49ers do what

[CammyF 9,322]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Once again we're getting entrenched in a binary argument, when both are valid, IMO.

 

On the one hand, it's certainly true that we are an impatient lot, that are generally unwilling to go through the necessary rebuilding phase and get hooked on a quick fix. We are financially unsustainable. Despite knowing it was front-loaded, we overspent stopping their 10IAR and yet most were still expecting us to keep spending. 

 

On the other hand, I do think the solution can be as simple as getting the right appointments and the right structure in place. I do think a good coach solves most of it. 

 

I have been of the opinion that we've been dragged one way and the next in terms of planning and rebuilding because we've had too many voices in the boardroom - exacerbated because the fans are too impatient to see anything through unless it bares immediate fruit. 

 

I'm hoping the takeover will solve most of these issues.

100% but we have to admit and acknowledge that the sustainability of the club is 100% responsibility of the board. If we aren't sustainable or showing signs of becoming sustainable the board take FULL responsibility for this.

 

It's really that simple. 

[CammyF 9,322]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Another point: I do think Celtic have been very lucky with a couple of good managerial appointments, and I also think that they will be on the dip over the next couple of years. Rodgers usually implodes once he has a couple of seasons to bring in his own players, which he doesn't have a good record with (last time he jumped before it got bad). They would need another stupendous managerial appointment.  

 

I'm actually quite pleased to see them punt £11m on players. They won't get all of them right and it will quickly cut into their cash pile. 

 

This is the time. Get our plans in place and see it through. 

You could argue they got lucky due to our poor appointments. 

 

 

[buster. 5,597]

7 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Being sustainable is a fundamental barometer of how the board are running the club. 

The lack of sustainability has become an endemic culture at Rangers spanning about 3 decades. No one comes out of it smelling of rose throughout that time, including the current board.

 

It should be the priority and I would imagine that the prospective new owners will be addressing it, given their goal is to make money.

 

It is far from an easy problem to fix at a club like ours. Especially, with the often unrealistic expectations and timescales surrounding it. 

 

 

 

 

Celtic got their act together through the vision of Fergus McCann and the stewardship of Lawwell. Their support didn't like the medicine, but they are now happy where it has put them.

 

Although IMO their player trading model is showing signs of slowing down. Quite a few of their recent big sales have bombed and that won't go unnoticed. Plus they spent a lot of money last summer without much in the way of return.

 

A big factor in us being able to challenge is for them to hit a relative slump (or reappoint Lennon in the Hampden showers after a bottle of champagne).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[compo 7,878]

3 minutes ago, buster. said:

The lack of sustainability has become an endemic culture at Rangers spanning about 3 decades. No one comes out of it smelling of rose throughout that time, including the current board.

 

It should be the priority and I would imagine that the prospective new owners will be addressing it, given their goal is to make money.

 

It is far from an easy problem to fix at a club like ours. Especially, with the often unrealistic expectations and timescales surrounding it. 

 

 

 

 

Celtic got their act together through the vision of Fergus McCann and the stewardship of Lawwell. Their support didn't like the medicine, but they are now happy where it has put them.

 

Although IMO their player trading model is showing signs of slowing down. Quite a few of their recent big sales have bombed and that won't go unnoticed. Plus they spent a lot of money last summer without much in the way of return.

 

A big factor in us being able to challenge is for them to hit a relative slump (or reappoint Lennon in the Hampden showers after a bottle of champagne).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No sign of any ump at the moment they lead by four at Hampden 

[CammyF 9,322]

25 minutes ago, buster. said:

The lack of sustainability has become an endemic culture at Rangers spanning about 3 decades. No one comes out of it smelling of rose throughout that time, including the current board.

 

It should be the priority and I would imagine that the prospective new owners will be addressing it, given their goal is to make money.

 

It is far from an easy problem to fix at a club like ours. Especially, with the often unrealistic expectations and timescales surrounding it. 

 

 

 

 

Celtic got their act together through the vision of Fergus McCann and the stewardship of Lawwell. Their support didn't like the medicine, but they are now happy where it has put them.

 

Although IMO their player trading model is showing signs of slowing down. Quite a few of their recent big sales have bombed and that won't go unnoticed. Plus they spent a lot of money last summer without much in the way of return.

 

A big factor in us being able to challenge is for them to hit a relative slump (or reappoint Lennon in the Hampden showers after a bottle of champagne).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, not true.

 

If this board hadn't wasted £11M on NEH we'd be far closer to sustainability than we are now.

 

Now, thata just one example, there are lots more, purely down to this board that have NOTHING to do with the previous boards.

