If You're Going to San Francisco

[buster. 5,430]

16 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

There was no alternative, for them.

The took the leap, and fled to Bolivia. 

Their problem was that they continued to rob and steal. Thus, the Third Act became the Final Act, and ended badly.

 

What the story needs is a reboot of that Third Act, with new scriptwriters, who will not be interested in ringing the curtain down, and will ensure that the lead characters do not repeat the mistakes of the past.  There is no alternative, it seems clear. 

Will this happen? I don't know, but I do know that the audience has no control over this.....

Doncha just love suspense?

 

Actually, what the club needs now, short term, in fact, immediately, is not Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but some True Grit. 

 

 

After 2012, we continued to rack up the losses and now 13 years later (post 17m loss with another on the way), the support want millions spent on players and a league title, yesterday.

 

A new scriptwriter (Scottish or American) who mentions patience and foundations isn't wanted, he would quickly lose popularity.

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by buster.

[CammyF 9,062]

29 minutes ago, buster. said:

Why would a Rangers supporter ever be cautious in this type of scenario?

 

 

Should they be more cautious of sticking with the status quo? 

 

There is no alternative, we can't stick with what we have. 

[buster. 5,430]

19 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Should they be more cautious of sticking with the status quo? 

 

There is no alternative, we can't stick with what we have. 

You said that you were suspicious of the motives of someone who raised questions ("talk down") and was cautious about the leap of faith on a largely unknown.

 

That was an idiotic statement and par for the course.

 

I don't doubt our capacity for falling for the next saviour with wealth off the radar. 

 

This is obviously different to 2012 but to go with blind acceptance and without due caution, is for the stupid.

Edited 6 hours ago by buster.

[JohnMc 3,036]

48 minutes ago, Blue Moon said:

Of course they will take money out us why elese would they do it?  But first of all they need to make money and to keep making it.  In order to make money they will need to invest in the infrastructure and the team.

See, you're a well adjusted, honest, decent person. You wouldn't take money out until it was making money. Unfortunately that's not how everyone thinks and even a cursory glance at how a number of football clubs have been run will show exactly what can happen if the wrong people are in charge. Bloody hell, it wasn't that long ago it happened to us. 

[Uilleam 6,155]

29 minutes ago, buster. said:

After 2012, we continued to rack up the losses and now 13 years later (post 17m loss with another on the way), the support want millions spent on players and a league title, yesterday.

 

A new scriptwriter (Scottish or American) who mentions patience and foundations isn't wanted, he would quickly lose popularity.

 

 

 

 

Doomed, then. Or, perhaps you have a scenario for the next act, sketched out, and just waiting for the green light.

I'd love to read your treatment.

 

I posted this earlier. You should have read it. It's interesting, particularly in relation to 'fans in the boardroom'. 

 

Speaking on the Sports Geek Replay podcast earlier this month, Marathe explained how teams in his stable no longer operate as 'lemonade stands' and are run to maximise return on investment.
He said: "The fundamental thing that's changed with professional sports teams on and off the pitch is professional sports teams are no longer run as lemonade stands. They are no longer just about the football team, or the baseball team, or the soccer team, or whatever it is, it's now run as a business, right, as a big Fortune 50, Fortune 500 type of business.
"That means you need to get as much value as you can and minimising risk as much as you can, both on the field of the players and also in the business."

"At that time, we hired most of our C-level executives who are here today, as well as most of our EVPs or VPs. And what we did is we just, it was just, we just flipped, flipped a fundamental hiring practice kind of upside down for the beginning, since the beginning of time in the sports industry, people hired other sports people, maybe had a little bit of business experience. But the primary trait was, hey, you worked in that sport or this sport and like success or failure didn't matter, but you just had sports experience.
"We took the other approach as we were hiring. We said, hold on, let's go get really good sound business people. And by the way, if they happen to have sports experience, then great, but not a prerequisite. In the end, we ended up hiring, as we grew from, I think, 70 people to 300 people, we ended up hiring a lot of talented, talented individuals of all colours and genders as well, because we were, we tried to do it as much of a meritocracy as we could. And that's what enabled us to transition and actually be able to do all these other things that we still do today."


