Second Statement

[bornabear 6,202]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

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

Basically what I said.

How many hairs can you split in a minute.

[Fatman10 148]

I don't understand Warburton and Weir when the used to say stuff like "if they don't want to be here then we won't pursue them" or something to that extent and then they do this once they realized the job is too big for them and try to jump ship at the first opportunity. Then how can other teams take anything these two say and offer them employment?. If this has been said already sorry but it's too big of a thread to read every reply.

[Inigo 32,526]

Bear in mind that the Board probably had no definite reason to think they had to be lightening quick about this, given that the agent had offered their resignation. And tbf, there potentially wasn't a heck of a lot of time between the decision being made and the agent changing the goalposts. 

Basically we don't know for sure how it panned out, but there's nothing to lead towards the conclusion of any incompetence by the Board at this time. 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, bornabear said:

Basically what I said.

How many hairs can you split in a minute.

Because it was more about the money spent on a small number of players doing nothing than just having a lot of players sat on their arse.

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

12 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 

That's exactly what I think has happened.

I think that may even be why Warbs + Weir didn't get the Forrest job, and I think the board realized they'd shot themselves in the foot and would need to pay them off. Hence the ridiculous delay in announcing their resignation.

A knee jerk reaction by King when faced with the realization that he would be faced with finding   £1.2m to pay them off.

As ever, no class and embarrassing as fuck.

 

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

Albeit, we did want rid, any tribunal would see it for the stitch up it was, but it won't get that far. They will be paid out..

[Bears r us 30,796]

12 minutes ago, Inigo said:

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.

The tone of both statements would suggest that the board were happy to have the chance to get rid, and I am also happy in a football sense, but cannot believe it could not have been handled better.

The great thing about forums is that you get many opinions and on this occasion we disagree and that is fine. 

[Bad Robot 21,150]

1 hour ago, JCDBigBear said:

The main point of this entire episode is that Warburton's agent has blundered and no matter what Warburton says about him not resigning, his agent basically tendered Warburton's resignation on his behalf.   It seems pretty clear that the agent was lining up the Notts Forest job and trying to get the sweetener of no compensation claim from RFC.  The timing of the resignation announcement would most likely have been dependent on the Notts Forest job agreement with dotting the I's and crossing the T's.  Wording of the resignation would still have to be done.   Then the NF job falls through and the agent comes back with a change which certainly doesn't suit RFC.    No matter how much anyone dislikes our board it is our (now former) management team who have created the havoc.    I really thought that Warburton and Weir had more respect for RFC and more dignity themselves.

You just wonder if MW was advised by his agent or legal adviser to go through the motions of being employed hence all the confusion last night where some media outlets saying he never resigned. He's maybe turned up on Friday which resulted in a poorly drafted statement from the club on Friday night.

[Inigo 32,526]

Just now, Bears r us said:

The tone of both statements would suggest that the board were happy to have the chance to get rid, and I am also happy in a football sense, but cannot believe it could not have been handled better.

The great thing about forums is that you get many opinions and on this occasion we disagree and that is fine. 

Absolutely, the chat is good.

I just think that if it's agent agitated and complicated, then to an extent some aspects are going to be out of your full control. It's not a positive thing that that's how it, but it's unavoidable and not a negative reflection on the Board. A bit of mess isn't always avoidable, and this strikes me as an occasion when that could certainly be the case.

[Blue72 1,102]

11 minutes 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? 

Possibly because the other club said if we didn't accept they wouldnt proceed with the deal leaving us potentially having to sack the management team and pay compensation? 

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

10 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Bear in mind that the Board probably had no definite reason to think they had to be lightening quick about this, given that the agent had offered their resignation. And tbf, there potentially wasn't a heck of a lot of time between the decision being made and the agent changing the goalposts. 

Basically we don't know for sure how it panned out, but there's nothing to lead towards the conclusion of any incompetence by the Board at this time. 

Fair enough, we should reserve judgement for now. I just have this nagging feeling that stuff like this just doesn't happen at other clubs of our size. And if it does, it isn't played out thus publicly.

[gj923 1,457]

39 minutes ago, Docspawn said:

Can't believe the stick King gets from some of guys on here. I love my team and stick by them but if I was King I'd be thinking I don't need this shit and then where would we be ???? I'm happy yes happy King is behind us and now get a new manager and move on.  Getting really f..ked off with being the laughing stock of Scottish football for last 4years. Listening to BBC today they were glorying in the news whilst bumping up the Tims as best team ever played in Scotland .

 

We would have a chairman who is not a convicted felon. We could also have a hands on chairman that is there all the time and turns up at games. Hopefully he would not make sweeping statements but work quietly in the background.

We would be in a better position to attract investment.

King would still have his shares unless someone agreed to buy them from him and the 1-1.5m he has loaned might have to be repaid depending on the terms.

We would not be in a worse position.

