Hildy
-
Posts
1,747 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Hildy
-
As I said in another thread . . . We know our own team has its limitations but Dundee United were ragged and clumsy, and a poor advert for top tier football. We were untidy and careless too, but a few promising moments in the first half which could have changed the course of the game came to nothing as our striking quality fell short of the required standard. Defensively, Rangers were vulnerable, but playing professional opposition highlights the difference between today's outing and the walk in the park which has been the team's league campaign. Against part-timers, we can line up victories, but against the might of Raith Rovers and Dundee United, we labour unproductively. Rangers started the game with energy and passion, which was briefly encouraging, but defensive sloppiness allowed United to cash in. The game certainly had some of the excitement of a cup-tie but probably more spills than thrills. Both goalkeepers made gaffes, but the one that led to the third Dundee United goal was a shocker. It more than made up for the sole Rangers counter which too easily beat the United number one. While some fans will cling to 'if only' with regard to early missed opportunities, they would be well advised not to bother. This mismanaged Rangers team is a long way short of measuring up to the rather disappointing standard that is all too visible in elite Scottish football. In an impoverished football culture, Rangers is as clueless, inept and incompetent as its harshest critics have been saying. The board of directors now has a choice to make: keep the manager and prolong the agony or make a change and invite further controversy. Really, the choice isn't that difficult - as long as the board has genuine ambition for Rangers.
-
I wouldn't want to buy out the present regime if I was in King's shoes, but if there was no viable alternative, I'd at least look at the possibility and discuss it with clued-up fan group leaders. I wonder if this is happening or if all time and energy is being spent on more mundane matters.
-
Shouldn't it be put to Dave King that his wealth could be used to actually buy the club rather than setting up a trust which will likely be little more than nuisance value in the grand scheme? He is understandably reluctant to part with his money, but if he or someone like him was able to acquire the company for £30m, and have £20m left to assist with working capital, wouldn't this be desirable? King might want the purchase price repaid to him if he is successful and this would not be an unreasonable request. It is areas like this we should be fully exploring. With regard to the present regime, buying them out could be a lot less painful than smoking them out.
-
Since this nightmare was visited upon us, we've had the views of professional and armchair 'experts', informed rumour and hopelessly wild rumour, reasoned speculation and ridiculous guesswork and a never-ending analysis of where we are, how we got here and where we are going. Result? The nightmare continues. Solution? Buy the company. The Union of Fans should sit down with Dave King or AN Other in the hope that they can accelerate the process of removing the club from ownership that is never going to be universally accepted. Forgive me for using the technical term here, but let's stop 'fannying around' while the club becomes even more of a laughing stock. Let's cut to the chase and buy it. I asked earlier if £30m was a reasonable figure for a fanbase of our not inconsiderable size to pay to get the club back. Well, is it?
-
Wouldn't pay-offs come under working capital?
-
If a share price was agreed that put a £30m price tag on the whole shooting match, what other costs would have to be added and what would the £30m figure rise to - approximately? Leave working capital out of it. We all know how important it is but treat it as a separate matter for now.
-
Are you including working capital in this or are you suggesting that associated transaction costs would take the £30m figure up to £50m? I understand that the club needs a significant cash injection to move forward, but could the whole entity - without working capital - be purchased for the suggested £30m figure?
-
Thanks. For everyone: As Rangers fans, do we think that a figure of around £30m is a price that we should consider paying to own Rangers outright? This would include the Club, Ibrox Stadium, the neighbouring car park, Auchenhowie, Edmiston House and everything else that currently belongs to the company and the club. Naturally, we'd be hoping to negotiate this figure down a bit, but for the sake of argument, is £30m a price that our fanbase should consider paying to end this nightmare? I know we'd need working capital too, but leave that to one side for the moment. Is £30m an agreeable price to get our club back?
-
At 50p a share, how much to own the company?
-
I know of someone who spent several million pounds buying shares in a certain company. Those shares are now worth a fraction of what he paid for them. They collapsed as soon as he acquired them and there is no indication that he will ever get his money back never mind make profit. Let's look at what it would cost to buy Rangers outright if Gersnet offered 50p a share. Forgery the theories - at 50p a share, how much to buy the company?
-
What would the total cost be to buy the company at 50p a share?
-
If they're not, what does that tell you about our management, coaching and scouting?
