Second Statement

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,547]

2 minutes ago, Coop said:

But that's all teams count.  When the EPL announces how much was spent in total during a transfer window, they don't include wages, travelling expenses and McDonalds vouchers.

also what people forget is that our revenue must have jumped a considerable bit this season also with 2 guaranteed home league games against the tarriers, plus higher cost ST's and general higher turnover matchday revenue

what if we find out our revenue jumped say 5million this season, that covers the extra wages plus a bit of the garner fee, so the investment is barely heehaw

[CRARFC 77]

1 minute ago, Blue72 said:

I know of no other business that would look to develop an area of their business and not include additional staffing costs in the investment total for delivery, I'm not sure where people have got the idea that investment in playing staff means transfer fees only when other costs (salary, NI, pension plan, private benefits, travel costs, other increased overheads) are significant and, if not considered, would lead us into being financially unsustainable

I have no idea what planet some people live on if these things aren't taken into consideration. Most players contracts have additional bonuses like starting a game, being on the bench, goals etc. So even the weekly wages we base the calculations on are actually lower than what they are getting. 

[Valance1690 3,830]

1 minute ago, Easton82 said:

Think we need to be looking abroad for players to be honest. He's just wasted a lot of money and has tried to use us as a stepping stone to the english premiership with all the shite he talks in his interviews. He's a sad deluded man and obviously thinks very highly of himself it's a shame no one else apart fae his puppet Weir has the same opinion! It's obvious to see his signings were pish his tactics were pish and that showed with the results against all the teams around us! 

I agree about looking abroad but again we should be looking at young players, we should have enough to get 2nd place (I say should) so we should focus on building a good team and take our time

Fans want immediate success which is fine but we need to be patient, would rather a long term manager than someone like McCleish in short term

Warburton is just a stubborn prick, always has been and this has been coming, although not how I thought it would happen

Davie Weir must have a long hard look at himself after this, he's just burnt all bridges with the club which held him in legendary status, more sickened with him tbh

[sassaaaa 11,406]

1 minute ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

he couldnt even provide proof of funds a number of times when it came to us

plus he's in SA. he can bluster all he wants while poor stewart robertson takes the day to day flak

Yip we know all that and i agree but he's a gonner quicker than he thinks if it comes out he has zero proof of any of this. I trust him as much as anybody else but he would have to be mentally ill going down this route with no evidence.

[Cottonbudjoe 127]

1 minute ago, Coop said:

But that's all teams count.  When the EPL announces how much was spent in total during a transfer window, they don't include wages, travelling expenses and McDonalds vouchers.

When the board are putting £18 million of their own money into a club that counts as investment no matter what it's spent on. Do you expect them to put in £18 million and say they only invested £3-4 million or whatever they spent on players?

[Blue72 1,102]

5 minutes ago, Tenerife Bear said:

Absolute nonsense. Never heard so much shite in all my life. Sounds like something David Murray would say to claim he spent more than he really did. 

I get where the confusion comes from but if someone invests 30 million in a company, spends all of that in fees to secure new staff and those staff add 10 million to the wage bill/other costs then they would have to invest 30 million as well as an additional 10 million a year to sustain that (increasing total required investment to potentially 40-60 million depending on contract duration).

[CRARFC 77]

6 minutes ago, Tenerife Bear said:

Absolute nonsense. Never heard so much shite in all my life. Sounds like something David Murray would say to claim he spent more than he really did. 

Haha so please tell me your take on the situation? Let me guess a cheeky comment because you don't have a clue ? What moron wouldn't take players wages into consideration?? Didn't realise the club pays them nothing ??? 

[CRARFC 77]

Just now, Blue72 said:

I get where the confusion comes from but if someone invests 30 million in a company, spends all of that in fees to secure new staff and those staff add 10 million to the wage bill/other costs then they would have to invest 30 million as well as an additional 10 million a year to sustain that (increasing total required investment to potentially 40-60 million depending on contract duration).

I really don't get how people find this so hard to take on board 

[Inigo 32,532]

3 minutes ago, Bears r us said:

I have just replied  to Drumloyal with this:

 Look mate we are all in a state of confusion and I certainly do not understand what has all gone on, but I always try and apply common sense to things and that is probably a big mistakes on my part as far as our Club goes.

I just do not understand why the board would accept the termination and not make sure MW & DW were away as soon as possible considering we have such an important game tomorrow, but for my sanity I will have to drop this bone I have been chewing since the last DK statement.

I should add I am happy that MW is away as far as football reasons are concerned, but annoyed we can never do anything in a normal fashion. 

Just because it's a big move and it needed to be discussed in detail, I'd guess. 'Do we want rid and what do we do now?' would be a lengthy consideration if you hadn't really put a great amount of serious thought into it til that point. And as I said, presumably the function of termination isn't necessarily an immediate thing after that. If so, you'd want it officially completed before taking MW off the air (so to speak), otherwise if there's a complication you risk looking daft if you've taken him off the air only to reinstate him.

