Board Issues

[.Williamson. 87,563]

7 hours ago, The Hammer 11 said:

We pay a pittance for some of the roles at rangers , hence the reason we can’t attract anyone good

What’s this based on?

[Big Al 55 9,536]

58 minutes ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

Na no swallowing that one, he knew there was something on the cards and didn’t want the flak, took the convenient way out with benefits.

Apparently the rest of the board didn’t know about the issue with the steel. He had rejected the Saudi offer and when he received the news the steel would be late he changed his mind and took the job.

Might be true, might not be 👍

[gj923 1,471]

10 hours ago, bluenoz said:

I would rather take my chances with new investments rather than top-ups.

Firstly FFP limits the amount of investment that can happen to the playing squad. We play in the SPL where our wage bill is similar to theirs and it is 5-15 times more than any other team in the league. It is how we spend it and on who which is the problem. There  are a multitude of problems that be fixed at our club which does not require 50m of investment.

[BLUEDIGNITY 34,188]

17 minutes ago, Big Al 55 said:

Apparently the rest of the board didn’t know about the issue with the steel. He had rejected the Saudi offer and when he received the news the steel would be late he changed his mind and took the job.

Might be true, might not be 👍

Might be mate but I don’t believe any of their BS anymore. 😉👍🏻

[BlueKnight87 17,907]

7 hours ago, JCDBigBear said:

That money basically paid off a lot of debt at that time.   

The current situation is down to not selling others at the right time.

Missing out against Malmo for CL after 55.

Signing dross under GvB and Beale on high wages and long contracts.   For example Matondo, Davies, Yilmaz, Lammers, Dessers, Danilo, Cifuentes transfer fees must total about £27 million excluding wages.  

The CL money after 55 we made that up with the Europa League run to the final. 

Totally agree on not selling when the time is right Morelos and Kent jump to mind here and the money we've wasted on dross. 

It's why I have little confidence in this board and their plans for a player trading model. Maybe they prove us wrong and Koppen brings in a ton of talent but history isn't on their side.

[KeyserSoze 15,298]

1 hour ago, .Williamson. said:

What’s this based on?

He’s an office jnr in the accounts department doing the wages. 
 

 

Or just some made up bullshit fantasy post to make him feel like he’s joining the rest of the sheep on here.  
 

could be either 🤷‍♀️

[OrangeRab 3,411]

10 hours ago, HG5 said:

There seems to be a Catch 22 situation developing.

The existing major shareholders appear willing to commit more funding, but would appear to be short on resource, otherwise why are we talking about it, rather than spending it?

And on the other hand they don’t want to sell up to ‘one owner’, even if those  do have the resources to take us forward.

We could be stuck in limbo for years.

 

This is it in a nutshell.

There’s too much kudos given to the board about their “investment” over the years.

This “investment” was loans at good interest rates from the directors which we also could have accessed externally. This was publicly stated at the AGM.

Some of these monies were paid back after 55 and Seville. (Potentially at the expense of rebuilding the squad.)

Some converted to shares which the current board would probably realise a profit on if the club were to be sold.

We haven’t had deep pockets just flooding money into the club with nothing expected in return.

I don’t see any desire from the board to seek a new owner. There’s nothing in it for them. They lose their blazers and their power.

The fresh investment will be a whip around from existing directors for a few mio each at a 6% loan.

(It would be good if someone could do a post on all the up to date numbers.)

[BlueSuedeSambas 56,472]

8 hours ago, KingKirk said:

Hopefully this guy will recommend a few of his mates invent in us

 

 

Fuck that. Don’t even care if it’s birthday card pish, I would rather we never won a trophy ever again if the alternative is to become a glorified Saudi plaything. It’s not something that appeals to me at all.

[JCDBigBear 10,993]

2 hours ago, BLUEDIGNITY said:

Na no swallowing that one, he knew there was something on the cards and didn’t want the flak, took the convenient way out with benefits.

He would always have moved on for more cash.  He had no real loyalty to Rangers than any other employer.  The delay to the Copland Stand was not down to just one person.   I assume you are hinting that Bisgrove was responsible for that. 

