Rangers real culprit - leggo

[Bluedell 5,914]

The idea that Murray was a naive businessman getting the wool pulled over his eyes by big, bad Advocaat is laughable.

 

Advocaat may have his faults, and I don't agree with your assessments, Pete or Calscot, but I don't see them as being relevant as they had no impact on Murray's decision to spend money that the club could not afford.

[pete 2,511]

The idea that Murray was a naive businessman getting the wool pulled over his eyes by big, bad Advocaat is laughable.

 

Advocaat may have his faults, and I don't agree with your assessments, Pete or Calscot, but I don't see them as being relevant as they had no impact on Murray's decision to spend money that the club could not afford.

 

I think I said that both were to blame. and I stand by that. I think Murray knew he was running up debt but I do not think he realised what would happen if they lost the Sky money.

[Bluedell 5,914]

I think I said that both were to blame. and I stand by that. I think Murray knew he was running up debt but I do not think he realised what would happen if they lost the Sky money.

 

It's his job to know what happens. He should be looking at every revenue stream and looking at what-ifs. It's standard stuff for anyone in his position.

 

However the Sky money is immaterial. It wouldn't have made a dent in losses of �£131 million over a 5 year period.

[craig 5,199]

I think I said that both were to blame. and I stand by that. I think Murray knew he was running up debt but I do not think he realised what would happen if they lost the Sky money.

 

But nowhere in that statement do you mention Advocaat

 

Not planning for losing the Sky money is nothing to do with DA.

[pete 2,511]

It's his job to know what happens. He should be looking at every revenue stream and looking at what-ifs. It's standard stuff for anyone in his position.

 

However the Sky money is immaterial. It wouldn't have made a dent in losses of �£131 million over a 5 year period.

 

I disagree that the Sky money was immaterial. it may not have saved us from our present position but the loss of the Sky money from 48 to the beeb 8 million was a big blow to all clubs.

[craig 5,199]

It's his job to know what happens. He should be looking at every revenue stream and looking at what-ifs. It's standard stuff for anyone in his position.

 

To be fair it wouldnt be him doing the "what-ifs" - however even if he wasnt preparing such scenarios he should have been maintaining that they were being done. To be fair, whilst the buck most definitely stops with him, this would be something for the finance dept and the CFO should have been ensuring that these scenarios were being played out.

 

Being CEO and not having the appropriate analysis done is negligent in the extreme. At the very least there should have been "best", "worst" and "most likely" case scenario analysis done - and it appears that it wasnt. And if it was then SDM obviously went with best case which is something that I dont think anyone should really do - reason being is that if best case doesnt come off it could have catastrophic consequences for any business.

 

However the Sky money is immaterial. It wouldn't have made a dent in losses of �£131 million over a 5 year period.

 

That is, quite simply, an astounding figure. The head boggles.

[pete 2,511]

But nowhere in that statement do you mention Advocaat

 

Not planning for losing the Sky money is nothing to do with DA.

 

 

Agree but jumping ship when the tap ran dry is Dick Advocaat.