I think expecting this to be normal and quick, given the circumstances... that it was on-the-hop and agent initiated, followed up by complications introduced by the agent, is likely a little unfair on the Board on this occasion. Seems to me that if it is as it seems, they've had little choice but for this to have played out roughly as it has.

Even if it is a sanitised version the Board is giving us, I'm not sure it really matters too much, as long as the result is right and MW et al are gone.

[Inigo 32,532]

19 minutes ago, BloodRunsBlue said:

Well that kinda ruins all the fantasy timelines in this thread eh!!!

Not really.

[Big Al 55 9,252]

7 minutes ago, Coop said:

But that's all teams count.  When the EPL announces how much was spent in total during a transfer window, they don't include wages, travelling expenses and McDonalds vouchers.

But at no point has anyone at our club said transfer fees. They've said investment in playing staff.

So your point is irrelevant, albeit correct.

[loyal 136]

1 hour ago, Bad Robot said:

In Scotland only a contract dealing with property needs to be agreed in writing. Not sure where your compo claim is coming from and how we're a laughing stock but would be interested to hear more on why you think this ?

so what would happen if  you went   back to  work on Monday morning and your employee  made up some bollocks that you told them it was your last week  and they agreed verbally .

would you go not go to a tribunal and state that you didn't write a resignation letter and they were telling  bollocks

my word against yours means fuck all

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,547]

1 minute ago, Cottonbudjoe said:

When the board are putting £18 million of their own money into a club that counts as investment no matter what it's spent on. Do you expect them to put in £18 million and say they only invested £3-4 million or whatever they spent on players?

thats not the point, the board could invest 100million but if its invested ibn the wrong places then its fucking pointless

someone claimed we put money into RTV, how the fuck does that help bridge the gap to the tarriers that king so valiantly spoke about before he got into power

there is only 2 ways to make money in scottish football, and both arguably are linked to the same thing, winning and euro participation, fucking pointless having the best looking stadium all spruced up, the best online programme, best media centre, best ticket office, best fucking tea lady, if your trying to match the title winners by recruiting guys from the arse end of english football

king said it would take 30-50mill to bridge the gap to celtic, if the 18mill is true then we are nearly 40% way through his estimated figure and we are further away from them than we have ever been, their investment has been in all the wrong areas when everyone knew we needed a massive injection into the squad and it needed to be front loaded, no one has ever dominated scottish football by drip spending over 5 years

[bornabear 6,202]

12 minutes ago, Trooblue said:

Two questions:

 

If King is such a shit hot businessman, how come he was prepared to waive the club's right to compensation running into several hundred thousand pounds?

 

If it is true that Warburton and Weir resigned in the early part of the week, and these resignations were accepted 'with immediate effect', how come Warburton was taking the Friday press conference?

 

 

just what I was thinking, when is immediate not immediate.

Add another question.

King says his plan was to invest in 5 or 6 players in the (last) summer, Warburton wanted more (and got them), so the board must have sanctioned these additions.

Then King contradicts himself by blaming MW for having too many players getting paid to do fuck all.

Something is not quite right here and I would love to hear MW's side of the story before I decide who is right or wrong.

Too many folk on here taking King's word as gospel and adding a bit of spin here and there.

Remember, there are always two sides to a story.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

1 minute ago, CRARFC said:

I really don't get how people find this so hard to take on board 

I can see both sides of the argument here, but that round figure implied, if nothing else, that a bit of money was going to be spent, in an overt sense. 

[Blue72 1,102]

1 minute ago, CRARFC said:

Haha so please tell me your take on the situation? Let me guess a cheeky comment because you don't have a clue ? What moron wouldn't take players wages into consideration?? Didn't realise the club pays them nothing ??? 

To be fair mate understanding accounting practice/staffing costs can be pretty complicated and hard to understand.  I'm just fortunate I do some of this stuff at my work so have an understanding of it, remember spitting blood during the Murray regime for claims like king's prior to having an understanding of accountancy/finance 

[bennybongo 110]

1 hour ago, chris182 said:

Not strictly true. It reads that their Agent offered their resignations which the Board accepted.

Exactly what was offered will be subject to scrutiny but it's not immediately obvious that compo will definitely be payable. 

Wishful thinking imo. I reckon if it went to a tribunal it would be: 'no letter of resignation therefore you fired Warburton; pay up plus legal fees'. Hopefully we settle.

Anyway, it's not dramatically important now. What matters is the new manager.

 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

1 hour ago, Ger_onimo said:

"After discussion the Board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated. In order for us to achieve our ambitions we need employees that, like your Board members, will always put Rangers first.