[Blue72 1,102]

10 minutes ago, BloodRunsBlue said:

That's exactly what I think has happened.

I think that may even be why Warbs + Weir didn't get the Forrest job, and I think the board realized they'd shot themselves in the foot and would need to pay them off. Hence the ridiculous delay in announcing their resignation.

A knee jerk reaction by King when faced with the realization that he would be faced with finding   £1.2m to pay them off.

As ever, no class and embarrassing as fuck.

 

Yes it sounds like poor decision making from the board, knee jerk responses and a lack of oversight from the remainder of the board to keep king's authority in check/prevent him summarily making decisions that may not be based on sound legal/HR advice 

[Trooblue 1,973]

20 minutes ago, 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.

King is desperately trying to keep the fans on board because of the season ticket renewal issue. I take anything he says with a large pinch of salt.  He has a major dilemma now. How to produce a managerial appointment that will encourage people to renew the tickets, while spending next to nothing.  

[Tenerife Bear 1,748]

31 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

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

[Cottonbudjoe 127]

10 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

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

He did say they will now need to invest more than the £30m. 

£5 m was needed to pay off Mike Ashley's loan. The club ran at a £9m operating loss upto the year they came in.

They're putting in money for transfers and wages, investing in Auchenhowie and keeping the club afloat. They inherited a shitshow so it's gonna cost a lot to sort it out. 

 

 

[Inigo 32,526]

1 minute ago, Ger_onimo said:

Fair enough, we should reserve judgement for now. I just have this nagging feeling that stuff like this just doesn't happen at other clubs of our size. And if it does, it isn't played out thus publicly.

My suspicion is that it probably does, it's just that the fans elsewhere would be less likely to agonise over it. We probably do because of all the shite we've had to put up with till now, so are hyper warey. At other clubs something like this is probably just accepted as 'oh well, it worked out for the best' rather than trying to probe to make sure their Board aren't at it again.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,545]

2 minutes ago, Cottonbudjoe said:

He did say they will now need to invest more than the £30m. 

£5 m was needed to pay off Mike Ashley's loan. The club ran at a £9m operating loss upto the year they came in.

They're putting in money for transfers and wages, investing in Auchenhowie and keeping the club afloat. They inherited a shitshow so it's gonna cost a lot to sort it out. 

 

 

thats all fine and well, but thats not what king said he'd do

[Trooblue 1,973]

3 minutes ago, Blue72 said:

Possibly because the other club said if we didn't accept they wouldnt proceed with the deal leaving us potentially having to sack the management team and pay compensation? 

It's possible, but in the end the other club dropped the deal anyway (or so it seems).  If the other club was Forest, even allowing for their current state, they will still be spending far more on players in the months ahead than we will.  Yet they weren't prepared to pay £700k compensation? 

[Blue72 1,102]

23 minutes ago, Tenerife Bear said:

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. 

But if the investment in player fees increases salaries to a point that projected income won't cover additional costs then that logic doesn't work 

additional revenue would be unlikely to cover additional costs and additional revenue is not guaranteed:  there are also a number of areas of the business (scouting department/back room staff/stadium) that require additional investment to improve which will likely eat in to any increased revenue  

[Tenerife Bear 1,748]

Just now, Blue72 said:

But if the investment in player fees increases salaries to a point that projected income won't cover additional costs then that logic doesn't work 

additional revenue would be unlikely to cover additional costs and additional revenue is not guaranteed:  there are also a number of areas of the business (scouting department/back room staff/stadium) that require additional investment to improve which will likely eat in to any increased revenue  

Like life, if you can't afford it, you don't buy it. 

I agree on all the rest. It's common sense. 

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,137]

The bit about Warburton saying he would use the job as a stepping stone to the EPL seems a bit odd.

Surely that's the whole idea, do well at Rangers and EPL clubs could come in for him, that's natural.

However King didn't see it that way, he wants a manager there long term, he would be quick to get rid of a player  if he could get a price for them, so why not a manager.

[Blue72 1,102]

2 minutes ago, Trooblue said:

It's possible, but in the end the other club dropped the deal anyway (or so it seems).  If the other club was Forest, even allowing for their current state, they will still be spending far more on players in the months ahead than we will.  Yet they weren't prepared to pay £700k compensation? 

If they were smart they'd see we wanted rid of warburton (warburton knew this too) so it's in their power to play hard ball on this one 

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

As is often the case with King you get some information and also some unknown unknowns.   For instance.

The leak of Board meeting review of transfer window & performance.   King advises the Board's questioning was leaked to the media and asserts the leak did not come from a Board member.  That leaves 3 sources.  Warburton himself.  Or someone who attended the meeting but was not a Board member.   Or someone who has access to Board Minutes and decided it would be jolly good fun to leak the details to journalists.     No comment from King as to whether the leak was Warburton himself or from somewhere else inside the Club.  If the latter then it needs to be rooted out and dealt with.    If it was Warburton then the only reason I can think of for doing this is to help put a deflecting context around his reasons for leaving when the time came.   Is he astute enough to plan a move like that in advance of jumping ship?   I don't know.  

