craig 5,199 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The Chairman of a business doesnt get involved in the day to day so he may not know what is happening financially with the club - however, the Board should receive periodic updates on the financial status of the club - so he should at least be aware of what is going on, to an extent. If you have a devious management running the business it is VERY EASY to hide stuff from your Chair, particularly as the chairperson isnt involved daily. From a business perspective, the Board (and therefore Chair) are the strategic arm of the club, not the daily business - again, though, they should be given briefings as to what is taking place at the club from a high-level perspective. It is still easy to hide stuff from them though. Likewise, the manager has a remit which is to deal with football matters - he has no entitlement to be told anything about the financial, or business, affairs of the club other than to know what impact it has on his running of the footballing side. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The Chairman of a business doesnt get involved in the day to day so he may not know what is happening financially with the club - however, the Board should receive periodic updates on the financial status of the club - so he should at least be aware of what is going on, to an extent. If you have a devious management running the business it is VERY EASY to hide stuff from your Chair, particularly as the chairperson isnt involved daily. From a business perspective, the Board (and therefore Chair) are the strategic arm of the club, not the daily business - again, though, they should be given briefings as to what is taking place at the club from a high-level perspective. It is still easy to hide stuff from them though. Likewise, the manager has a remit which is to deal with football matters - he has no entitlement to be told anything about the financial, or business, affairs of the club other than to know what impact it has on his running of the footballing side. Thing is, several say we cannot get rid of Ally McCoist for football reasons because we need him to be watching out for us or along those lines. However, that can surely only be accurate if he does have access to big information beyond the football side. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The Chairman of a business doesnt get involved in the day to day so he may not know what is happening financially with the club - however, the Board should receive periodic updates on the financial status of the club - so he should at least be aware of what is going on, to an extent. If you have a devious management running the business it is VERY EASY to hide stuff from your Chair, particularly as the chairperson isnt involved daily. From a business perspective, the Board (and therefore Chair) are the strategic arm of the club, not the daily business - again, though, they should be given briefings as to what is taking place at the club from a high-level perspective. It is still easy to hide stuff from them though. Likewise, the manager has a remit which is to deal with football matters - he has no entitlement to be told anything about the financial, or business, affairs of the club other than to know what impact it has on his running of the footballing side. What sort of things would a bent board hide from two stalwarts who just departed yesterday, would a bent board be able to hide things from such stalwarts with unsurpassed financial acumen and city experience. Ally who (according to myth) single handedly saved the club from the abyss and his tight as a drum godfather/mentor don't know what is happening at the club (that is of course if there is anything going on at all) they have spent life times at as player managers and chairman, you may believe it I know many who don't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Thing is, several say we cannot get rid of Ally McCoist for football reasons because we need him to be watching out for us or along those lines. However, that can surely only be accurate if he does have access to big information beyond the football side. True - he's not the ideal watchdog. At least he's loyal to the club though, and he's better than no watchdog at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 There is a certain irony in Murray's letter with regards to the constant references to transparency in that the Murray himself could have been more transparent but such is the way of the world that everyone's desire to be spoon fed isn't always fulfilled. However it is quite thinly veiled and it's obvious that there is something seriously amiss. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 But then the biggest half truth of all was that we were guilty of cheating our way to titles via tax evasion... It's difficult to either agree or disagree with that due to the sheer volume of lies, deceit & shit-stiring that's been going on around the club over the past few years. Also, given we are where we are despite being found not guilty of the cheating aspect you do have to question if it was THE biggest half truth. I do understand why it would be the one which caused the most offence and it no doubt played a significant part in how we've been treated. All the same, there are plenty other 'what ifs' to consider on that front. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 The Easdale situation is a special case in that people are understandably not willing to give too much detail on any specific incidents. But in general I think a lot of posters too often state their opinion as fact, or their interpretation of a sketchy set of facts as "self-evident". Personally, I'd like to see a bit more explanation as to why some gersnetters have come to particular conclusions - not because I necessarily think they're wrong, but rather because I think it's unrealistic to expect folks to simply take another forum poster's word as gospel. (Particularly since often the only action being recommended in response to the information is to cancel season tickets.) I don't think pointing people in the direction of weighty documents and expecting them to pluck out the salient points for themselves is especially helpful either. A request for justification does not mean that aspersions are being cast, and if a poster really wants convince others on a vital but technical point, a bit of substantiation goes a long way. I agree with most of your points, but I have to say that I've hardly ever seen people on Gersnet recommending season ticket cancellation. That's a very very uncommon thing for any poster here to even suggest never mind recommend. My own main point to der Berliner, is that constantly poo-poo'ing the quality of the information being discussed on the boards because it's not substantiated comes across as particularly unhelpful and it's even less helpful to throw around scatter-gun nicknames for other posters discussing the matters, such as suggesting people are scaremongers, doomsayers and similar such jibes. It's not that any of this is hurtful or harmful, but neither is it helpful. If something is unsubstantiated almost everyone knows it's unsubstantiated because more often than not it's blatantly obvious that a rumour or opinion/point of view is being discussed and not a solid fact or event. Keeping telling us that we're discussing half-truths and unsubstantiated facts when we already know that's what we're discussing is pretty tiresome commentary. This isn't solely a dig a der Berliner either because he's not the only one who does it. There's a good quality of debate on Gersnet because the place has some standards, so please keep in mind (everyone!) that patronizing other forum members and making personal jibes at other posters (even indirectly) is not cool, not big and clever and not looked upon favourably here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 A large part of the problem is that you get those idiots who claim to "support my club no matter who is in charge", so that when a situation like this arises, where a city whizz kid with a proven track record describes it as a horror show, when a guy who was appointed to the board because of his track record of honest corporate governance is driven out of office, where alarm bells are sounding like a raid over London in 1940, these same idiots spend their time denigrating the proven good guys in the same way they denigrate the character of our Manager rather than coming together to demand answers from the people running the club - the club they profess to support, but in reality do nothing but harm. There is always something that can be done. If the board's behaviour or composition is unacceptable to the majority of the fans, we simply stop going to home games. We send a message. They already have our season ticket money, so that bargaining chip has gone - but we still have the moral power of the support; the same moral power that saw tV crews from France, Japan and America turning up to cover the worldwide football story that is Rangers. If the fans, having bought season tickets, don't go to games, there will be questions that have to be answered. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 so please keep in mind (everyone!) that patronizing other forum members and making personal jibes at other posters (even indirectly) is not cool, not big and clever and not looked upon favourably here. ehhmm ... oops 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 A large part of the problem is that you get those idiots who claim to "support my club no matter who is in charge", so that when a situation like this arises, where a city whizz kid with a proven track record describes it as a horror show, when a guy who was appointed to the board because of his track record of honest corporate governance is driven out of office, where alarm bells are sounding like a raid over London in 1940, these same idiots spend their time denigrating the proven good guys in the same way they denigrate the character of our Manager rather than coming together to demand answers from the people running the club - the club they profess to support, but in reality do nothing but harm. There is always something that can be done. If the board's behaviour or composition is unacceptable to the majority of the fans, we simply stop going to home games. We send a message. They already have our season ticket money, so that bargaining chip has gone - but we still have the moral power of the support; the same moral power that saw tV crews from France, Japan and America turning up to cover the worldwide football story that is Rangers. If the fans, having bought season tickets, don't go to games, there will be questions that have to be answered. Who'd be shouting loudest though?. Do you think we'd get the intended point across? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.