stewarty

Seems fairly sensible to move the guy away from dealing with Celtic for a period until this dies down. Otherwise the focus is increasingly on this officer rather than addressing offensive behaviour issues.

Agreed. Gaining membership and continuing to chip away at other issues has allowed us to regain some standing. We're still a long way from being treated with the respect we deserve though.

Biggest one is income. No games = no income. Also means we are potentially having to refund ST monies. If we don't know how long it will take to resolve the issues, and our strategy relies on maintaining an SPL club infrastructure, if not a full SPL standard squad, it's not simply a case of saying; we are in the right here and we are being blackmailed. Also, cup games = revenue. Just because we didn't win the cups or do that great, doesn't mean we didn't benefit from participating. All told, the club was faced with a conundrum: stick to our guns and face having no football for a year, ad whatever that did to us. Or, accept the conditions, get back playing football and work through our issues in a robust manner We have a football team to watch because they chose the latter. Who knows what could have happened of teu hadn't.

It wasn't a simple analysis though. The risks of doing that were deemed to be worse than to not.

It was in the clubs interests to get back playing football, and to continue fighting against the numerous other agendas. There's only so much you can achieve at one time.

The decision to accept the SFA's terms was a board decision, not just Green.

I can't make sense of it either.

Okay. So what was all the chat about Green being a shyster and having surrendered about then? Seems to me that the club took a very difficult decision in the interests of getting back to playing football. The statement makes clear they were not happy with a number of things, and given it really was at the last minute as well as the way the club has stood it's ground on a number of matters since, I'm just not sure why you said what you did.

I wish life was a simple as your views seem to suggest it is. From the club statement on 27 July: Now, if this is lying down and surrendering; and given the club's numerous statements on reconstruction and other matters; my only conclusion is that you are revising history to suit your negative views of Green [Your choice]; or you have been hibernating for the last year.

"we got back playing football because green was not man enough to stand up against a conspiracy from the footballing authorities" Not man enough to stand up to the footballing authorities? Have you been in hibernation for the last year? Also, see STB's reply.

Green may well be primarily motivated by money. But him making money, and Rangers becoming a successful and sustainable football club are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Revisionism at its best. As for the IPO, Green has been almost universally praised for raising the amount he did. Most people had doubts it could be done, myself included, but he did.

Fair enough to trust someone more. But most of the reasons you've given don't stack up. Green owns around 8% shares so I'd say the amount he cares for Rangers is "rather alot". Obviously Murray has the emotional connection but I'd say they are both equally striving for the best for the club, just perhaps have different ideas as to what that should be. As for "all talk and no action", I think the IPO and getting us back playing football again is pretty significant markers of action he has taken.

Agree with a few comments on the thread. I think its important to understand the roles of a Chairman and Chief Executive here. And as Frankie has said, it is natural that there is going to be tension between the management team and Board on occassions, not least when you have a fairly conservative Chairman such as Murray, and an outspoken Chief Exec like Green. So long as disagreements are handled in a respectful and transparent manner, I don't see any issue with this. Also, if things have genuinely broken down between the pair on a personal level, that doesn't mean that they cannot work together in a professional capacity. Its the source of the information that is the interest part for me. The inner workings of the Boardroom tend to remain private. So, who has leaked this, and why?

Some quick points: 1. Based on my quick calculations, the total guaranteed pot contains an extra £437k (based on the sum of the additions and reductions per above). Where is this money coming from? 2. Why would teams 25 to 42 sign up to this? They only stand to receive additional distributions based on notional additional sums which are not guaranteed. I'd imagine most of the top 24 teams might be happy to sign up, but its going to take more than to convince the rest of them I'd imagine. This sort of half-baked and rushed stab at financial re-distribution is just typical of the SFA and SPL.

Perhaps. Definately has a face for blogging though!

For sure. We shouldn't blindly accept what has been written by anyone, the club included. In some respects, the most interesting aspect of the TOMOBLOG is where Tomo has sourced these emails and texts. He makes no mention of this. Logically, it seems to be Whyte, or someone acting on Whyte's behalf. Either that or someone at the Daily Record who has pulled his IT records. Now why would they do that, I wonder?

I think quite simply its a means that most all journalists use in order to get interviews and to use quotes obtained during the process. Tomo is screaming about journalistic ethics would know this fine well. But then, his previous piece on Orlit offered no right of reply to Rangers before publishing, so we can see right through any claims of journalistic integrity. As for the man generally, he writes a foreword to a book he claims not to have read. For me, no further debate about journalistic integrity is necessary.

Lets not forget that each player agreed up to 75% wage cuts for a significant period of time prior to them transferring (or not) to the new company. That sacrifice, along with the fact that Davis seems to have been instrumental in ensuring the club got a fee, suggests to me that he perhaps deserves to be cut a bit of slack.

There were so many variables to contend with. We also had no idea what would happen in terms of league reconstruction, there was plenty of talk about only being in the wilderness for a season or two, so anyone we were able to bring in was supposedly to be of sufficient quality that we could compete until the Jan 2014 transfer window.

Given more time for negotiation and to assess alternative options, you may well be right. But my argument is consistent, we didn't have the time to do those things. We had both hands tied behind our backs until just a couple of days before our first game. We then had a situation where some our heaviest salaried players that remained wanted to go: Broadfoot, Goian, Boca. Now, if you were to say we could have had plans B, C and D in place to mitigate against this then fair enough, but I'd further content that there wasn't enough time to enact them.

I don't have a copy of management accounts to hand, but I'd fancy that the £7k p/w they are on, if true, was the gamble to make them sign up as we knew we needed to sign players that would tide us over for a period of 12 months. Also, in the context of the revenues received and the funds raised by Green, I'd hardly say that either is on profligate wages other than the fact we are in SFL3, and that is what would likely have been demanded by an experienced player of their supposed calibre.

Like I say, there was no time to effectively plan and build any sort of team. As far as I know, the only player we had properly lined up ahead of the season was Black. And I'm in now way defending his performances, nor that of Sandaza, Templeton or Shiels who have all flattered to deceive in my view.

Also need to consider that not everyone was thinking that a move to SFL3 was an attractive proposition. Exhibit #1: McGowan from Hearts. I'm sure there were others who didn't even enter discussions on the prospect. Therefore, even the ones who were happy to come, demanded wages which were inflated; and we couldn't afford to say no.

Whilst I agree, we need to factor in that McCoist was not allowed the time to plan that out. He was firefighting off-field issues right up until a couple of days before we played our first game. Not saying that excuses everything, as there are clearly doubts about the quality of coaching being provided, but I don't think the top line budget argument tells the full story.