flair in the side. What would they have been like with the cheaper option?

It's fine line. We needed to bring players in and we needed them to be of a certain standard. Sure you'll get the obvious comparisons between our players wages and their opponents, but the other clubs in the league combined have a miniscule fraction of Rangers turnover. If our wage bill is, like Charles green says, a fratcion of our turnover then what is to blame for us running at a loss?

I didn't claim it was redundancy. Losing a member of staff vs letting them go - It's the asme difference in terms of discussing job cuts to reduce the wage bill.

He could have done. It wouldn't have made much business sense though would it? Like the OP points out, Green's been boasting about how we've reduced the wage bill to a fraction of turnover. In a recent interview he was actually presenting it as though we are a model club for financial fair play. How can the wage bill then be blamed for us running at a loss? If there are other factors to account for the loss why not tell us about them? Is it possibly an attempt to get the support onside in making the the wage bill doesn't increase?

Not necessarily under Greens watch. At least not if you don't count the high earners he 'lost'. However, as muxh as everyone was questioning the lack of them, job cuts were made during admin

I would have expected momey set aside to develop the business (Ibrox, Rangers TV etc.) could account for us reporting a loss this season. I'm surprised the wage bill is being blamed. Sure, if you were to singularise everything then the wage bill would most likely be the highest running cost, but that's kind of common in business is it not?.

I agree we do need someone in charge who's prepared to stick up for us at this point in time. I don't think Green's doing a particularly good job on that front though. He only manages to make himself and in turn the club look foolish most of the time when he runs off at the mouth. He consistently shows a complete lack of tact. We need a leader who's ruthless, pull's no punches and hits our enemies where it hurts. Instead we've got Green with his scattergun approach. It's good that he's engaging with the supporters, at least where it leads to positive action and not just telling us what we want to hear. He also needs to stop mouthing off to fans and the press about pie in the sky deals before they're done. Seal the deal then tell us about it Chuck. Shock and awe as opposed to fantasy and blunder.

I think Ally was suggesting as much when he said he had his doubts about the fans being willing to visit the same away grounds again next season. As much as I agree we should be standing up to the lot of them and I'm angered by the way we're being used as a bargaining chip in the reconstruction talks, I don't think we should be making any out and out boycott threats. We don't need to be going out of our way to be making friends in the SFL but we don't need to be making too many enemies either.

There was some Dutch football 'expert' on Talksport the other day suggesting the same thing. His impression was that if plans for the Beneliga go ahead then both Rangers and Celtic are likely to be invited to join along with top clubs from other countries - he mentioned Sweden. I think he said the timeframe involved to get it off the ground was about two years from now. I'm all for it, but whether it'll ever be more than the pie in the sky it is right now is another story.

SR: That wouldnâ??t be appropriate. But there is a financial model that gives certainty and comfort to all clubs, particularly those further down the leagues. The top eight clubs in the SPL have conceded over £1m, particularly to the clubs in the First Division. After that, it will trickle down to other clubs... So he's basically admitting that the SPL have attempted to bribe 12 SFL clubs to ditch reconstruction plans unanimously agreed by all SFL clubs and join them instead

However, going by the same logic if my preferred setup of 18 - 24 was voted through for the following season then technically we could be going from winning the 2nd division to playing in the bottom tier. I'd still be up for it though because the structure makes sense.

We'd still be in the bottom tier as a team who should have gained promotion. Can anyone clarify what would happen with the teams who would otherwise be relegated from SFL first division or be playing in playoffs. Would they just get a bye?

As it stands we do have a case to argue that we should be promoted as league winners under any reconstruction. The only reason they're tring to push it through in time for next season is so that Rangers don't benefit and instead can be used as a bargaining chip by the SPL for the SFL clubs to agree to the proposals.

If one of the shirt manufacturers offer considerably more than the next highest bid then that's the one we should go for. It'll come down to the money as it should do. As for the shirt sponsor I've been wondering what might be happening with the Tennents deal to prompt the celtc switch to Mhagnurs. Have Tennents dropped us or have we dropped them? Or is the Mhagnurs switch just an attempt to fool them into thinking they're no longer associated with us in any form while we stick with Tennents?. Personally I hope Mr Green's managed to find a better deal for us elsewhere. I'm no teetotaller but it would be good to have a non-alcoholic global brand on our shirts for a change.

I don't think it's a bad idea to seek a move elsewhere. I'd have considered a move to the English Conference even before when we were in the SPL. It just seems foolish to have accepted sanctions and made sacrifices to have our SFA membership transferred and be accepted into the bottom tier then within six months start making idle threats about moving elsewhere because we're no longer running the show. How exactly did Chuck think this was going to play out?

That's the problem though isn't it? The time isn't now. The time was last summer when we were without a league and SFA membership. We might have had a chance of finding an invite from a sypathetic foreign football association and could possibly have been given dispensation from football's governing bodies to make the move. Now there are far too many hurdles to overcome. If we were to negotiate our way into the English leagues we would then need to serve a three year notice period ...barring a similar series of events to what we just scraped through. Cross border leagues are now our only prospect of leaving Scottish football and although they might come to fruition it won't be any time soon. We've made our choice and for the foreseeable future we're stuck with it.

I agree we're giving the game a boost from the ground up in terms of finance but that's the point. I don't have any serious gripe with the SFL. They only did what you would expect them to do and grab the opportunity presented to them with both hands. It should also be noted that they were honest and generally speaking didn't drag their heels or put it to a vote from their supporters. What they did however WAS completely self serving. I don't for a minute tow the party line that what they did was show true 'sporting integrity'.