Uilleam 5,769 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 its more i want someone with a football mentality and experience dedicated to that role. Let SR deal with the company, i dont have any confidence he has the desired experience in things like purchasing players etc. He might have done freebies at motherwell but has he, before us ,ever actually dealt with a signing fee negotiation for example? I agree, and many will agree that the impression given by the Club, for years, is of one inclined to overpay, and undersell. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 I'm surely not the only fan who is growing increasingly battle weary following Rangers!, I'm nearly at the end of my tether tbh!, I can see a drastic drop in ST sales unless the board pull a rabbit out of the hat soon! Then you need to get a grip imo. The MSM, Tom English, Sutton, Radio Clyde, Daily Record etc. etc. have been drip feeding anti Rangers, slanted stories, downright lies for years all to make us battle weary. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 The Board gave them the increased contract last summer, this incident isn't about their pay at Rangers. They have been talking to other clubs since months after taking charge at Rangers, they've been talking to NF for a month, this didn't come out of the blue on Monday. The Boards actions have been reactive, the Board took to long to reach a decision (albeit undoubtedly the correct one). I know about their wage rise in the summer. What I meant and worded badly was, they were sitting waiting on what I would assume was more money from the job at Notts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) ............................................. Edited February 12, 2017 by colinstein 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 I wonder if the Fulham rumours had an element of truth after all 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Ultimately it's a bit sad that the Rangers board couldn't sort something out, where it would have worked out in everyones best interest. Let's hope we learn from this debacle at the very least I fear we are doomed to repeat this sort of thing over and over again. Edited February 13, 2017 by Crimson Dynamo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,471 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 This season we did not stick to our plan of signing five or six players because the manager appealed to the Board for additional signings. Despite the concern about departing from our plan of prudent phased investment, the Board backed the manager’s request for accelerated investment. We had 5 1st team squad players leave at the end of last season (Ball, Bell, Clark, Shiels, Zelalem) so signing 5 would have left us with a status quo. If we remember our great semi-final win against Celtic we went into that game with only 5 subs and our squad was dead on its feet come the final, so we definitely needed more than 5, so if King thinks that we should have stuck to only 5 or 6 signings this season he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about (financial implications not withstanding). How can you plan only to sign 5 or 6 players when you don't know how many are going to leave at the end of the previous season? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,471 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 £18 million of the originally estimated £30 million investment has already been made. At June 2016, the loans from investors were £10m. This increased to £12.9m by October 2016 and the board said at that point that they would only need a further £0.75 million to see them to the end of the season. Why is it suddenly £18m? Are the board's forecasts so materially out? Are they incapable of getting a relatively simple cashflow correct? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,550 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 We had 5 1st team squad players leave at the end of last season (Ball, Bell, Clark, Shiels, Zelalem) so signing 5 would have left us with a status quo. If we remember our great semi-final win against Celtic we went into that game with only 5 subs and our squad was dead on its feet come the final, so we definitely needed more than 5, so if King thinks that we should have stuck to only 5 or 6 signings this season he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about (financial implications not withstanding). How can you plan only to sign 5 or 6 players when you don't know how many are going to leave at the end of the previous season? Those leaving did not see much game time and/or were not of a quality that would help us in the Premiership. The arrivals did not work out as we and MW had hoped, but no-one's got a crystal ball and can tell how the future works out, e.g. Kranjcar's and Rossiter's injuries. (IMHO Crooks and Windass was an attempted talent-steal coup hoping that they might attract interest from the EPL English Championship soonish and can be sold back for serious cash.) I did not expect Garner to hit the 20 goal mark instantly, not least when MW continued to play an alien system. And while people will have a very different angle here, Barton would sure have stabilized our midfield had he been given longer time there. Falling out with the manager and some players after a woeful display at the Scumhut should have given those addressed something to think, rather than going into the bunker. Barton made it very clear in his interviews what he thought about Rangers, where we should be, what our standing was. And he was sure professional enough to address any shortcomings straight away, which our team members obviously didn't like. And while he might have been a good leader at the training ground, MW was not on the pitch and we have - for these last 1,5 seasons - lacked a real leader out there. It was at this time when some doubts crept in ... and essentially, we saw in the strict no-matter-what approach ever since that a certain unflexibility and/or stubborness was/is evident. As much as "never change a running system" held true last season, it should have been clear that the player material at our disposal was not able to continue that on this level, so changes were and are due, but not forthcoming. All a nice recipe for a small disaster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 At June 2016, the loans from investors were £10m. This increased to £12.9m by October 2016 and the board said at that point that they would only need a further £0.75 million to see them to the end of the season. Why is it suddenly £18m? Are the board's forecasts so materially out? Are they incapable of getting a relatively simple cashflow correct? Did the accounts include purchase price? 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.