-
United fielded a 17 year old and an 18 year old against Rangers at Ibrox in a Scottish Cup semi-final. We seem reluctant to play youngsters of that age in the team in the 3rd division - even after it was clear that we would win it by the length of Sauchiehall Street.
-
Some valid points here, but this is the club that thinks that drinking together means winning together. Forget the karaoke. What about the drinking that was going on six days before today's game? Would an athlete get drunk six days before the Olympics? Would Andy Murray get drunk six days before Wimbledon? The whole sporting and football ethos at Rangers is wrong because we let ex-pros run the show and they replicate the bad habits that were widespread and normal in their day. Rangers Football Club needs a Christmas Tree dragged backwards through it until there is nothing left but David Cooper Templeton! We need to be fully professionalised but I see no indication that it will happen any time soon.
-
If we had a more attack-minded manager, he'd flourish and his value would soar. If I was his agent, I would advise him to find another club more suited to his game. If he had the chance to do it all again, I think he'd think twice about moving to Ibrox. Our football culture doesn't easily send itself to free spirits. It's too busy accommodating the likes of Daly and McCulloch.
-
He has the appetite and the confidence to take opponents on and make things happen. He should be encouraged to keep doing it. I expect players like this to be dispossessed occasionally. It goes with the territory. Templeton attempts the difficult stuff while the rest mark time. I won't criticise him for being selfish when the rest of the team are so far behind him his options are often limited. A good coach should be able to polish this rough diamond and let it shine brightly.
-
Templeton is the most talented player at the club, the one I'd least like to lose.
-
Lee Wallace is highly regarded by the support, but considering that he could be picked up for petty cash by rich English clubs, one has to wonder why there's little or no interest in acquiring him. Maybe this is where we are at - even top Rangers players are off the radar for leading English clubs these days.
-
So after all that has happened, it took until February, 2014 for him to want greater fan power. Did he make this statement after being urged to do so or did he make it because he had finally seen the light? Is he being paid for his latest role as a signatory? Has he been promised a job at Rangers if King gets control? Has it been implied that a reward is waiting if the situation changes? These are questions that people would perhaps prefer not ask, and maybe it's none of our business, but the belated emergence of Richard Gough as a player in this saga certainly makes me wonder.
-
I think we've found the winner.
-
What motivated Gough to suddenly get involved after years of the club being in crisis? Fans have been wondering where leading club figures were as Rangers became public enemy number one. The cynic in me wonders if a deal has been done between King and Gough. It's still okay to be a cynic, isn't it?
-
Supplementary questions were ruled out. This meant that questions could be ducked or answered feebly. The excuse, if I remember correctly, was to allow more people to ask questions, but it stopped the board being pinned down on certain subjects and made life considerably easier for the top table. The unseemly haste to conclude meetings was another area of legitimate concern.
-
No-one needs to listen to or act on advice offered when they own enough of the club to do as they please. I watched David Murray stage-manage AGMs because he didn't want the hassle of having to answer pertinent questions, so they became farcical and valueless. I want a democratic and accountable club, but it will never happen while ownership is left to chance and the door is held open for people like Craig Whyte to stroll through and put140 years of history at risk within weeks of taking control. At the moment, we're moving from quicksand to quicksand instead of aiming for dry land. Fan ownership is dry land. Random ownership is a death warrant, and time will prove it. As things stand, I expect Rangers to falter again in the future until eventually it can no longer be saved. Another 142 years of history is completely out of the question. It will not happen unless the club comes under the protection of its own fanbase. Right now, we can only hope for a brighter future. Only when we are in a position to deliver it will it actually happen.
-
I'm not suggesting that we suddenly look kindly on SDM, but in our haste to see him go, the not so small matter of who would replace him was left to chance. We can write long lists of people that we don't want, but at some point we have to put forward workable alternatives, and we are notoriously bad at doing so. Football fans are quick to show dissent but very poor at offering and endorsing better ways forward.
-
Much as I want to see change at Ibrox, I watched Murray leaving and told those who wanted him gone that an even worse period could follow, but their mission was uncompromising: get Murray out. I want this board removed too, but I am concerned that when change comes it will be an anti-climax and the wrong way to proceed. 'Sack the board' is only half the answer. If the other half is Smith, Gough and Bain swanning around the place, it will be no answer at all. We need lasting solutions to our problems, not temporary ones.