the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I have seen him slate Wallace prior to this. Because if he knows what's needed and can't deliver it he's useless. Expensive useless. Evven stb said even he would wake up to this board if they hunted Wallace so perhaps his demise will be useful. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Because if he knows what's needed and can't deliver it he's useless. Expensive useless. Evven stb said even he would wake up to this board if they hunted Wallace so perhaps his demise will be useful. I really couldn't care what stb thinks, Wallace would simply be replaced by yet another well-paid patsy who would willingly do their bidding for them because he was being enticed by a big, juicy bonus. Games are being played in the battle for hearts and minds and I for one am sick of it - no matter what direction it is coming from. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I really couldn't care what stb thinks, Wallace would simply be replaced by yet another well-paid patsy who would willingly do their bidding for them because he was being enticed by a big, juicy bonus. Games are being played in the battle for hearts and minds and I for one am sick of it - no matter what direction it is coming from. Oh this gets us nowhere for sure. Nor will anything but an out an out boycott. The more people who realise that the better. This group of controlling shareholders must be got rid of or we go nowhere good. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 That's a fair point, but as I said the other day, Wallace isn't as daft as he looks. He should have sought guarantees about his job remit and what power he would have before accepting the job just like the Dundee CEO Scot Gardiner did when he was approached and then rejected the job offer. That means little though. They could very well have given him the guarantees he sought and then reneged on them the moment he walked through the front door. At that point he would have had a very serious decision to make - walk out because they proved themselves liars or to try to fight them from within. We are being very hypothetical.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 I really couldn't care what stb thinks, Wallace would simply be replaced by yet another well-paid patsy who would willingly do their bidding for them because he was being enticed by a big, juicy bonus. Games are being played in the battle for hearts and minds and I for one am sick of it - no matter what direction it is coming from. This next well paid patsy would, in all likelihood, be the last for them. They don't have the cash to fund any more expensive pay-offs or the payment of two CEO's simultaneously. Could be useful indeed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 This next well paid patsy would, in all likelihood, be the last for them. They don't have the cash to fund any more expensive pay-offs or the payment of two CEO's simultaneously. Could be useful indeed. If they have hired this patsy just to fire him with a large payout as they have done before, why? Where does this advantage them? If the end game is to bring the club to the brink of administration before they have an excuse to sell Auchenhowie and Ibrox, why not just sign another couple of donkeys and continue with the boycotts? As far as a drain on reserves go that would achieve the same result. Why go through this charade? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 8, 2014 Author Share Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) That means little though. They could very well have given him the guarantees he sought and then reneged on them the moment he walked through the front door. At that point he would have had a very serious decision to make - walk out because they proved themselves liars or to try to fight them from within. We are being very hypothetical.... Absolutely and since we're being hypothetical.... another possibility is that they haven't reneged on any guarantees at all, but that Stockbridge misled Wallace as to the real state of the finances and that Wallace was left in situation where cutting costs the way he might have liked to do wasn't affordable (contractual pay-offs, redundancies etc). Edited September 8, 2014 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 The appointment of Longmuir whilst on its own would probably be decent enough it would cause its own set of problems which arise rapidly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 Don't forget much of this boards kudos was tied up in Wallace. They weren't the old board yadda yadda. We knew better of course but many were fooled. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted September 8, 2014 Share Posted September 8, 2014 That "Matherising" must be a real concern given the no. of CEO's we appear to have succumbing to it. Perhaps they will eventually find a cure for it. Utterly shameful article for a Rangers blogger. 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.