John Bennett

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

7 hours ago, bassettger said:

Key question is have the directors been taking money out of the club to, for example, repay loans rather than converting them to shares. Totally unacceptable and not in accord with the buisness model. If this is the case the chairman needs to go. Regarding player trading we have spent £11M and accrued £38M potentially rising to £50M on player sales.  Thats a big gap. Lets not confuse the issue with when we receive the cash, how much we spend on non-football activities, the cash delivered from the Euro run and qualifying for the CL. Balancing the books is why we employ Stewart Robertson at a not insignificant salary plus bonus. The board have not implemented the buisness model which suggests we should have spent at least another £27M and have delivered a set of B team players for the manager. Not sure I would trust Ross Wilson to deliver A team signings but that is a different issue. Serious questions need asked about their failure to implement the buisness model.

Have you taken into account that we made a loss of about £24 million last season?  Dave King got £5 million back last November.   We had to pay Sports Direct £7 million to settle.  We can't keep taking director loans as we need to adhere to UEFA FFP rules.   You can't spend "potential" income.

Our player acquisition has been generally awful under Ross Wilson.  The guy is incompetent.   The board talking of making money on player trading is fanciful when you consider that our two main assets were signed before Wilson and now look to be heading out for nothing.  If you look at the Wilson signings we still have on the books we'd be lucky to break even let alone make a profit.

[Leftpegcoopz11 4,858]

3 hours ago, bluenoz said:

That interview is all bluster and mealy-mouthed. Everything you would expect from a board member who never played the game.

Billy Bragg once wrote... " There is no real substitute for a ball stuck firmly and squarely. "

Only a footballer knows what that means and Bennett ain't one.

One of the most condescending interviews I've heard. Talking to fans like we're wee weans. Fucking hell! 

These fuckers are so far removed from our fan base it's bordering on delusional. 

EL final was last year ya fanny, its all about progression from that point on.

[Leftpegcoopz11 4,858]

7 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

 

Hagi was absolutely shite before he got injured. Got better the longer he’s been out. 

Plus, one of the slowest players I've ever seen. I'm about 20 years older and could probably beat him in a sprint. 

But he'll be much faster when he comes bk from an 18 month injury layoff. Like Kamara, too overated. 

[DiamondDan 2,386]

12 hours ago, esquire8 said:

Btw there is complete radio silence from the club shills on this.

Heart and Hand released a later podcast covering it. Sycophantic pish, some posh boy that doesn't live here defending it.

[esquire8 43,656]

11 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

Have you seen the business case? 

Just confirmed via Robertson this morning it will take well over a decade to see any sort of return on the investment made. 

It's a vanity project.

[graeme_4 35,293]

37 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

Just confirmed via Robertson this morning it will take well over a decade to see any sort of return on the investment made. 

It's a vanity project.

 nonsense.

[esquire8 43,656]

Just now, graeme_4 said:

 nonsense.

£11-12m to complete. £1m pa revenue. It's all in the article Robertson gave to Rangers Review.

[Creampuff 22,628]

43 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

Just confirmed via Robertson this morning it will take well over a decade to see any sort of return on the investment made. 

It's a vanity project.

Don’t think that’s a particularly uncommonly long length of time to see break-even on that type of investment tbh. 

Not to mention the benefits to the club outside of the raw numbers.

[esquire8 43,656]

4 minutes ago, Creampuff said:

Don’t think that’s a particularly uncommonly long length of time to see break-even on that type of investment tbh. 

Not to mention the benefits to the club outside of the raw numbers.

It would be fine if we had money and posting healthy enough financial figures over several seasons but these fucks decide to do this project with investors barely able to keep the club going as part of the 150th celebrations. It was and still is stupid vanity project.

[gj923 1,457]

16 hours ago, bassettger said:

Key question is have the directors been taking money out of the club to, for example, repay loans rather than converting them to shares. Totally unacceptable and not in accord with the buisness model. If this is the case the chairman needs to go. Regarding player trading we have spent £11M and accrued £38M potentially rising to £50M on player sales.  Thats a big gap. Lets not confuse the issue with when we receive the cash, how much we spend on non-football activities, the cash delivered from the Euro run and qualifying for the CL. Balancing the books is why we employ Stewart Robertson at a not insignificant salary plus bonus. The board have not implemented the buisness model which suggests we should have spent at least another £27M and have delivered a set of B team players for the manager. Not sure I would trust Ross Wilson to deliver A team signings but that is a different issue. Serious questions need asked about their failure to implement the buisness model.

