£45M operating costs...£35M in revenue

[Skelf 1,153]

Well you should

Why?

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

Is that a serious answer? Would your preference have been for the club to go under with a whimper, and, nobody trying a damn to do anything about it? Have you any concept of how business turnarounds work?

Can you please give us some evidence of the businesses that CW has turned around ??

It might spread some of the confidence you have towards Whyte around fellow Bears.

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

I think now we just dont know who to believe with this shite .

If we go to the wall then lets get on with it ,but to come back to the backwater that is the SPL would be pointless.

The days of spending in the SPL are over ,gobe ,finnished we go the youth route and get over all this negative shite.

We must cut our cloth to suit .

Thats it in a nutshell.

If we survive this Tax thing then i say we should go after every media outlet that prints a negative story about Rangers, and ban them from entry.

If we lose it then we apply for English lower and work through it.

Success will return only if we steer this ship through the correct way .

Last night the Records timing was immpecable and we now know our enemies very very clearly now.

Note Talksport trying to gey a hold of CW should be worth listening to .IMO

When is this happening mate , regarding Talksport ?

Why? erious question, why do people, "ordinary" fans want to know the figures and the details? What use is it? I have been wondering about that. The only time these figures, or, peoples interpretations of them appear, is via a bheast site/article trying to legitimize the doom and gloom. How would you know, if you got these figures, whether it was manageable or not?

So we know what actual state financially we are in , regarding whether figures are manageable or not , I think it should be looked at simply as income versus outgoings ( include every aspect of both )

[minnbear 30]

From memory is that not because we brought in circa £15m to £18m in extra revenue as a result of those CL games.

So now, if what he says is true about not borrowing against the ST money to buy us, he borrows over 24 million + catering money?

+ gets over 5 million for Jelavic + gets 11 players off the wage bill, all that for running costs yet can't afford a player on loan ?

The old mob must have stretched that 15 to 18 million really well.

Not a dig mate, just confused.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Why? erious question, why do people, "ordinary" fans want to know the figures and the details? What use is it? I have been wondering about that. The only time these figures, or, peoples interpretations of them appear, is via a bheast site/article trying to legitimize the doom and gloom. How would you know, if you got these figures, whether it was manageable or not?

Well for one, without the "ordinary" fans, there is no club so if we want to know the figures then we have a right to ask and i would hope a chance of being told.

If we got the figures then there are a few people on here more than capable of looking at them and giving an overview though i take your point it wouldnt be a definitive answer.

The most amazing thing about all of this is that in one hand, there are people slating the old board for not challenging Murray and the same people are now slating some of the "ordinary" fans for challenging Whyte. Can we not learn from our mistakes.

Is it not better to challenge and be put right than to sit on our hands and be led down the garden path ?

[outlaw69uk 123]

Why?

Because, its not as simple as that. I will stick something up at lunch to clarify

[Adoniram 1,919]

So now, if what he says is true about not borrowing against the ST money to buy us, he borrows over 24 million + catering money?

+ gets over 5 million for Jelavic + gets 11 players off the wage bill, all that for running costs yet can't afford a player on loan ?

The old mob must have stretched that 15 to 18 million really well.

Not a dig mate, just confused.

And without knowing all the facts we all will be.

But as i keep saying if Whyte came out with transparency ahead of the decision from the appeals tribunal then there is a clear risk that it could have undermined our entire case and strategy.

Am i happy with the current situation...no of course i am not but i am prepared to give the guy time.

Murray got over 20 years and put us right in the shit.

Whyte has had 8 months and many want him to fcuk off.

And there in a nutshell is the problem with a lot of our support. No patience in the same way young players have to hit the ground running and be world beaters or else they get abused liek Charlie Adam did.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Can't argue with you there

Ps are you the weissman??

Yes. My name was changed a few weeks back by admin after another dazzling display by the Wee Man

[outlaw69uk 123]

Can you please give us some evidence of the businesses that CW has turned around ??

It might spread some of the confidence you have towards Whyte around fellow Bears.

Can you, or anyone else do that? Can you list his "failures" as well? No, you cant, neither can "Derek", although he likes to state catagorically all these "failures"

[caseyjones 3,009]

More negativity, but what would you do ?

Either the money will fill that gap or remove the tax bill, so your premise is wrong.

If you have other ideas, enlighten us and maybe CW will read them.

Whyte mortgaged the ticket money to pay for a tax case that he assured us he was confident of winning and/or to cover the shortfall from going out of two European competitions that we hadn't even played in? Really?

I'm not sure which one of you is the greater financial genius.

[caseyjones 3,009]

Can you, or anyone else do that? Can you list his "failures" as well? No, you cant, neither can "Derek", although he likes to state catagorically all these "failures"

He failed to disclose that he had been given a 7 year ban from being a director. Your turn.

[Skelf 1,153]

Yes. My name was changed a few weeks back by admin after another dazzling display by the Wee Man

your the only one I listen to on here regarding facts and figures

[4MenHadADream 122]

Is that a serious answer? Would your preference have been for the club to go under with a whimper, and, nobody trying a damn to do anything about it? Have you any concept of how business turnarounds work?