The manager did not respond well to the Board questioning, King bases his view on the subsequent media comments.    It would take some research to dig out the comments Warburton made to the media to check if King's assertion is fair and accurate.   But aside from that, and imo probably a lot more important than that, if King and the Board was aware from the media comments that Warburton was not responding well to the Board questioning why did King - or probably more likely the MD (Stewart) not intervene with Warburton to seek to put matters straight and to clarify any remaining concerns, or comments or questions Warburton may have had following the Board meeting.   The impression I have from King's statement is that the Board knew Warburton was not responding well but did nothing positive to bring about a better reaction from Warburton.  They seem to have knowingly left him to fester.    If that is a reasonably correct interpretation the question would then be why do this.   Unless of course it suited the Board to do so in the hope that Warburton would seek to leave.   In fact, could it perhaps be interpreted as being a covert encouragement for him to leave.

Experienced manager.   King makes the point that Warburton's reaction was not one an experienced manager would adopt.    So I guess King is acknowledging in a back-handed sort of way that the Board now recognise, if they did not recognise before, that they had recruited a manager with insufficient managerial experience.    I guess King's comments will do Warburton no favours at all when he goes for another job.    Of course, it could also generate a response from Warburton since King is arguably really saying Warburton had been found out as not having the calibre or experience needed apply the full range of managerial skills needed to manage a football club.   Also, for King to state that no manager in the world can reasonably expect to be beyond scrutiny is pretty punchy stuff.   The context in which he makes that statement infers that Warburton was considered to be so inexperienced in management that he did not fully appreciate that he would be under strong Board scrutiny of his performance........or perhaps so high handed that he thought he was above that level of scrutiny or that the scrutiny itself was inappropriate.    In making that statement King sure is leaving himself, and the Club, open to a counter-comment from Warburton.   I imagine he's read King's statement and may well be fuming.   So much then for the oft stated good levels of communication that Warburton claimed existed between himself and Robertson and King.     An illusion it seems.

Rumours of negotiating with English clubs.   King was aware of rumours that Warburton's agent was actually negotiating with English clubs.   It implies that things had moved beyond exploratory 'what if' types of discussion, or discussions to check facts, check contract terms and so on.   They had moved to actual negotiation.   Which to my mind implies the agent had received instruction from the band of 3 to see if a firm offer was able to be tabled which they could then consider for acceptance.    So I wonder why Robertson and King did not move bring the 3 in for discussion and put to them the rumours they'd heard.   Seems from King's explanation that the Club elected to do nothing other than wait and see what happened.     They had deduced from the rumours that Warburton was unhappy and this was acknowledged by King to be reinforced by Warburton's comments to the media.   Again it seems the Board, and Robertson elected not to take any pro-active action to bring Warburton in for discussions to clarify the situation.   They seem to have let the festering deepen.  

No surprise.   King was not surprised when the agent approached Robertson for a meeting.   Not surprised, but having done nothing pro-active to head an emerging problem off.   The Board seems to have simply waited to see what the agent had to say and when the agent - presumably with the underlying authority from Warburton, Weir and McParland - offered that 3 would resign with immediate effect the Board accepted the resignations.   To my mind its clear the Board had no desire to try to keep the 3 employees and made no effort to do so before the meeting when they could have reacted to the rumours and invited all 3 for talks to clarify.   They were not surprised to be confronted with a discussion about resigning, got the resignation offer at the meeting and decided pretty quickly to accept it.  

Defer the resignation.   It's interesting to note that the agent only sought to defer the resignations, not to revoke them.   The clear inference is they 3 were looking to get out asap and it was only a matter of time.   I guess the agent requesting a deferral must have been received with near incredulity by the Board.   A revocation - we got it wrong, we apologise and we'd like to stay - is very different from a 'we want out and will get out but we're not quite ready to go yet'.     There would never be any question of simply accepting a deferral.    It would be ludicrous.

Will be interested to see how the band of 3 respond to King's statement.   Maybe they'll just accept that they are done at Rangers and quietly move on.   I hope we don't end up with a Barton-like situation of dialogue about compensation and then making a payment to them.    But in the statement by King there are a few things that are left to inference, and its a curious way to go about business.........  That's not to say the outcome isn't correct.    I never did believe that Warburton had the management and leadership skills or experience to manage a club of the stature of Rangers.

[gogzy 31,195]

I don't really think that player wages should be counted in the vast majority of outside investment,

We have probably brought somewhere in the region of 15m quid in season tickets,  a fair slice of that should be the playing wage budget.

 

I assumed that most of the outside investment would be going towards player sales, and refurbishment of stadium, along with some of the general running costs.