 

The sooner you accept this board are incapable of running a football club the better.

 

Will the 49ers be any better? Only time will tell but as others have said, the answers to some of our issues are simplistic and easy to implement. 

 

Get those correct immediately and we have a fighting chance. 

[der Berliner 4,145]

... the board does not buy players, nor does it chose tactics, nor does it select the players. It did select the managers, the last permanent one, with a gut feeling that he is finally capable to change this on the field of play. Only to be let down once more. This season though, after a shocking summer transfer window, we had an even worse winter window. For reasons beyond the knowledge of this bear. Maybe the AGM can clear a few things up. 

[BEARGER 1,897]

The commercial side of things should improve. The amount of items on the 49ers website dwarfs ours. I know they have a bigger fan base.

[CammyF 9,322]

31 minutes ago, BEARGER said:

The commercial side of things should improve. The amount of items on the 49ers website dwarfs ours. I know they have a bigger fan base.

Ironically the commercial side is one of the very few success stories in recent years. 

[CammyF 9,322]

50 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

... the board does not buy players, nor does it chose tactics, nor does it select the players. It did select the managers, the last permanent one, with a gut feeling that he is finally capable to change this on the field of play. Only to be let down once more. This season though, after a shocking summer transfer window, we had an even worse winter window. For reasons beyond the knowledge of this bear. Maybe the AGM can clear a few things up. 

No they don't, but they hire those who are in charge of those decisions. 

 

When we replaced Beale, the board chose to ask for some input from "footballing" people. Then, the board promptly ignored their input and chose Clement. In hindsight, probably the worst of the 3 candidates. 

[JohnMc 3,175]

It's an interesting question and one none of us can answer. 

 

For me the real question that's still not been answered is why do they want to buy us?

 

We've had 3 types of owners in 150 or so years.

1. Supporters of the club for who it is an emotional decision - Every owner we've ever had except a handful

2. For the prestige it will reflect on them, to inflate their ego, raise their profile - Sir David Murray

3. An effort to make money - Whyte, Green, Ashley

 

We can remove '1' from their motivation. I think '2' is a stretch too, they aren't Russian oligarchs or Middle Eastern despots with reputations needing sports washed. Which leaves 3. They already own an English side with lot's of potential and that's where the money is, the real money. There's not much money in Scottish football, so their are only 3 ways I can see for them to make money from us. Qualify for the Champion's League, sell players for profits or reduce overheads. 

I think a lot of fans are hoping for the first option; Champion's League. To do that we'll need to win our league and then get through qualifying, or win the Europa League next season. There's not enough money in the Europa or Conference Leagues to make our owners a serious profit, so it's Champion's League or nothing. What kind of investment would it take to turn our club into Champions and strengthen again to qualify for the Champion's League? Including transfer fees and salaries? Gerrard spent in the region of £30 million on transfer fees to win the league, plus a decent number of free transfer signings. That side didn't qualify for the Champion's League. You add signing on fees, agent fees and of course salaries to that number and you get a big number, just to win the league. Now we might get lucky, our current squad is better than the one Gerrard inherited, and maybe we'll appoint a manager who can do something special with them and a couple of new signings. Plus maybe the wheels come off over the city. That would be a gamble though, money has to be invested in our squad, it's not good enough to win the league as it stands. It's a question of how much. 

 

Selling players for a profit is the more attractive option I'd have thought. If you've no emotional attachment, if it's purely about business and winning stuff is a bonus, then developing and selling players is the easiest way to make money. Particularly if you already own the buyer. I mean developing players for Leeds, who if they can get promoted and stay up, not a given for sure, will have access to hundreds of millions just by being in that league is surely the easiest way to make money. Leeds in the EPL will turnover £200 million right away. We'd need to win the Champion's League to make that. So which one of those 2 horses are you going to back? If you wonder how this dual ownership might work have a read about Strasbourg. Currently doing ok in the French League, but very much being used as a support club for Chelsea. Strasbourg are used to buy players not yet ready for Chelsea, then 'sold' onto Chelsea if they develop. It's not about success for Strasbourg, it's about maintaining Chelsea as a cash cow for their American owners. 

 

Option 3, cut overheads. After all we only need to finish second to guarantee a crack at European football, fill the stadium and sell our replica shirts. We've already demonstrated that for the last however many years. What if that could be maintained on lower overheads? I mean we might even breakeven this season, much lower salary bill and a decent Europa run. Just keep that going, take a million out a year in management fees, just keep finishing second, how hard can that be?

 

Anyway, my money is on option 2, I'm not discounting 3, and I'm loving the optimism many have for option 1.