Second Statement

[CRARFC 77]

3 minutes ago, Capital Blu said:

From the Mail Online March 2014 and Rangers TV May 2015

Don't see anything saying 30m for playing staff ??

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

18 minutes 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. 

Only if you have trouble reading.....

I take it this is the comment you are referring to:-

"£18 million of the originally estimated £30 million investment has already been made. Ultimately, the overall investment in any football team is driven by the net player spend and, given that we are behind target with our squad, there may be a further need to accelerate investment at the end of this season. It is my present personal view that we will, in all likelihood, invest more than £30 million before we are where we want to be but this will be revisited once we have a new permanent management team in place."

The part in bold confirms that the investment is not purely on the playing staff.

He is saying that by estimations, they will need to invest more than £30m to provide what the club need, including and most importantly, a squad capable of competing.

What is in no doubt is that they need to improve and fast as they are doing a pretty shite job so far. If this is what £18m gets us, they better find a way of raising £100m because £30m is not going to cut it.

[Dlydon81 245]

52 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.

Good points!

a lot of the above sounds more like king trying to justify sacking King which is not necessary if the person has resigned.  It's almost like the fall back position from an employment law perspective that is the resignation doesn't hold up, King will argue that sacking him was justified.

[Dickie1963 2,352]

I am happy with the statement. Honest to a fault. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

Regarding King's statement (I had this all typed out in the other thread by Deanzmeansheinz that seemed to get deleted and had to re-type it all - thanks for that admin)

He shows pretty early on how devious he actually is by saying the realistic aim all along was second-spot despite the bluster at season ticket sale time and card displays and sale campaigns entitled 'Going For 55' 

He also confirms right underneath that that the estimated 30 million was solely for the purpose of winning the title. It's there in black and white and undeniable for the people on here who tried to ram down our throats that the 30 million covered everything from youth set-up infastructure, stadium improvements, legal fee's, scouting, training ground costs - you name it. 

I don't agree that the "Championship was won in some style" it wasn't - we stuttered over the line despite an outstanding first half of the season. The football in that first half of the season was on a par with anything I seen in the Advocaat days albeit on a smaller-scale against lower league opposition but I took the view that you could only do it against who we were up against, and we did (for the first part of the season) ... to lose the Scottish Cup in that manner to that Hibs team was unforgivable and soured the whole thing for me.

It is refreshing to hear him get laid into the management team saying they were untried and their signings were basically shite. That's 100% accurate but at the same time I notice a trend already in this statement that on a personal level he's not taking one bit of responsibility for any of his faults. It's easy to be brutally honest and damning about others especially if it takes the heat off your own failings.

It's also interesting to hear him say (without saying) that the leaks to the press from the discussions have came from Warburton. 

I made a thread yesterday thanking Warburton for getting us promoted as he did what others couldn't and whilst still true I wish I never bothered because it's now emerging that he's a rat. His conduct in trying to engineer his ticket out (Sandaza style), his barefaced lies to the fans at the press-conference/s, his deluded bullshit about why should we finish above Aberdeen and be winning more games and most of all his corrupt signings from the agency his daughter takes to do with. We are well shot of this creep ... likewise McParland and also Weir. Weir has surprised me. I never had him down as an outright dyed-in-the-wool Bluenose but still assumed he'd have more respect for the club and the fans than this - but I was wrong. This is something of the norm for ex-players of ours the minute they are gone they turn into absolute middens. 

This Rangers board and all close to it - King, Murray, Gilligan, Park, Robertson are not to be trusted once bit - as I keep saying we are in the wrong hands at every single level of the club but they have played this correctly and on this issue of Warburton, Weir and McParland they have my support as they did the right thing even if some might consider it immoral or unsavoury ... it doesn't matter. Sometimes needs must and you've got to get your hands dirty. 

I've always said, though, that getting rid of Warburton and Weir is only 50% of the problem - the other 50% of the problem is busy making statements from his South African vineyard blaming everyone except himself. 

