Second Statement

[Trooblue 1,973]

1 minute ago, Blue72 said:

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 

Yes, but that gets me back to King - a businessman of his experience should surely have been up for a game of hardball, especially given the fact that £700k means more to us than to Forest? 

[Inigo 32,534]

1 minute ago, gogzy said:

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.

The amount of 'investment' can be judged from the shortfall and the size of the soft loans.

Money is money, and it's impossible to say where each pound from whichever stream is spent. The shortfall/loan is the only way to say how much investment there is.

[LegendofCoop 17,401]

2 minutes ago, ritchieshearercaldow said:

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.

I get where you're coming from mate, the Scottish premiership is a far better league than the EPL. However, surely the day a Rangers board stops looking at us as the biggest fish in the pond is the day we give up? They should expect any manager to see this as the pinnacle.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

2 minutes ago, gogzy said:

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.

People are totally spazzing out on the concept of what this money should be paying and what it shouldnt.

It does not work that way.

We get say £10m from season books, £3m from TV, £2m from sponsorship and say £10m in investments/soft loans.

That gives us £25m which is used to pay everything.

We dont pigeon hole money from season tickets to one cost and sponsorship to pay a different cost etc.

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,518]

Good luck finding a club happy with winning half their games Mark. His lack of commitment to our cause shows a lack of ambition and a self serving trait, no doubt stemming from the fact that he knew the Rangers job was too big for him. Our goal difference encapsualates his performance as a manager. Well rid!!!

[Blue72 1,128]

4 minutes ago, gogzy said:

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.

Think we need an accounting whizz to look st it but from memory we were kids making in 15/16 so some of the additional ST sales would have brought us up to break even 

[tannerall 25,935]

1 minute ago, LegendofCoop said:

I get where you're coming from mate, the Scottish premiership is a far better league than the EPL. However, surely the day a Rangers board stops looking at us as the biggest fish in the pond is the day we give up? They should expect any manager to see this as the pinnacle.

Souness would have seen Liverpool as his pinnacle  and Advocaat had his greatest pinnacle of success at Zenit St Petersburg. 

(Neither of which makes them any less loyal or supportive of Rangers.)

[Blue72 1,128]

2 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

People are totally spazzing out on the concept of what this money should be paying and what it shouldnt.

It does not work that way.

We get say £10m from season books, £3m from TV, £2m from sponsorship and say £10m in investments/soft loans.

That gives us £25m which is used to pay everything.

We dont pigeon hole money from season tickets to one cost and sponsorship to pay a different cost etc.

To be fair I think most of the debate is around king saying he'd invest 30 million in the playing staff and whether or not non-transfer costs are included in that or not (or whether it's right to assume they should be counted) 

[Gandhi1872 186]

37 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.

No he didn't say there were too many players. He said 'a large portion of the wage bill not seeing regular playing time' which I assume relates to the likes of Barton (when he was suspended), Kranjcar, Senderos, Rossiter and O'Halloran not playing regularly when they are our highest wage earners.  

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, Blue72 said:

To be fair I think most of the debate is around king saying he'd invest 30 million in the playing staff and whether or not non-transfer costs are included in that or not (or whether it's right to assume they should be counted) 

He never at any point stated that.

He said he and others would invest money into the club. This all goes into that big pot which pays everything from teabags to transfer fees.

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

10 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said:

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.

You clearly have one of these RB 

 

[LegendofCoop 17,401]

5 minutes ago, tannerall said:

Souness would have seen Liverpool as his pinnacle  and Advocaat had his greatest pinnacle of success at Zenit St Petersburg. 

(Neither of which makes them any less loyal or supportive of Rangers.)

Of course that's true.

BUT, should the board have expected either of them to see us as a stepping stone?

 

[Blue72 1,128]

6 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

He never at any point stated that.

He said he and others would invest money into the club. This all goes into that big pot which pays everything from teabags to transfer fees.

My bad then thought he said playing staff.    It is possible to ring fence investment for a particular area of development (has to inc. all costs relating to this etc etc) but if they were just investing in the club generally then from the accounts it'a fairly clear they've done so 

[sergi1980 311]

8 minutes ago, BloodRunsBlue said:

You clearly have one of these RB 

 

Is that no her that does the weather 

[BloodRunsBlue 1,303]

4 minutes ago, sergi1980 said:

Is that no her that does the weather 

Judith Ralston. Could be .

[ScottBF2 3,540]

The whole affair, if all is as it seems, is embarassing and I'm disgusted by David Weir more so than the two baldy tits he was working alongside.

 

Regardless of the eventual reasoning, if he's offered his resignation he can fuck off. Our club legends are falling at an alarming rate: First, Butcher; then DJ and eventually Davie himself. We need someone like Souness, Walter or Archie Knox to come in and kick fuck out of this team before the end of the season.

[LegendofCoop 17,401]

10 minutes ago, sergi1980 said:

Is that no her that does the weather 

There's certainly a warm front coming from my pants!

[K.A.I 36,183]

12 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

He never at any point stated that.

He said he and others would invest money into the club. This all goes into that big pot which pays everything from teabags to transfer fees.

He's re-affirmed in his statement that in a playing sense he will need to go over the 30 million he promised. That tells me that the 30 million was for playing staff regardless of what you, LoudenGreg and AlBear were so vocal about in the summer trying to say that the 30 million covered everything from youth academy, staff levels, stadium improvements etc. 

[Capital Blu 615]

I don't see what the difficulty is in working out where the £18M investment figure came from.

£5m in share purchases between King and the 3 Bears

£13m in loans from King, Directors, and other Shareholders

Simples!

What has it been spent on?  Again it's not rocket science.  It paid off the £5m Ashley loan and has covered the club's operating deficit over the last two calendar years.

Other than paying off Ashley, there have been no ring fenced sums for special projects or targeted spending on transfer fees.  The loan cash has just filled the shortfall in the club's cash flow, by being made available as general working capital.  .

[CRARFC 77]

22 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

He never at any point stated that.

He said he and others would invest money into the club. This all goes into that big pot which pays everything from teabags to transfer fees.

He did say 30m min investment. 

[CRARFC 77]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

He's re-affirmed in his statement that in a playing sense he will need to go over the 30 million he promised. That tells me that the 30 million was for playing staff regardless of what you, LoudenGreg and AlBear were so vocal about in the summer trying to say that the 30 million covered everything from youth academy, staff levels, stadium improvements etc. 

Youth academy is playing staff ?? 

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

15 minutes ago, sergi1980 said:

Is that no her that does the weather 

No such luck.  

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 minute ago, CRARFC said:

Youth academy is playing staff ?? 

and? 

[Capital Blu 615]

From the Mail Online March 2014 and Rangers TV May 2015

Quote

EXCLUSIVE: £50m! That’s how much King says it will take to rebuild Rangers — and he’ll put up lion’s share

Dave King has revealed he is ready to spearhead a £50million plan to rebuild Rangers with at least £30m of his own money.

The South Africa-based businessman believes it could take that sum spread over the next four years to make the Ibrox club genuine competitors to Celtic at the top of the Scottish game once more.

Despite losing a £20m investment made during Sir David Murray’s tenure, King is willing to take on the burden of the funding. And he wants it to start with a £5m war chest for Ally McCoist to ensure Rangers win the Championship and are ready for top-flight football.

=============================

Rangers TV - May 2015 - Start at 3' 20"

 

[CRARFC 77]

3 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

and? 

You said the 30m was for playing staff then said people say it's for everything ?? Well if the 30m was for playing staff that would includes the youth academy . So that part of your argument doesn't stand.