Christchurch Rangers 1,229 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Just came across this article and while in many ways there's nothing much new here I thought it was worth posting as the article talks about the "elephant in the room" ie the huge amount of ca$h that the directors and executives are earning whilst they talk about the need to cut costs at the club.I would have a lot more respect for the directors and executives if they led the way by reducing their own bloated salaries. The amount of cash these guys earn for doing basically fuck all while the club continues to struggle is hard to stomach.http://www1.skysport...ration-unlikely SPFL: Financial expert claims Rangers administration 'unlikely'Last Updated: 20/01/14 4:31pmKen Pattullo: Football finance expert feels administration is unlikely for RangersFootball financial expert Ken Pattullo believes it is 'highly unlikely' Rangers will enter administration despite the current problems at Ibrox.Last week Rangers' players were asked to take a 15 per cent wage cut as part of chief executive Graham Wallace's attempts to drive costs down after the club reported losses of £14.4m to the 13 months ending June 2013.Manager Ally McCoist has already reduced his salary by 50 per cent and Wallace is looking for other avenues to trim with costs reportedly running at around £1m a month.Oldco Rangers entered administration in February 2012 and were consigned to liquidation four months later when HMRC rejected their offer of a CVA, but Pattullo believes a similar fate is unlikely for the League One side.Speaking on Sky Sports News, he said: "It is impossible to completely rule out administration but it is much less likely than it was two or three years ago."The great advantage Rangers has is that it has no debt. The trouble is that it's operating costs far outweigh the level of income coming in."So eventually by the time it gets to the end of the season Rangers will effectively have run out of money and will have to look around at other sources of income."That money could come from existing shareholders, banks may step in and give them an overdraft or a loan, and I'm sure these are avenues I have no doubt chief executive Graham Wallace will be looking at very seriously."And Pattullo believes the players may rethink their stance of refusing to take a salary cut if directors and executives at the club show the way by trimming their own wages."What you have to remember is the players' wages as a proportion of the overall income at Rangers is actually very low. It's less than 35 per cent which is a figure most other clubs would die for."However, there's no reason at all why the players should not have agreed to take a pay cut but I think the management and executives must also be looking at the other two thirds of the costs to see if there are other areas where cuts can be made."The pay cut cannot be forced on the players but there are other areas such as non-footballing staff's salaries and just general running costs of a club."The players asked 'If we are being asked to take a wage cut then we will consider that if you guys (the board and directors) do as well'."There is absolutely no reason why, if there are going to be cuts across the board, why the directors should not look to take wage cuts themselves." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topgoalie 637 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 They have been the real PLAYERS in all of this....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 They have been the real PLAYERS in all of this.......That explains why the guys on the park can't string more than 3 passes together then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,132 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 15% is only £1 Million off the current first team squad. Ally and his staff could have saved well over half of that instead of taking home an obscene pay packet. Iv said it for months that it's the non-footballing costs that need to be culled and that's starts at the top. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Do you know what the current directors earn?It isnt HUGE amounts of our cash, in total the directors and NEDs are on less than a million a year between them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Do you know what the current directors earn?It isnt HUGE amounts of our cash, in total the directors and NEDs are on less than a million a year between them.So the directors have led by example then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 So the directors have led by example then?the current ones are doing OK imo.No silly bonuses. Reasonable wages. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 the current ones are doing OK imo.No silly bonuses. Reasonable wages.Lets hope the players/coaching staff can start matching up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCDBigBear 10,805 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Just came across this article and while in many ways there's nothing much new here I thought it was worth posting as the article talks about the "elephant in the room" ie the huge amount of ca$h that the directors and executives are earning whilst they talk about the need to cut costs at the club.I would have a lot more respect for the directors and executives if they led the way by reducing their own bloated salaries. The amount of cash these guys earn for doing basically fuck all while the club continues to struggle is hard to stomach.Exactly how much are the directors emoluments then?The Easdales apparently don't take a penny.Stockbridge £200k (which is excessive)Wallace (unknown but Mather was on £300k therefore I'd assume similar)Somers (unknown but the chairman post was £50k for M Murray and Walter so I'd expect the same)The NEDs were getting £40k before therefore it is likely that Crighton is getting similar?If they took a 15% reduction that would save the club £89k (based on the assumed figures).Out of 6 directors at Ibrox whom you allege are taking "huge amounts of cash" and "bloated salaries" two of them aren't taking a penny. The two non-execs are assumed to be on a total of £90k which is