[one55 1,510]

i knew i was right in no trusting this cunt from the start. wee mccall should've been given the opportunity to manage us. but aw naw warburton's magic hat and bringing fucking loafs a bread into ibrox...fucking embarrassing. thank fuck he's gone. imposter and a snake.

[onefootwillie 1,518]

Think the board have acted properly and in the best interest of the club. Can't believe how badly the management team have acted. 

[graeme_4 34,527]

3 minutes ago, one55 said:

i knew i was right in no trusting this cunt from the start. wee mccall should've been given the opportunity to manage us. but aw naw warburton's magic hat and bringing fucking loafs a bread into ibrox...fucking embarrassing. thank fuck he's gone. imposter and a snake.

McCall was shite as well, took us further back than Ally. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

19 minutes ago, CRARFC said:

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. 

Playing stuff either includes everything or it doesn't ... it was one example in a small list of a few things. I was covering all the bases that the money was said to cover. Playing staff (including youth players and youth set-up) and the rest of the stuff.

You are arguing semantics. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

17 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Only if you have trouble reading.....

I take it this is the comment you are referring to:-

"£18 million of the originally estimated £30 million investment has already been made. Ultimately, the overall investment in any football team is driven by the net player spend and, given that we are behind target with our squad, there may be a further need to accelerate investment at the end of this season. It is my present personal view that we will, in all likelihood, invest more than £30 million before we are where we want to be but this will be revisited once we have a new permanent management team in place."

The part in bold confirms that the investment is not purely on the playing staff.

He is saying that by estimations, they will need to invest more than £30m to provide what the club need, including and most importantly, a squad capable of competing.

What is in no doubt is that they need to improve and fast as they are doing a pretty shite job so far. If this is what £18m gets us, they better find a way of raising £100m because £30m is not going to cut it.

I think it's you that has trouble reading as you've ignored this right at the start ..

Quote

We would invest sufficient resources to ensure immediate promotion to the SPFL.

In season two we would further invest to be competitive in the SPFL and qualify for Europe at the end of the season. Our realistic expectation was to come second. This was to be achieved by signing five or six players of a quality that improved the squad that won the Championship.

In season three we would again invest in five or six players that further improved the squad to compete for the title and progress in Europe.

I personally estimated that we would require an investment of £30 million over that period to achieve our stated objectives.

 

All of that in the context he provides is talking about signings and players. Playing staff. 

No need to apologise, I appreciate 3 of you in particular were in too deep defending his bullshit and lies therefore I take no joy in pointing this out to you. 

[CRARFC 77]

38 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I think it's you that has trouble reading as you've ignored this right at the start ..

All of that in the context he provides is talking about signings and players. Playing staff. 

No need to apologise, I appreciate 3 of you in particular were in too deep defending his bullshit and lies therefore I take no joy in pointing this out to you. 

It says investment ?? 

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, CRARFC said:

It says investment ?? 

Nothing get's past you. 

[CRARFC 77]

3 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

Nothing get's past you. 

No need for the cheeky remark ! Anyone can READ in to what that might or might not mean. It says investment and if he meant transfer fees he would of said transfer fees. Fucking tit ! 

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 minute ago, CRARFC said:

No need for the cheeky remark ! Anyone can READ in to what that might or might not mean. It says investment and if he meant transfer fees he would of said transfer fees. Fucking tit ! 

I've took the liberty of reporting you for the personal abuse calling me a tit at the request of various admin over the past couple of days.

If I could report you for not being able to read, I'd do that too as the piece of the statement I quoted, he's clearly talking exclusively about player investment - which you've ignored. 

[CRARFC 77]

2 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I've took the liberty of reporting you for the personal abuse calling me a tit at the request of various admin over the past couple of days.

If I could report you for not being able to read, I'd do that too as the piece of the statement I quoted, he's clearly talking exclusively about player investment - which you've ignored. 

Hahaha your pathetic ! 

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 minute ago, CRARFC said:

Hahaha your pathetic ! 