[HG5 12,271]

33 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

This is it in a nutshell.

There’s too much kudos given to the board about their “investment” over the years.

This “investment” was loans at good interest rates from the directors which we also could have accessed externally. This was publicly stated at the AGM.

Some of these monies were paid back after 55 and Seville. (Potentially at the expense of rebuilding the squad.)

Some converted to shares which the current board would probably realise a profit on if the club were to be sold.

We haven’t had deep pockets just flooding money into the club with nothing expected in return.

I don’t see any desire from the board to seek a new owner. There’s nothing in it for them. They lose their blazers and their power.

The fresh investment will be a whip around from existing directors for a few mio each at a 6% loan.

(It would be good if someone could do a post on all the up to date numbers.)

We’re thinking on the same lines here👍

[BLUEDIGNITY 34,188]

6 minutes ago, JCDBigBear said:

He would always have moved on for more cash.  He had no real loyalty to Rangers than any other employer.  The delay to the Copland Stand was not down to just one person.   I assume you are hinting that Bisgrove was responsible for that. 

No I would say that was team effort but he was the front man.

[BLUEDIGNITY 34,188]

39 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

This is it in a nutshell.

There’s too much kudos given to the board about their “investment” over the years.

This “investment” was loans at good interest rates from the directors which we also could have accessed externally. This was publicly stated at the AGM.

Some of these monies were paid back after 55 and Seville. (Potentially at the expense of rebuilding the squad.)

Some converted to shares which the current board would probably realise a profit on if the club were to be sold.

We haven’t had deep pockets just flooding money into the club with nothing expected in return.

I don’t see any desire from the board to seek a new owner. There’s nothing in it for them. They lose their blazers and their power.

The fresh investment will be a whip around from existing directors for a few mio each at a 6% loan.

(It would be good if someone could do a post on all the up to date numbers.)

Great post.

[rangersross 6,726]

12 hours ago, HG5 said:

There seems to be a Catch 22 situation developing.

The existing major shareholders appear willing to commit more funding, but would appear to be short on resource, otherwise why are we talking about it, rather than spending it?

And on the other hand they don’t want to sell up to ‘one owner’, even if those  do have the resources to take us forward.

We could be stuck in limbo for years.

 

I think you're right but, to give the existing board some credit, I believe they genuinely fear a single owner could put the club in jeopardy again, and have decided a situation where no single shareholder owns >15% is safer.

After the events of the last ~12 years, I completely understand why a smart investor would prioritise the long-term stability of the company. At the same time, it's hard to justify such a cautious strategy when the business' primary aim is to overtake a competitor with a number of financial + operational advantages. 

Our corporate strategy demands caution, our business goals demand risk. 

[ranopano 2]

15 hours ago, STEPPS BOY said:

Welcome to Rangers, Ian Blackford  

should be needless to say but some folks are falling for it - that's not john bennett's wife 

[esquire8 45,373]

43 minutes ago, rangersross said:

I think you're right but, to give the existing board some credit, I believe they genuinely fear a single owner could put the club in jeopardy again, and have decided a situation where no single shareholder owns >15% is safer.

After the events of the last ~12 years, I completely understand why a smart investor would prioritise the long-term stability of the company. At the same time, it's hard to justify such a cautious strategy when the business' primary aim is to overtake a competitor with a number of financial + operational advantages. 

Our corporate strategy demands caution, our business goals demand risk. 

Yet now we are in the situation of a years long boardroom battle where one minority shareholder holds more power than the rest combined and other shareholders barely care to the point where the largest shareholder is completely ostracised and vilified.

They have no plan, they have no direction, they have no targets. They will gladly sit back and let this continue under the outlook of "at least this ain't 2012, be happy we are in control".

I completely get the club being self-sufficient if we had competent people in power positions that are fully accountable for the mistakes they make that waste the very precious time and money the club have.

Right now that's not the case and will continue until those who have made countless wrong decisions are removed from that position of power.

We are a basket case of a club board filled with either glad handed yes men or narcissistic egomaniacs who think they are the best thing for the club.

[rangersross 6,726]

16 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

Yet now we are in the situation of a years long boardroom battle where one minority shareholder holds more power than the rest combined and other shareholders barely care to the point where the largest shareholder is completely ostracised and vilified.