I would much rather the status quo from last year, than a new guy with his own set of problems which simply add to the ones that we already had. As for your point about business turnarounds, how can a club or business expect to turn around if it has mortgaged off much of its future revenue and stilll has a £10m shortfall in income every year. The fact is that I don't believe that Whyte has enough money for the situation we are in, and that him coming in has done little to improve our situation.

P.S That is in no way a defence of the Murray/LBG regime, as that was a shambles from top to bottom and the very reason we are in this mess, my point is that Whyte does not have the money required for this situation.

[outlaw69uk 123]

Well for one, without the "ordinary" fans, there is no club so if we want to know the figures then we have a right to ask and i would hope a chance of being told.

If we got the figures then there are a few people on here more than capable of looking at them and giving an overview though i take your point it wouldnt be a definitive answer.

The most amazing thing about all of this is that in one hand, there are people slating the old board for not challenging Murray and the same people are now slating some of the "ordinary" fans for challenging Whyte. Can we not learn from our mistakes.

Is it not better to challenge and be put right than to sit on our hands and be led down the garden path ?

You have top level figures already, its in the title of this thread, at the end of the day, its a straightforward thing, its not good!

There is an interesting point in what you say there, you mention the old board not challenging Murray, then, talk about fans challenging Whyte? Thats 2 different things entirely. A CEO/Chairman/MD is accountable to the board of directors. If he doesnt provide a stable, profitable company, they have the right to remove him. So, given we werent, they should have been taking action, rather than nodding away.

Heres a little something, in relation to the old board, and, also, why they have, in the main gone. It actually applies to McCoist a little too.

Before a successful business turnaround can be implemented, it is crucial to understand what got the company where it is now. When businesses fail, it is most often due to ineffective management. Since management is usually the problem, it is difficult to use current management insight to determine what change is needed. As outside consultants, we often hear from ineffective management teams that they need greater funding to correct the sagging business, but we know that throwing money at a problem does not work. The people who created the problem in the first place will not know how to fix it. Providing them greater resources is a mistake: it wastes money and degrades employee morale. Also, failing businesses most often do not have good metrics in use to manage and guide the business. Metrics should not only tell company leaders where they have been but should also be used to gauge future performance. Management should be able to clearly describe how the metrics it uses will predict future results.

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

Or you look to protect your main sellable assets which increases their potential transfer value should you need to sell them.

Two ways to look at it.

If he hadn't sanctioned the new contracts then it is a real possibility that the likes of Whittaker,Davis and Mcgregor wouldn't be here. And that being the case the fees we would have got for them would have been considerably lower due to the short length of time left on their contracts.

Your reply simply contradicts your opening post.

You only try to increase the value of your assets (i.e. lucrative contracts)if you can afford to sustain the short-term expense of the contract - believing it will be more profitable for you in the long-term (i.e. Transfer fees received).

Therefore, if you can't sustain the expenditure of the contract in the short-term then:

1. You don't offer lucrative contracts in the first place and you as correctly stated in your OP - you set about reducing your biggest expenditure area (wages).

or

2. You trade in your asset, and receive income to off-set your expenditure.

[marmalade1872 40]

A quote used not only by Whyte but Bain before him that if you miss out on CL revenue the costs associated with running Rangers FC means an average annual loss of around £10M.

Now either costs have to come down or income streams increase.

Given that the scope for increasing revenue is limited thanks to the JJB deal and fixed TV income then the logical conclusion is you must cut costs.

The only way a company can cut costs dramatically and quickly is in staff wages.

Take away all the shite and misinformation surrounding Whyte.

Ask yourself this question....what would you do if this was your business and your annual operating costs resulted in a £10m loss each year?

if my annual operating costs resulted in a £10m loss each year i would remove the chief exwcutive that would be sound and sebsible business practice

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

A quote used not only by Whyte but Bain before him that if you miss out on CL revenue the costs associated with running Rangers FC means an average annual loss of around £10M.

Now either costs have to come down or income streams increase.

Given that the scope for increasing revenue is limited thanks to the JJB deal and fixed TV income then the logical conclusion is you must cut costs.

The only way a company can cut costs dramatically and quickly is in staff wages.

Take away all the shite and misinformation surrounding Whyte.

Ask yourself this question....what would you do if this was your business and your annual operating costs resulted in a £10m loss each year?

I wouldn't buy a football club if i couldn't afford to run one.....

[caseyjones 3,009]

You have top level figures already, its in the title of this thread, at the end of the day, its a straightforward thing, its not good!

There is an interesting point in what you say there, you mention the old board not challenging Murray, then, talk about fans challenging Whyte? Thats 2 different things entirely. A CEO/Chairman/MD is accountable to the board of directors. If he doesnt provide a stable, profitable company, they have the right to remove him. So, given we werent, they should have been taking action, rather than nodding away.

Heres a little something, in relation to the old board, and, also, why they have, in the main gone. It actually applies to McCoist a little too.

