Douglas Park rejects Kings Old Firm friendly fee offer

Gary said:
How did we survive in the 3rd division and upwards? Are you suggesting the board at the time were "ploughing" cash in as you put it?
Click to expand...
How did we survive it?

Well we survived it by accumulating multi million pound losses every year, met by the investors we currently have.

The spivs pissed away the IPO money and then some.

Out of interest, do you read the annual accounts?
 
bob1873 said:
I’ve come to the conclusion that the current board or regime depending on your view have run their race. New ownership would maybe be an option and not being a Rangers fan shouldn’t exclude anyone nor does it mean ‘spiv’. The issue is no one seems interested and off course we play in a football backwater that run abysmally so it’s not an attractive proposition.
Click to expand...
Massively disagree. We should NEVER be owned by non Rangers fans ever again
 
Supersonic2.0 said:
How did we survive it?

Well we survived it by accumulating multi million pound losses every year, met by the investors we currently have.

The spivs pissed away the IPO money and then some.

Out of interest, do you read the annual accounts?
Click to expand...

So without board members ploughing cash in, we are dead? Fans turning up means nothing and we might as well play in front of empty stadiums and not sell any merchandise? Of course the spivs wasted the money but without us turning up every other week we wouldn't have had a club at all.

The reality is the support are more important than the board but without both we are nothing.

Edit: spelling
 
Last edited:
Gary said:
So without board members ploughing cash in, we are dead? Fans turning up means nothing and we might as well play in front of empty stadiums and not sell any merchandise? Of course the spivs wasted the money but without us turning up every other week we wouldn't have had a club at all.

The reality is the support are more important than the board but without both we are nothing.

Edit: spelling
Click to expand...

So a bit like government - the board are trusted to make daily decisions that are for the best of the club but there isn't a "referendum" or vote on every decision - (like whether to go to Oz to play an OF game).

If you don't like the government you vote them out at the anointed time - like the AGM.

Unless you are an anarchist or Marxist I suppose then you go on strike or riot until the government falls..
 
cambridgeblue said:
So a bit like government - the board are trusted to make daily decisions that are for the best of the club but there isn't a "referendum" or vote on every decision - (like whether to go to Oz to play an OF game).

If you don't like the government you vote them out at the anointed time - like the AGM.

Unless you are an anarchist or Marxist I suppose then you go on strike or riot until the government falls..
Click to expand...

Mate, all I am saying (or trying to say) is that without the support, we might as well not have a club. The fans will always be the most important part of the club and if necessary, we will keep the club alive in the future as we have done before.

That's it.
 
Gary said:
Mate, all I am saying (or trying to say) is without the support, we might as well not have a club. The fans will always be the most important part of the club and if necessary, we will keep the club alive in the future as we have done before.

That's it.
Click to expand...

Sure but the bald facts are the fans have no real power - as via loyalty they have no non drastic ways of influencing the board. It's a mismatch of power.

I had an idea when DK took over of adding £100 to each season ticket - in return you got £100 worth of shares - or something. With a lock in of X years.

That would at least see some transfer of shareholding and influence to fans. Particularly as C1872 is a bust.
 
Gary said:
So without board members ploughing cash in, we are dead? Fans turning up means nothing and we might as well play in front of empty stadiums and not sell any merchandise? Of course the spivs wasted the money but without us turning up every other week we wouldn't have had a club at all.

The reality is the support are more important than the board but without both we are nothing.

Edit: spelling
Click to expand...
See the budget and team we have now, that’s being funded by a yearly deficit of a minimum of £10m. So if you want to downsize tell us 5 of the starting 11 you would be happy to have sold and not replaced
 
Supersonic2.0 said:
See the budget and team we have now, that’s being funded by a yearly deficit of a minimum of £10m. So if you want to downsize tell us 5 of the starting 11 you would be happy to have sold and not replaced
Click to expand...

Why are you making a strawman argument now? I never said anything like that.

I'll make it really easy for you to understand what I said. Without the support Rangers are nothing and we are only where we are now because of the support. We would not have survived this long and be this big on handouts alone.

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that a modern football club needs money from investors, no one is disputing that. What's even more obvious is no one will invest heavily in a club with no fans.
 
Supersonic2.0 said:
See the budget and team we have now, that’s being funded by a yearly deficit of a minimum of £10m. So if you want to downsize tell us 5 of the starting 11 you would be happy to have sold and not replaced
Click to expand...
5?

You mean name a single Nathan Patterson you would be happy to be sold in order to fund the deficit?

If so, well, Nathan Patterson...
 
Kenny Senior said:
Surprised people are criticising a 38k turnout to watch a legends game. Not really one for going to they games but considered taking the kids but the price on top of the semi final and Braga tickets sealed the deal i wasnt going. Im sure there were more in the same boat.

I hate this friendly in Australia as much as anybody but dont think it was a major factor in the attendance on Saturday which i think was pretty good.
Click to expand...

Exactly you couldn’t have paid me to go on Saturday the first decent weekend of weather all year, a break from paying out ticket money and stuff, hope those who went enjoyed it but it’s not for me.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
5?

You mean name a single Nathan Patterson you would be happy to be sold in order to fund the deficit?

If so, well, Nathan Patterson...
Click to expand...
What I mean is, 5 players = £2m Wage each per year, £10m. £10m deficit. There aren’t an infinite amount of Nathan Pattersons. Who are we kidding, prior to that our best transfer fee was £2m for Windass. with reduced investment you also have less chance of replacing Patterson with the same quality. I am pretty happy with my example, what I am saying is you would reduce your playing budget from day £35m to £25m a year, pre Gerrard budget levels.
 