You are on thin ice little feller. I suspect a friendly PM warning you about your conduct will suffice on this occasion. 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,545]

1 hour ago, K.A.I said:

 

It is refreshing to hear him get laid into the management team saying they were untried and their signings were basically shite. That's 100% accurate but at the same time I notice a trend already in this statement that on a personal level he's not taking one bit of responsibility for any of his faults. It's easy to be brutally honest and damning about others especially if it takes the heat off your own failings.

 

need to stick up for king here i feel sick, strong rumours both 2 summers ago and again surfacing recently that king didnt want them here, he wanted someone else (eck was named), so quite rightly king is probably not taking one bit of flack for someone who he voted against hiring

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

King states in his comment 3 that it is the duty of the Board to take steps to get things back on track having acknowledged it is clear the Club is behind on its target for next season.   He also believes we can finish a strong second (comment 2).  He also states - starkly - that we have not repeated the success of the signings from the previous season.   

Now factor into the above the need for an interim manager who will energise the team and make a quick and significant impact on the way the team plays to work our way back to attaining a 'strong second.'    Factor in the inherent criticism of players signed who are not performing as expected.  King's statement about this is bound to be read by the players.   How they respond to it will be something to look out for.   They are in the spotlight having been called out by King.   They - and the rest of the squad - will need a manager of some stature and experience to haul the squad into the sort of team that demonstrates it can achieve that strong second.     Quite a tall order for the interim manager.  

I suspect we're done for now with taking a punt on managers who are not sufficiently experienced.   My guess is that whoever comes in will absolutely need to hit the management ground running, and be very effective very quickly in transforming the team into one which wins far more regularly than before, and which wins the big games home and away.     A manager familiar with Scottish football and sufficiently tuned-in to what it takes to manage Rangers.    No room for experiments here.   A winner is needed.  Someone who can grab the managerial reins and achieve the objective.   

I'm looking forward to seeing who will step up to the challenge of interim manager, and who will be selected for the longer-term solution. 

[Ryju84 3,170]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

You are on thin ice little feller. I suspect a friendly PM warning you about your conduct will suffice on this occasion. 

Fuck... had a wee £5 bet on with a mate saying your next post would have been a srcastic post about his grammar... " your " instead of "you're"... 

Thanks :(

 

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, Jimbeamjunior said:

need to stick up for king here i feel sick, strong rumours both 2 summers ago and again surfacing recently that king didnt want them here, he wanted someone else (eck was named), so quite rightly king is probably not taking one bit of flack for someone who he voted against hiring

I literally got called a liar on here a week or two ago when I said King isn't a Warburton fan and wanted McLeish as manager. 

[CRARFC 77]

3 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

You are on thin ice little feller. I suspect a friendly PM warning you about your conduct will suffice on this occasion. 

Jesus Christ the forum police ?? 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,545]

12 minutes ago, CRARFC said:

No need for the cheeky remark ! Anyone can READ in to what that might or might not mean. It says investment and if he meant transfer fees he would of said transfer fees. Fucking tit ! 

how else would we get 5 or 6 players over 2 seasons to compete for the title and in europe if it wasnt for fucking transfer fees

"hey big name signings look, we gave ibrox a lick of paint, updated our youth and scouting department and RT is fucking outstanding now, wanna join our club"

 

[K.A.I 36,183]

1 minute ago, Ryju84 said:

Fuck... had a wee £5 bet on with a mate saying your next post would have been a srcastic post about his grammar... " your " instead of "you're"... 

Thanks :(

 

I noticed that right away mate but the last couple of times I thought I was clever and doing the your/you're thing I made a stupid spelling mistake or something elsewhere and looked like a right fanny so just stayed clear of that but aye fuck it .. CRARFC it's you're ... sort your life out if you want to continue posting on here.

[BridgeIsBlue 66,606]

Forum police  

Nee naw nee naw

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, CRARFC said:

Jesus Christ the forum police ?? 

We also don't take kindly to upstarts taking the lords name in vein either. Giving serious consideration to terminating your account on here.