[Rousseau 11,363]

32 minutes ago, buster. said:

That was an idiotic statement and par for the course.

Is it really necessary to be insulting. 

 

You could have had a perfectly reasonable discussion but you had to add that in. 

[buster. 5,430]

4 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Doomed, then. Or, perhaps you have a scenario for the next act, sketched out, and just waiting for the green light.

I'd love to read your treatment.

 

I posted this earlier. You should have read it. It's interesting, particularly in relation to 'fans in the boardroom'. 

 

Speaking on the Sports Geek Replay podcast earlier this month, Marathe explained how teams in his stable no longer operate as 'lemonade stands' and are run to maximise return on investment.
He said: "The fundamental thing that's changed with professional sports teams on and off the pitch is professional sports teams are no longer run as lemonade stands. They are no longer just about the football team, or the baseball team, or the soccer team, or whatever it is, it's now run as a business, right, as a big Fortune 50, Fortune 500 type of business.
"That means you need to get as much value as you can and minimising risk as much as you can, both on the field of the players and also in the business."

"At that time, we hired most of our C-level executives who are here today, as well as most of our EVPs or VPs. And what we did is we just, it was just, we just flipped, flipped a fundamental hiring practice kind of upside down for the beginning, since the beginning of time in the sports industry, people hired other sports people, maybe had a little bit of business experience. But the primary trait was, hey, you worked in that sport or this sport and like success or failure didn't matter, but you just had sports experience.
"We took the other approach as we were hiring. We said, hold on, let's go get really good sound business people. And by the way, if they happen to have sports experience, then great, but not a prerequisite. In the end, we ended up hiring, as we grew from, I think, 70 people to 300 people, we ended up hiring a lot of talented, talented individuals of all colours and genders as well, because we were, we tried to do it as much of a meritocracy as we could. And that's what enabled us to transition and actually be able to do all these other things that we still do today."


I don't have the answers.

 

However, I think we belatedly hit on the potential way out of a deep hole when John Bennett finally decided that it required austerity, patience and a slow build of a solid foundation. 

 

Now, with an impatient support on their backs, the board made too many mistakes, errors of judgement and general fcuk-ups on the way to that point and after it.

 

Hence, the current board have little credibility. That doesn't make a largely unknown alternative the answer, whatever business speak they may come up with.

 

Our impatience and subsequent actions mean we never get out of the dammed circle. I think we need to employ patience for a change.

 

Being impatient actually means the whole thing will take longer.

 

 

[buster. 5,430]

6 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Is it really necessary to be insulting. 

 

You could have had a perfectly reasonable discussion but you had to add that in. 

It wasn't an insult.

You call a spade a spade.

 

 

[Uilleam 6,155]

5 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Is it really necessary to be insulting. 

 

You could have had a perfectly reasonable discussion but you had to add that in. 

Ungentlemanly, and conduct unbecoming. 

On a par with giving the old Harvey Smith to the press and photographers.

I wonder who criticised Ferguson and McGregor for that?

 

[Uilleam 6,155]

1 minute ago, buster. said:

I don't have the answers.

 

However, I think we belatedly hit on the potential way out of a deep hole when John Bennett finally decided that it required austerity, patience and a slow build of a solid foundation. 

 

Now, with an impatient support on their backs, the board made too many mistakes, errors of judgement and general fcuk-ups on the way to that point and after it.

 

Hence, the current board have little credibility. That doesn't make a largely unknown alternative the answer, whatever business speak they may come up with.

 

Our impatience and subsequent actions mean we never get out of the dammed circle. I think we need to employ patience for a change.

 

Being impatient actually means the whole thing will take longer.

 

 

These people have a track record of running sports businesses. 

They may take an interest, a controlling interest, or the whole damned shooting match. 

One thing is clear, the support will have little or no say.

What is also clear, clear for some time, is that that change is needed, and I see only one division of cavalry coming over the hill.