Player trading is simply not the amount that has been reported on transfer fees. In extending contracts of Davis, Arfield, McGregor and Goldson we have probably spent a few million on signing bonuses and agents fees. Lawrence whilst on a free has probably got a 7 figure signing bonus. Also whilst we have finally sold some players for decent money I am struggling to think where the next significant transfer fees are going to come from.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

33 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

It would be fine if we had money and posting healthy enough financial figures over several seasons but these fucks decide to do this project with investors barely able to keep the club going as part of the 150th celebrations. It was and still is stupid vanity project.

There was a previous plan in place to have a museum in Copland House.  It would have been over 2 floors and the cost would have been very much less.  I think the figure was about 10% of the current cost.  They could even have utilised the old Edmiston House.  £11 million is utterly ridiculous in our current financial position.

[graeme_4 35,293]

58 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

£11-12m to complete. £1m pa revenue. It's all in the article Robertson gave to Rangers Review.

Yes, that’s a pretty good ROI and fairly typical payback period. You’re just sounding naive to be honest.

Its £1m profit too, not revenue. 

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

3 minutes ago, gj923 said:

Player trading is simply not the amount that has been reported on transfer fees. In extending contracts of Davis, Arfield, McGregor and Goldson we have probably spent a few million on signing bonuses and agents fees. Lawrence whilst on a free has probably got a 7 figure signing bonus. Also whilst we have finally sold some players for decent money I am struggling to think where the next significant transfer fees are going to come from.

Exactly.  A look at our current squad tells a different story to the "sell at a profit" mantra.   Ross Wilson's signings are the worst in that respect.   Be lucky to break even on them.  

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Yes, that’s a pretty good ROI and fairly typical payback period. You’re just sounding naive to be honest. 

I don’t quite get where Rangers think the profit is going to come from. There are already a number of similarly sized venues in the city so I can’t see any promoters dropping the likes of SWG3 or King Tuts to bring bands to EH. 

[Guest]

Edmiston House is a good idea but Edmiston House is the type of development a club like ours undertakes after 2-3 years of consistent CL revenue + a big player sale a year so we're miles off that

No issues with the development itself, the timing is all wrong

[NorthernLights 2,526]

2 minutes ago, JCDBigBear said:

Exactly.  A look at our current squad tells a different story to the "sell at a profit" mantra.   Ross Wilson's signings are the worst in that respect.   Be lucky to break even on them.  

Problem with it is that we signed two 28 year olds, a 26 year old, a 25 year old, and two 21 year olds over the summer. Realistically most of those will never make you good money coming from Scotland at those ages 

[graeme_4 35,293]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I don’t quite get where Rangers think the profit is going to come from. There are already a number of similarly sized venues in the city so I can’t see any promoters dropping the likes of SWG3 or King Tuts to bring bands to EH. 

You’d like to think they’ve a proper business case for it, and not just pulling numbers out their arse. Be a bit of a mad one otherwise.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, graeme_4 said:

You’d like to think they’ve a proper business case for it, and not just pulling numbers out their arse. Be a bit of a mad one otherwise.

You’d like to hope so but I can’t help think there’s a lot of built in assumptions that we’ll flock there in our droves for what ever is on. 

[graeme_4 35,293]

Not that it’s entirely relevant, but Spurs are paying back their new stadium until 2042.

[The Beast 9,265]

12 hours ago, KingKirk said:

It's all free on YouTube mate 

It is now. Was that the original intention or have they reacted to the reaction of say ST holders who don't subscribe to RTV.  It was not clear because there were no clear comms. There's a pattern emerging here.

[The Beast 9,265]

.

6 hours ago, Leftpegcoopz11 said:

One of the most condescending interviews I've heard. Talking to fans like we're wee weans. Fucking hell! 

These fuckers are so far removed from our fan base it's bordering on delusional. 

EL final was last year ya fanny, its all about progression from that point on.

That was my first thought as well. Totally patronising without actually giving any new information. 

This whole exercise is a massive own goal by the club and it's got the fumbling incompetent hands of David Graham all over it.

[graeme_4 35,293]

3 minutes ago, The Beast said:

It is now. Was that the original intention or have they reacted to the reaction of say ST holders who don't subscribe to RTV.  It was not clear because there were no clear comms. There's a pattern emerging here.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it’s early access to it for subscribers before it’s free. Pretty regular thing with podcasts etc.

More likely they just made an arse of the comms.

[The Beast 9,265]

Just now, graeme_4 said:

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, it’s early access to it before it’s free. Pretty regular thing with podcasts etc.

More likely they just made an arse of the comms.

Yep. I wonder why that is.

[graeme_4 35,293]

Just now, The Beast said:

Yep. I wonder why that is.

You do wonder how often it can happen before they bin him, or if they’re just totally unaware of the issue. 

[graeme_4 35,293]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

You’d like to hope so but I can’t help think there’s a lot of built in assumptions that we’ll flock there in our droves for what ever is on. 

Possibly. Will never know though…