Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
Well said. Imagine missing out on an opportunity to play in the first team because of a youth game. As you say, everything below the first team exists to one day benefit said first team. Youth has had few chances as it is this season as we plod on with a team averaging around 28 years of age, and now we are finding yet more reasons to deny young players a crack at the first team. The youth team's success is being rewarded by their players being excluded from top team opportunities. It is utterly bizarre.
-
£180,000 a year for a kit man and assistant is inexcusable, farcical and completely unjustifiable. The club is behaving like a private club for a privileged few while the rest fund inflated salaries by buying season tickets, participating in share issues and purchasing merchandise. There is no justification for this. It is a disgrace.
-
To put this into context, if the RFFF money was handed over to the club, it would be gone in three years if it went exclusively on the wages of the kitman and his assistant.
-
When the bus driver/kit man is getting paid £120,000 and his assistant is receiving £60,000, you know that the fans are being taken for mugs. The idea that fans should gift money to the club in these circumstances, whether through official membership schemes or independent groups, is simply not credible. Rangers, as things stand, does not deserve our cash. They blow it as soon as they see it.
-
The kitman and his boy aren't going to refuse such generous salaries, but they didn't set the salary level. Rangers did. What is going on? A club in our situation having been through administration and liquidation appears to have completely lost the plot.
-
£60,000 for being a Kitman's assistant? Really?
-
Is King prepared to invest in Rangers? I believe he is. Would he prefer it if he didn't have to? Absolutely. It wouldn't bother me if King walked away. I am not particularly impressed by his plans so far but he put £20m in before and lost it. Now he's back for more. Even if people don't like him, to suggest that he's lying or kidding about throwing more money at the club is a poor show. If the circumstances are appropriate, I have no doubt that King will put in.
-
If these figures are even close to being true, we are being conned. These figures are an outrage.
-
When Messi and Barcelona's 'Baby Dream Team' took on Rangers
Hildy replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
I think we are indeed at cross purposes, amms. I was merely highlighting the difference in the way Barcelona do things and the way we do things here. They do it pretty and we do it ugly. When a change of management comes, I hope we can find someone who will have us playing in a more sophisticated and pleasing manner. -
I don't believe that King has been lying. I'm sure he's reluctant to part with tens of millions, but I believe he will do so if he feels that he has no other realistic option. I'm not sure that I can say the same about our board. Implications that King has been lying are misplaced.
-
When Messi and Barcelona's 'Baby Dream Team' took on Rangers
Hildy replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
Did you miss the bit about Scotland - "relentless running and physique"? -
When Messi and Barcelona's 'Baby Dream Team' took on Rangers
Hildy replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
This bit here . . . "From that point on, the overwhelming focus of youth development has been on cultivating a style of football based on the philosophy of possession play, through the marriage of touch and technique, as opposed to relentless running and physique, which prevails in Scotland. The long term result of this vision: the inimitable brand of ‘tiki-taka’ football played by all Barca teams from the academy to the Camp Nou." It's not tiki-taka we play. Blooter-batter, sadly, is our speciality. -
You said yourself that £30m was an acceptable price to have the club removed from the current regime to Dave King or the Rangers support. Of course, working capital would be an issue but that's not the point at the moment. The reason the price is so high is because we couldn't organise ourselves properly when the price was much lower. You are right that we are a disorganised rabble with too many groups doing too many things, and every new group that comes along weakens the collective a little bit more. I've stopped counting them now and I see no point in any of the newer ones. If King happened to buy Rangers though and offer it to the support over, for example, a three year period, I think you would find enough common purpose to make it achievable. So yes, we are a disorganised muddle at the moment, but in the right circumstances, this can change.
-
My concern about King is that he is adopting the wrong approach. I believe he would be better occupied talking to the owners of Rangers and trying to negotiate a selling price. If he buys the club he can either keep it and fund it or sell it to an organised Rangers support. I have no time for the present regime. I have no trust in them and I want them removed, but buying them out seems to be unpalatable to DK. It might be better for all concerned if he had second thoughts about this.
-
Dave King has to make clear exactly what security means and what the consequences will be if the situation becomes serious. The fact that we are discussing it and speculating about possibilities is an indication that the facts have not been made clear. If those who join this scheme find themselves in a situation where they are required to shell out money, they need to know in advance, even if the risk is a small one. It shouldn't be difficult to get the facts on to a website.
-
It still needs to be addressed. King needs to publish a document that will answer pertinent questions - and identify risks, however remote they may seem.
-
All paying fans contribute at the moment. It could end up with a relative handful being faced with the same costs, and perhaps no income. It may seem like an unlikely scenario, but people need to know what will happen if the unexpected actually happens.
-
We pay it or suffer the consequences. Real life continues after fan ownership, but a hundred thousand members would not be as intimidated by a large bill as the five or six thousand guys in this new trust. There's no way to avoid paying maintenance costs, although a fan-owned club would be a better-run club and much less likely to get caught out by a large maintenance bill. A club whose owners profiteer, however, is much more likely to neglect maintenance and find itself faced with a hefty bill.
-
With fan ownership, everything belongs to the club. There will be no separation of ground from club unless the members want it to happen. The club would not move off to Hampden and leave Ibrox in the hands of a few thousand members. I"ve seen people suggesting that fans should own the stadium, or Auchenhowie, or the pitch, or Edmiston House. This is a bad idea. The trick is to own the club and all of its assets. Owning everything except the club is a recipe for catastrophe. If you own all the assets and I own Rangers, I can leave you high and dry if my priority is my wallet. What is the priority of our current board, I wonder?
-
It is, but no-one seems to be asking what might happen if the company suffers a financial collapse and a huge stadium becomes owned by several thousand fans who never expected to have to pay a share of the cost of maintaining it. Questions like these need answering. It might seem an unlikely scenario but a few years ago people thought that all the bad things that have happened to us could never happen.
-
So around 5,000 people could become the new owners of Ibrox overnight. Would those 5,000 people be prepared to pay the cost of maintaining it? Have they even thought about it? The more I think about this, and I want the ownership of Rangers to change too, the more I think this idea needs to be properly fleshed out. People don't know what they are signing up to.
-
It has been suggested in some quarters, usually by people who despise Rangers, that Ibrox is in need of a ten million pound refurbishment. If this is true, and even if it isn't, who will stump up cash if the ground fails to get a safety certificate? There is a very strong argument in favour of Rangers having a stadium or a training ground, but not both. If the Rangers board is made up of people with little or no affection for the club, losing Ibrox might not be such a big blow to them. I admit this is all speculation, Andy, but how can people sign up to this when there are so many unanswered questions?
-
Can you answer the questions I have already posed? How exactly is this trust going to work? Could it become liable for the upkeep of the stadium in certain circumstances? If Rangers lost the stadium to this trust, what would happen if the team was taken elsewhere to play home games? I know why people are considering this, but someone needs to fully explain what will happen if the stadium becomes the property of the trust. Would you want to own a stadium in need a significant investment and requiring thousands spent on it every year just to keep it habitable - which Rangers might not even use?
-
Imagine if the club lost Ibrox and it became the property of this new trust. How would the new owner of Ibrox manage to pay overhead costs and bills for essential maintenance work? What if the club became extinct? What if it struggled on and played out of a rented Hampden instead? Does anyone know how this security idea actually works?
-
It's a good question. What happens if there's a serious problem in mid-season? Could the stadium become the property of five or six thousand ST holders? How exactly does this work if things go badly wrong?