the same money that Malcolm Murray and Walter Smith were on, were they taking "huge amounts of our cash"? That brings us to the CEO and FD. I agree that their salaries are too high, certainly the FD. However, nobody said a word at the IPO when the CEO was on £360k and the FD on £200k plus their respective bonuses.By comparison, the football management team were reputedly earning approx £1.5m per annum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christchurch Rangers 1,229 Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 the current ones are doing OK imo.No silly bonuses. Reasonable wages.thats good news then ok I was getting a bit carried away with some of the details of my post as i hadn't checked my info prior to posting...was a bit emo there but what the hell but all the same, the non-football side of things certainly needs looking at as to where the money is going Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 thats good news then I was getting a bit carried away with some of the details of my post as i hadn't checked my info prior to posting...was running on emo-ness sorry but all the same, the non-football side of things certainly needs looking at as to where the money is going Pretty sure that's what Wallace is currently trying to do mate Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christchurch Rangers 1,229 Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 Pretty sure that's what Wallace is currently trying to do mate shouldn't you be asleep this time of the day/night you working the night shift? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 shouldn't you be asleep this time of the day/night you working the night shift?Just in from backshift mate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christchurch Rangers 1,229 Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 must be brass monkey weather where you arenice sunny n hot here Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Players are entitled to turn down the proposal but the comparison is just creating another board bashing mechanism Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 The OP should check his facts - as shown above the current Board salaries are not excessive. Especially the Easdales. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christchurch Rangers 1,229 Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 The OP should check his facts - as shown above the current Board salaries are not excessive. Especially the Easdales.thankyou for your sincere and measured input to this discussion.the OP has already apologised for rushing to some conclusions that don't stand up too well under closer scrutinyhowever the OP has stated in his defence that while his facts may have been reached at a moment of high emotion and that whilst lacking rational computed evidence, this never the less does not take away from the essence of what the post was about: if costs need to be cut then the net has to be cast wider than the playing pool.Having said the the OP would like to further add that at the end of the day I guess we all knew this anyhow...in hindsight and with a view to looking forward to the future, the OP sees clearly the value of clear minded and concise postings on RM.In other words one must always endeavour to ensure they know what the fuck they are talking about before they post it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewhitesettler 2,711 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Only parents are allowed to speak about themselves in the third person, & that's only when talking to their children. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlCapone 7,678 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 What huge amounts of cash are the directors earning? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMac_88 310 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Will be interesting to know what Nash outlines to Wallace in the Full Business Review.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Turnover 19m - first team squad 6m ( not an unreasonable ratio) - even using law mans £11m for total football costs it's still a low ratio - so 8m for other non playing staff - I'm not so sure that sustainability can be that far away or that difficult - I await the 120 day revue with interest Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Typical finger pointing article still trying to blame the board as a defence for the ridiculous amount being spent on the team.The board have led from the front in this. No big salaries or bonuses. They are also undertaking a review of ALL positions and processes at the club. Why are the team and coaches reluctant to do their part while they continue to drain the club dry ?Stockbridge was relentlessly chased over 200k yet Allys staff pish that much away every month. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I think perhaps the board could do it as a token gesture. The big earners are the management team and the players, and if they were to do thecdecent thing and agree to a wage cut it could perhaps help prevent jobs cuts across all other areas at the club. That's just my take on it, it'll be interesting to see how this this pans out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,132 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I have no issues with the current players wages but there certainly is some dead wood we can get rid of instead of there being a wage cut across them all.The 15% was an easy suggestion for a bean counter as it cleanly and quickly wipes of a mill from the balance sheet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Turnover 19m - first team squad 6m ( not an unreasonable ratio) - even using law mans £11m for total football costs it's still a low ratio - so 8m for other non playing staff - I'm not so sure that sustainability can be that far away or that difficult - I await the 120 day revue with interestConsidering one million of that 8 is director salaries, yes, the review will be interesting.Still think 6 million a year for a squad that doesn't play even half way decent football is mental. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.