While we were dealing with the admin and press releases relating to the resignation the agent again contacted us and asked to defer the resignation until the management had secured a new club. I assume that the new deal had somehow collapsed at the last minute. The Board met to consider this request but resolved to hold them to the original agreement."

Someone help me out here, I'm not understanding the time frames involved. Did this all happen last night? If not, how can the bolded part be true?

Yes.

The meeting was on Monday. The board mulled it over, accepted the resignation last night and immediately terminated their employment.

When the news broke last night, the agent got back in contact and tried to back out of the deal.

According too the press release anyway.

[Tenerife Bear 1,748]

Just now, Blue72 said:

I get where the confusion comes from but if someone invests 30 million in a company, spends all of that in fees to secure new staff and those staff add 10 million to the wage bill/other costs then they would have to invest 30 million as well as an additional 10 million a year to sustain that (increasing total required investment to potentially 40-60 million depending on contract duration).

No they wouldn't. The clubs lifeblood will pay the wages. As we always have. We pay the players wages. Club revenue against costs is very simple year on year. At Rangers, it's very easy to work out. King promised to quadruple our wage bill this year. If we go by your logic that would have meant his investment would have added £54m onto his already claimed £18m investment if we were signing players on 3 year deals. It just doesn't work like that. Season book sales, replica sales(normally), sponsorship, all other revenue inc. possible European revenue would all be expected to cover the cost of that increase in wage bill. Not investment from King and his pals. That's just unrealistic, even for King. 

[Tenerife Bear 1,748]

4 minutes ago, CRARFC said:

Haha so please tell me your take on the situation? Let me guess a cheeky comment because you don't have a clue ? What moron wouldn't take players wages into consideration?? Didn't realise the club pays them nothing ??? 

You're not really getting this at all to be honest. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, bornabear said:

just what I was thinking, when is immediate not immediate.

Add another question.

King says his plan was to invest in 5 or 6 players in the (last) summer, Warburton wanted more (and got them), so the board must have sanctioned these additions.

Then King contradicts himself by blaming MW for having too many players getting paid to do fuck all.

Something is not quite right here and I would love to hear MW's side of the story before I decide who is right or wrong.

Too many folk on here taking King's word as gospel and adding a bit of spin here and there.

Remember, there are always two sides to a story.

You've missed an important part out there tbh. He says it's about a high percentage of the wage bill (ie high earners Barton, Niko, Rossiter, Gilks & Senderos) sitting on their arses

[Misteral 2,932]

Here's my take:

Through their agent, the management offered to resign if certain conditions were met. Namely-. they wouldn't seek compensation if Rangers waived any monies due from Forest. Seems Rangers are will argue that they agreed to waive Forest monies and therefore satisfied the condition of the offer and accepted with the not unreasonable expectance that the management would not ask for compensation. When it fell through for MW et al the agent went back seeking compensation for leaving, Rangers said go and fuck yourselves, we agreed to waive the Forest monies and by doing so accepted your offer by satisfying the condition required. So for me the question is, when did Rangers inform the agent of the waiver and what evidence supports this? There is also the element of 'bad faith'. Are any of the sides guilty of this? 

I think the board might dig there heels in and see if the other side can find any legal arguments to support their case for compensation. 

Anyway, bye bye the three of you . It started off somewhat well and ended in bitter tears. Your legacy will be that you just weren't big enough nor good enough for a club such as Rangers.

Disappointed does not really describe it. 

[Trooblue 1,973]

11 minutes ago, Blue72 said:

My reading of it was that if we wanted to dismiss them we'd have to pay them compensation so if they refused to resign they would be due A payout.

given the state at Forrest they may not wish to pay compensation so if we refused to allow them to join without compensation they may have not gone to Forrest and we'd be left having to dismiss them and accruing mor costs. 

Worked out to our advantage in the end, pending legal challenges etc 

King's statement says that they were offering to resign without compensation.  If they were resigning they would not be due compensation anyway. He then goes on to say that the Board agreed not to take any compensation from the club they would be joining.  Why on earth would we turn down this money? 

[Johnny Dangerously 7,562]

36 minutes ago, Smile said:

We should just not pay wages or buy players did they not think buying players and paying wages was part of football. ? I'm sure all the Loans that are termed investment covered them as the season ticket money didn't as they took out 3 million more loan money.

Great way to run a Club they said they would actually put money into, Loans do not equal investment whatever board does it.

Colin Stein was the first 100,000 pound player. How much did we really pay with wages etc? There was no talk of players wages back in the day, when did it all change?

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Trooblue said:

King's statement says that they were offering to resign without compensation.  If they were resigning they would not be due compensation anyway. He then goes on to say that the Board agreed not to take any compensation from the club they would be joining.  Why on earth would we turn down this money? 

The club would be due compensation if they ended up at any club whilst their Rangers contract should have ran.