Before a successful business turnaround can be implemented, it is crucial to understand what got the company where it is now. When businesses fail, it is most often due to ineffective management. Since management is usually the problem, it is difficult to use current management insight to determine what change is needed. As outside consultants, we often hear from ineffective management teams that they need greater funding to correct the sagging business, but we know that throwing money at a problem does not work. The people who created the problem in the first place will not know how to fix it. Providing them greater resources is a mistake: it wastes money and degrades employee morale. Also, failing businesses most often do not have good metrics in use to manage and guide the business. Metrics should not only tell company leaders where they have been but should also be used to gauge future performance. Management should be able to clearly describe how the metrics it uses will predict future results.

Pulling off a business turnaround takes an intimate understanding of a business, including its customers, products, sales process, and employees.

[outlaw69uk 123]

He failed to disclose that he had been given a 7 year ban from being a director. Your turn.

Failures was in relation to the companies he has, or hasnt, turned around

but nice try

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

A CEO/Chairman/MD is accountable to the board of directors. If he doesnt provide a stable, profitable company, they have the right to remove him. So, given we werent, they should have been taking action, rather than nodding away.

That's not true - the Board of Directors (of which the CEO/Chairman/MD is part of) are accountable to the shareholders - who have the right to remove them.

As Murray was the major shareholder (or MIH really), he effectively held the right to remove himself.

I know people dislike them, but it wasn't until Lloyds started taking MIH under their control, that measures were put in place to put our club back on the straight and narrow, so to speak.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

You have top level figures already, its in the title of this thread, at the end of the day, its a straightforward thing, its not good!

There is an interesting point in what you say there, you mention the old board not challenging Murray, then, talk about fans challenging Whyte? Thats 2 different things entirely. A CEO/Chairman/MD is accountable to the board of directors. If he doesnt provide a stable, profitable company, they have the right to remove him. So, given we werent, they should have been taking action, rather than nodding away.

Heres a little something, in relation to the old board, and, also, why they have, in the main gone. It actually applies to McCoist a little too.

Before a successful business turnaround can be implemented, it is crucial to understand what got the company where it is now. When businesses fail, it is most often due to ineffective management. Since management is usually the problem, it is difficult to use current management insight to determine what change is needed. As outside consultants, we often hear from ineffective management teams that they need greater funding to correct the sagging business, but we know that throwing money at a problem does not work. The people who created the problem in the first place will not know how to fix it. Providing them greater resources is a mistake: it wastes money and degrades employee morale. Also, failing businesses most often do not have good metrics in use to manage and guide the business. Metrics should not only tell company leaders where they have been but should also be used to gauge future performance. Management should be able to clearly describe how the metrics it uses will predict future results.

It should be noted that anything i said was not from a position of supporting old Board members either individually or as a group, Im merely pointing out the irony of the people getting shot down for asking questions.

The headline figures tell us nothing. Deeper questions need to be asked and need to be answered. And very quickly at that.

Would it be possible, as the VB have access to Mr Whyte, that you would consider puting a joined effort to him from a few trusted and financially savvy contributors on this site with the hope of providing some clarity for the fans.

[Adoniram 1,919]

Your reply simply contradicts your opening post.

You only try to increase the value of your assets (i.e. lucrative contracts)if you can afford to sustain the short-term expense of the contract - believing it will be more profitable for you in the long-term (i.e. Transfer fees received).

Therefore, if you can't sustain the expenditure of the contract in the short-term then:

1. You don't offer lucrative contracts in the first place and you as correctly stated in your OP - you set about reducing your biggest expenditure area (wages).

or

2. You trade in your asset, and receive income to off-set your expenditure.

Not really when you know that a few months later you will be reducing your costs dramatically as we have just done plus brought in £5m from the sale of Jelavic.

Weir

Ortiz

Fleck

Bendiksen

Jelavic

Those 5 alone have either left the club or gone out on loan to other clubs where you would suspect they will be covering the bulk if not all of their wages.

I would estimate the wages alone would be in the region of around £60k per week or £3m per annum.

What we then have to do is compare that with the increase offered to Whittaker, Davis and McGregor to see if the overall costs have reduced, stayed the same or increased.

I would say that with the Jelavic fee included the operating costs will have reduced.

[Nicika Jelavic 7]

That is a genuine problem. If we get champions league money then we are either breaking even or working on a very small profit that Whyte will most likely snap up.

[outlaw69uk 123]

That's not true - the Board of Directors (of which the CEO/Chairman/MD is part of) are accountable to the shareholders - who have the right to remove them.

As Murray was the major shareholder (or MIH really), he effectively held the right to remove himself.

I know people dislike them, but it wasn't until Lloyds started taking MIH under their control, that measures were put in place to put our club back on the straight and narrow, so to speak.

Of course directors are responsible to shareholders, however, the MD is also in dereliction of duty to the board if he does not deliver

[Adoniram 1,919]

I wouldn't buy a football club if i couldn't afford to run one.....

Meaning that ultimately Rangers go out of business without a Sugar Daddy to bankroll them???