They have no plan, they have no direction, they have no targets. They will gladly sit back and let this continue under the outlook of "at least this ain't 2012, be happy we are in control".

I completely get the club being self-sufficient if we had competent people in power positions that are fully accountable for the mistakes they make that waste the very precious time and money the club have.

Right now that's not the case and will continue until those who have made countless wrong decisions are removed from that position of power.

We are a basket case of a club board filled with either glad handed yes men or narcissistic egomaniacs who think they are the best thing for the club.

I do agree, and I generally think you're better off with one person empowered to lead but kept in check by a board, but I'm just playing devil's advocate. In terms of the board's thinking 'finishing second and having a splintered, hamstrung board' is better than the alternative, when the alternative could be 'giving one person the keys and seeing them drive us to near destruction again'.

I'm not saying I agree with the board's approach, but - having been the guys who stumped up the cash first time around - I can see why they've settled on this cautious approach (a number of shareholders, who are mostly Rangers supporters, holding 3-15%). I might feel the same if I'd put up millions. Of course you can say 'that approach is fine if you have the right people' but the reality is, these are basically the only people, because the list of 'wealthy Rangers fans willing to stump up that much money without gaining total control' is pretty short. 

Of course, the other part of this is empowering an executive who doesn't sit on the board to lead and let these guys take a big step back. That's why getting a heavy duty CEO is so important (and Gilligan seems to agree). 

[KingKirk 26,519]

2 hours ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Fuck that. Don’t even care if it’s birthday card pish, I would rather we never won a trophy ever again if the alternative is to become a glorified Saudi plaything. It’s not something that appeals to me at all.

It's easy to say that when the chances of it happening are very slim. I personally would snap your hand off for that type of financial security. 

[SkylineBlue 25,784]

18 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

It's easy to say that when the chances of it happening are very slim. I personally would snap your hand off for that type of financial security. 

It comes at the cost of losing your club, imo.

[RossS1873 2,710]

This was one fan medias response to someone not agreeing with the boards decisions before responses were deleted btw

[BlueKnight87 17,907]

1 hour ago, esquire8 said:

Yet now we are in the situation of a years long boardroom battle where one minority shareholder holds more power than the rest combined and other shareholders barely care to the point where the largest shareholder is completely ostracised and vilified.

They have no plan, they have no direction, they have no targets. They will gladly sit back and let this continue under the outlook of "at least this ain't 2012, be happy we are in control".

I completely get the club being self-sufficient if we had competent people in power positions that are fully accountable for the mistakes they make that waste the very precious time and money the club have.

Right now that's not the case and will continue until those who have made countless wrong decisions are removed from that position of power.

We are a basket case of a club board filled with either glad handed yes men or narcissistic egomaniacs who think they are the best thing for the club.

Under this board we're the 2nd best team in Scotland. On the pitch and very soon in the record books. 

There's no plan outside of further loans from shareholders and developing a player trading model that they have showed over several seasons they can't successfully do. 

We have important positions like the CEO not filled. That the candidate they did pick turned it down says it all.  

[KingKirk 26,519]

23 minutes ago, SkylineBlue said:

It comes at the cost of losing your club, imo.

I think we are slightly different tbf. We were already a very successful club history would tell you that. Completely different situation to a Manchester City who have won what they have because of money nothing else. 

 

[RossS1873 2,710]

I think what seems to be something that could work would be looking at an owner who perhaps has another club in a bigger league. I think it seems to be the way of it. I said in a other thread, think about all the PL clubs who's owners have some controlling stake in other clubs, at least half of them do. That being said, knowing our luck it would be the cunts who run Chelsea, the only club in world football who are more of a basket case than us

[KingKirk 26,519]

21 minutes ago, RossS1873 said:

This was one fan medias response to someone not agreeing with the boards decisions before responses were deleted btw

Fucking hell he needs seriously challenged on that. 

[RossS1873 2,710]

5 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

Fucking hell he needs seriously challenged on that. 

Here's the full thread where I saw it

[ForeverAndEver 74,002]

That’s outrageous