willygers4life

We'll did you read it all or just little bits, I also said he could give the money as a loan and convert the money owed into shares. But since your quick to say the the current board ain't got a chance of investment, why is that, and you still seem to be smarting that the true rangers men never got into the boardroom, why the desperation for Dave king

Any shred of evidence to say that is no prospect of more money from the investors

Does Dave king love the club, if he does then why should shares matter to him, why doesn't he buy ally's shares off him. If the club really mattered to Dave king he would give the club money with stipulations as already been mentioned and receive token gesture, only doing it to get rewarding is poor showing from a rangers man IMO. Even give the club it as a loan I turn for shares to be released to him

So you are saying the poor performances on the park and the lack of tactics is the boards fault, even though these faults has been there before this current board came it

The jist I get is everyone says ally should buy and spend, take the players to hotels and all that cause that's what rangers is used to doing, then they say it ok for poor performances cause as long as we pick up the 3 points. But the matter of fact rangers are used to dominating teams and have some excellent and quality performances. So therefore if rangers and ally should spend spend spend then those games that get played should be of domination and quality performances aswell. But also ally's problem this year was he said performances would be a lot better so he should be judged after September the 1st, and he is being judged due to the lacklustre performances on the park. Yeah 3 points is 3 points, but for what it is costing the club then those 3 points should be accompanied with quality performances in the park

What would everyone think if we never went ahead with cost cutting and kept spending, then end up in admin again. They would blame the board, yet the board is cutting costs to avoid heading near admin again and some are saying it's all there fault again. Well all I will say is that the top league is 18 month away at least, having a club around for then is more important than king saying to spend and back ally. Also ally been quick to comment about needing this and that for his squad, why not say he is happy with what he has got and look to improve his players without spending anymore on fees and wages.

Why take money when we are operating at a loss, it would be stupid to do that. Why should king be first choice when he has no right to anything rangers at the minute, graham Wallace has stated that he will do his 120 review take it to Current investors to see how they feel about it and to see if they will invest then he will go to potential investors like king and anyone else, Dave king is second best at the moment as he is a potential investor not current

With cuts, and just taking investment we would be back to square one in 12-18 of needing even more investment. What would the point be in doing this, is it so the every time we are low on money Paul Murray and his loyal crew and come out the woodwork and stir the crap again

DP

It's an example that is all, and what happens when in the top league how can he get a bonus for promotion. If he works on the basic core skills within the team then objectives of cup runs take care of themselfs, which was why I mentioned passing. The performance based doesn't have to be passing. But yo just award him for promotion seems wrong when it is required just now, a bit like BS getting his bonus for promotion

Would it not be better if ally and his management team was offered new contracts that was more performance based, with a bonus set for youth players included and played, and how well the team performs overall for the whole season, and before anyone says but we won all the games apart from one in the league, hardly conceded and that. I mean passes completed in the season crosses attempted things like that, would then result in ally pushes for an attractive free flowing attacking football, forcing teams to rethink how to play against us. And it should be the basis for any future staff member or manager

The board is on about 600 k between them all, the main expense would be running costs and the footballing budget

Why would they have to pay anything if they are employed as NED's. I don't think so about the shares, as nothing has been released to the lse. But why do you think the board should take a cut when they are paid less than the management team. Is it cause you feel the need to have a dig at the board and in particular the easedales

Your not the only one, I think people are saying for the board to take a cut cause a lot of people are thinking they are millions

The first team squad is about 35%, then you have the rest of footballing costs on top so don't forget that. Then you have all the day to day staff from the megastore and what not, the cost of running ibrox and auchenhowie, as well, then the boardroom wages what I would reckon equate to about 10/15% of the first team players wages. There is a rough break down

Here's a big what if, what would people be saying if Wallace goes to ally and hands him his p45, or tells ally one of McDowell or Durrant has to go. How would everyone feel

The 30% is first team players, not the full football side, in essence it not the 55 players just the 20 odd first team. Doesn't include the reserve or youth squads, also doesn't include the coaches

Realistically only one director is partly at fault, and a I have said already Wallace has stated he is looking at all contracts including media house, if ally hadn't wanted to spend spend spend then we wouldn't be having a go at him, the blame lies with ally and Mather. If Mather was a strong CEO he would have said no, and if ally knew more than the spending culture then he wouldn't have been wanting every player and more. If he had any sense would have kept half his budget for possible reinforcements if required but he didn't, if you had a choice between a ford mondeo but could afford to buy a Ferrari but could afford to run it would you buy the Ferrari for it to sit there, or buy the Mondeo and actually use it

Really think we ain't struggling, the other teams are tiring and that is when we are braking them down. Not cause we are out performing them, but tiredness setting in, the team are stuggling to pass to a teammate, also the overall team performance are poor most of the time, subs are rarely made till last 10 minutes. Who is to blame for that in your opinion

The boardroom pay is something like 10% of the first team wages, so let's say 650k, that is for a top level CEO, with a average FD, along with the NED wages. As Wallace has stated he is looking at all contracts, which including media house. Or are you also saying the day to day staff that workmen ticket office and that should be sacked. Also the non playing wages include coaches wages maybe get rid of them and bring I better cheaper options even. Also further to the point the playing wages in accounts was only the first team squad, so realistically looking at all football staff wages actually total more than none footballing staff. So maybe just maybe that is why Wallace was putting the suggestion about player wage cuts

And what sorta things should be looked at exactly from this non playing budget

Good link, cricfree.tv

Looks like long ball again tonight, guess better get the beers opened

Think bell ain't starting but Simmo going by his twitter, saying looking forward to the night more than he already was, and rumour is bell's missus had a bairn the day

No that is not what I am saying, what I am saying is people are accepting poor performances and poor signings cause genus a playing legend, that shouldn't be an excuse to stick up for him. Yeah he was there for admin through it all, deserved a chance but he spent big on wages and the performances these last month don't equate to what has been spent