Doc 280 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Some highly pertinent questions in the Scotsman article not the least of which is: Spot on. If it turns out that the current lot are no better than Craig Whyte was then we are screwed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Spot on. If it turns out that the current lot are no better than Craig Whyte was then we are screwed. Undoubtedly. A clear and unequivocal answer to that question is urgently required. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Some fag packet maths. £28m Turnover so far since Summer 2012 - Correct? £25m Share issue - Correct? £15m Players wages - Correct? Yet we have posted a half year £7m loss and a full year £14m loss. Does that mean we have spent £74m since Summer 2012 but only £15m on player wages? Help me out here. If so, where is the £59m? Anyone............. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose 0 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Some fag packet maths. £28m Turnover so far since Summer 2012 - Correct? £25m Share issue - Correct? £15m Players wages - Correct? Yet we have posted a half year £7m loss and a full year £14m loss. Does that mean we have spent £74m since Summer 2012 but only £15m on player wages? Help me out here. If so, where is the £59m? Anyone............. IPO? Spiv handouts? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 IPO? Spiv handouts? Can you put a number on that mate? £8.5m for IPO apparently, not sure about Spiv handouts. Possibly around £15m in non playing staff costs. That's almost £24m. I wonder where the other £35m went? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 7,030 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 its always easy to be wise after the event anyhow I just don't listen to any of these clowns anymore . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) According to the last accounts, did not spend just over £10m on non-playing wages.....that is where the real cost cutting MUST be made..... Edited January 19, 2014 by Darthter mobile predictive text....:( 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,654 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 According to the last accounts, did we. It spend just over £10m on non-playing wages.....that is where the real cost cutting MUST be made..... I can't help wondering why Graham Wallace saw the need to try cutting first team player salaries as one of the first parts of his cost cutting measures instead of this £10m non-playing staff wages which I'd have thought would have been no1 priority 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 (edited) now that is a piece of worthwhile journalism. take note english. It was good overall but this bit was wrong and keeps re-appearing in the press: By any objective analysis, the problems at Rangers have one root cause – the club continues to operate as if it is in the top tier rather than in the third tier of Scottish football. So should Rangers have downsized to, say, Championship size? yes we pay too much in wages for the league we are in but not compared to the size we are or our income over the last two years. it is elsewhere we've lost the tens of millions (had stolen) that is the root cause Edited January 19, 2014 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I can't help wondering why Graham Wallace saw the need to try cutting first team player salaries as one of the first parts of his cost cutting measures instead of this £10m non-playing staff wages which I'd have thought would have been no1 priority Have you seen the breakdown of that £10m? Only £1.6m went to directors. What from the £10m could we cut? 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.