buster.
-
Posts
13,948 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Everything posted by buster.
-
IMO that's a reasonable and understandable stance. By now we should realise that words aren't worth the paper they may be written on. I think that a lot of people want to see actions instead. Too much of the rhetoric has been misleading or downright untrue and that's before you talk about the pounds that came and went.
-
We agree the club is a shambles from top to bottom. The most important part of this omnishambles is in the boardroom, from where the club is run and strategic decisions taken. eg. - If the footballing operation is not performing the board need to make the changes they deem necessary so as to put that right within budgets that they set. If individuals within the football operation (management) aren't and haven't been performing at a suitable level, decisions need to be made. - If the footballing budget can't be supported by income, the board need to increase income and/or reduce expenditure in a timely way (doesn't take 120+ days to discover that). However what we've had at Ibrox is successive incarnations of the boardroom with broadly similar shareholders backing them abdicating responsibility whilst filling their own or friends pockets either directly or indirectly.
-
Couple of things with that report. The phrase "he is believed" = Mibbees aye, mibbees naw, mibbees not as much as we are pushing Does the reporter know exactly what Faure and Peralta earn and if he does, why not specify ? Spin, moonbeams and soundbites at ST renewal time tend to be like flowers in springtime although there would seem to be a solid base to this particular story. It must be said that with the current board at Ibrox it would seem as we live in a perma-Spring.
-
I agree but I think the history books on the club as a whole will show an omnishambles at all levels, with other issues putting the on-field into the shade.
-
They come,........ They abuse,......... They go......... It was ironic that I (Time4_Change) joined same day as Traditionalist and I guess we were always on course for opposite sides of the debate, LOL. I implored him to debate points as it is through reasonable dialogue backed up where possible that arguments can be found wanting or to be solid. I'm an older Bear whose first memories are of the 72/73 season and have at times been a poster on other sites, mostly FF.
-
Neither Ally or Lennon are what I'd call good managers. You put either in a provincial club with a limited budget and they'd struggle. Looking forward to seeing Lennon metaphorically 'crash and burn' when he goes South. As for Ally, he won't get another management job at any decent level, this in itself says everything. The board in keeping Ally in charge aren't doing their job.
-
During the last couple of seasons, Lee Wallace has been a man amongst boys. On the flipside he shows how far some of the other players are away from the level required further down the line.
-
If the board are serious regarding a director of football appointment (the act itself & his influence being brought to bear) then surely you carry out a selection process and get him in prior to organising the following season. The club is all over the place, mixed messages abound, the share price drops and executive control from upstairs is found wanting once again. 'Wanting' to fill their pockets whilst the club steadily falls apart.
-
Re.Cribari: Is this in place of a current coach who will be leaving ? It would also raise the question of the (lack of) influence of any prospective DoF (or equivalent) going forward. As for Miller, it's all so predictable. He's been a good player and would be above average in the Championship if he stays clear of injury but we have to break the mould and start believeing in the younger players, especially when in the lower leagues. The club hasn't got the money to maintain the old approach, as it now has to allocate serious money to go places other than football, whether that be directly or indirectly..
-
If Traditionalist is one of the sharper VB's then that explains a lot in itself. Apart from the abuse, he put forward an argument, it was found to be flawed as he couldn't back it up and swiftly looked to change the subject. That is to say it helped confirm much of what others had told me about the VB.
-
The Future is the Past !
-
How long do you think it right to reserve judgement ? So far, by the time the judgement has eventually seen through the fog we get somebody else in and they start again. During these various chancers passing through Ibrox things are getting steadily worse.
-
Rather than pin blame on Ally McCoist and the football department in general or the executive board and powers in and around the board,....I'd point to the club being an Omnishambles at just about all levels. However there is an important difference between the football and the executive board and that is the former isn't very good whilst the latter has been designed to extract money.
-
Do the current incumbents of the boardroom convince you ?
-
What kind of power ? Do you not think it may be that he sees the football club in the hands of corporate vultures and it's time something was done about it ?
-
I think Traditionalist mentioned that he was from the VB's. I encoutered him on another thread (Wallace Bonus) and his logic was so flawed and empty that I almost felt sorry for him. ps. I see you have a 'Merlin' icon available on here, I just hope he isn't a Gersnet 'icon'.....LoL !!
-
Do you think Gough cares about Rangers and if not why would he bother himself getting involved ?
-
What does that say about the disproportionate motives of GW ? Given finances and in particular cashflow, what kind of board would give the OK to that ?
-
Mr.Wallace and his advisors would have negotiated his 'Golden Renumeration Package'. When GW was appointed, the chairman Mr.Somers was talking about corporate goverence, transparency and an end to the (unjustifiable) bonus culture. In short Mr.Somers said that he would look to put together a 'professional' board who would sort out the mess. Back to negotiations, between the different parties they decided that the GW contract should contain a bonus worth 100% of a salary. Why would a company with financial problems do that ? Perhaps because he would set specific targets that would be at levels where the CEO led company would generate enough money to justify them ? or Perhaps because the company needed and pushed the mind-set of the 'Golden CV' to keep the heat off as things were to get ever hotter in the kitchen. For the "Golden CV" to take the risk/hit he needed big bucks. But they couldn't award a salary of 630,000 so they come up with the 100% bonus idea (they have previous for it) and a contract that is foggy and imprecise regards the trigger. If it were transparent and proper it would have specific conditions. So GW and his advisors started off at Ibrox by helping put together and signing a contract that was designed to decieve. It would not be transparent but would almost certainly see him take a package that all included will cost the club up to around 800K.
-
Can I just say that the gentleman you name doesn't influence my opinion. I am grown up enough and sufficiently grounded in our trials and tribulations of the past few years to form my own opinion. Your obvious want or need to name "cabals", "Chris Graham" and whatever or whoever else, points to a need to apportion blame rather than actually debate about the real issues at hand. I'd prefer you stayed and debated the issues more deeply so as we could better understand our respective viewpoints. However I'm going to go out and won't be back for a few hours. I will reply to any of your posts later on today or tomorrow.
-
The man with the Golden CV, we now learn is more the man with the Golden renumeration package (that just happens to be light on detail regards what triggers the main bonus).
-
No, you can't explain it because the premise of your post was deeply flawed and relied on plucking a convenient thought from the air and inserting it as if it were scientific fact. "Denial" refer's to your seeming refusal to recognize that the current board is a continuation of the misleading shambles aflicting Ibrox for years. To the extent that you apportion blame to "cabals".
-
Not altogether sure ? You must be inferring that his contract doesn't make it clear ?
-
You are not making sense. How exactly do you bracket those who didn't speak against SDM in a timely way uniquely with those who are unhappy with the way the club has and is being run (post SDM) ?
-
With all due respect and IMO you are living in utter denial. Open your eyes and and have a look over the past few years, right up until the present day. We are being played for idiots though, but by our own club.