Supersonic2.0 said:
What I mean is, 5 players = £2m Wage each per year, £10m. £10m deficit. There aren’t an infinite amount of Nathan Pattersons. Who are we kidding, prior to that our best transfer fee was £2m for Windass. with reduced investment you also have less chance of replacing Patterson with the same quality. I am pretty happy with my example, what I am saying is you would reduce your playing budget from day £35m to £25m a year, pre Gerrard budget levels.
Click to expand...
This argument that we need external investment to keep going is genuinely the laziest and most ill thought out bullshit on the forum these days. We do not have an infinite amount of Pattersons, but we do have a Morelos, a Kent, an Aribo, all players (except Kent with the £7 million I guess) brought in for little and worth lots. We need to sell one, use a bit of the money to buy the next couple or 3 and stop living off loans. Then do it again. And again. And again.

It is absolutely possible for Rangers to be run in a way that means we do not need director loans. That way is centred around player trading, THIS board have stated unequivocally that we need to player trade and break even. We have used a different model to get where we are, completely understandably given the starting position, but right now we can and should be living off what we generate and looking to increase that (without moronic trips down under)

Trying to justify the board's roles by saying we need their continued cash input is moronic, facile and is only peddled by people who learned zero lessons from 2012. If anything, needing them for continued loans proves they are failing, moving forwards.


We need, right now, a club that is run within it's means. We need a club capable of trading successfully and we need to lose this comfort blanket of loans and we need to do it sooner rather than later. Reliance on an individual or several individuals who are ALL at the mercy of the economy is exactly the reason we got into the mess we did.
 
Robert Marshall said:
Some people have no idea the problems there is running a business never mind one like Rangers where we have a multitude of financial and commercial experts on social media
Click to expand...
I
Robert Marshall said:
Some people have no idea the problems there is running a business never mind one like Rangers where we have a multitude of financial and commercial experts on social media
Click to expand...
No idea? Well maybe not, but I'll tell you this for nothing. Whoever thought this "friendly" was a good idea, that would be well received by the support needs chased...pronto!
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
This argument that we need external investment to keep going is genuinely the laziest and most ill thought out bullshit on the forum these days. We do not have an infinite amount of Pattersons, but we do have a Morelos, a Kent, an Aribo, all players (except Kent with the £7 million I guess) brought in for little and worth lots. We need to sell one, use a bit of the money to buy the next couple or 3 and stop living off loans. Then do it again. And again. And again.

It is absolutely possible for Rangers to be run in a way that means we do not need director loans. That way is centred around player trading, THIS board have stated unequivocally that we need to player trade and break even. We have used a different model to get where we are, completely understandably given the starting position, but right now we can and should be living off what we generate and looking to increase that (without moronic trips down under)

Trying to justify the board's roles by saying we need their continued cash input is moronic, facile and is only peddled by people who learned zero lessons from 2012. If anything, needing them for continued loans proves they are failing, moving forwards.


We need, right now, a club that is run within it's means. We need a club capable of trading successfully and we need to lose this comfort blanket of loans and we need to do it sooner rather than later. Reliance on an individual or several individuals who are ALL at the mercy of the economy is exactly the reason we got into the mess we did.
Click to expand...
If we had accepted the £16m offer for Morelos, do you think we would have won 55 without him?
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
This argument that we need external investment to keep going is genuinely the laziest and most ill thought out bullshit on the forum these days. We do not have an infinite amount of Pattersons, but we do have a Morelos, a Kent, an Aribo, all players (except Kent with the £7 million I guess) brought in for little and worth lots. We need to sell one, use a bit of the money to buy the next couple or 3 and stop living off loans. Then do it again. And again. And again.

It is absolutely possible for Rangers to be run in a way that means we do not need director loans. That way is centred around player trading, THIS board have stated unequivocally that we need to player trade and break even. We have used a different model to get where we are, completely understandably given the starting position, but right now we can and should be living off what we generate and looking to increase that (without moronic trips down under)

Trying to justify the board's roles by saying we need their continued cash input is moronic, facile and is only peddled by people who learned zero lessons from 2012. If anything, needing them for continued loans proves they are failing, moving forwards.


We need, right now, a club that is run within it's means. We need a club capable of trading successfully and we need to lose this comfort blanket of loans and we need to do it sooner rather than later. Reliance on an individual or several individuals who are ALL at the mercy of the economy is exactly the reason we got into the mess we did.
Click to expand...
Yes we can live within our means, out with Patterson we haven’t proven we can do that yet. I don’t think people are suggesting we need continued deficit funding, although we might do if we can’t operate the model. If we lose the players on trees, then we will definitely need their investment.

The board are trying to live within their means, via the work Bisgrove is doing but many people seem to be calling him every name under the sun for doing so.

Rock and a hard place
 
Supersonic2.0 said:
Yes we can live within our means, out with Patterson we haven’t proven we can do that yet. I don’t think people are suggesting we need continued deficit funding, although we might do if we can’t operate the model. If we lose the players on trees, then we will definitely need their investment.

The board are trying to live within their means, via the work Bisgrove is doing but many people seem to be calling him every name under the sun for doing so.

Rock and a hard place
Click to expand...
No. Stop. The argument being put forwards is that we cannot demand the board do better because they give us loans. That is it. It is puerile.

It is not a case of we can live within our means, it is a case of we must live within our means and we must get there soon.

If we are losing players on frees, failing to cash in, generally not trading effectively, take a stab in the dark at who exactly that lies with when looking to see why? This season and last I get completely, we were operating under different demands and needed to keep players but from the end of this season, win or lose, we will enter the period where we need to trade our way forwards.

We are such a weird support. We hate having people talk for us, refuse anyone who steps up into the limelight while at the same time we have a large percentage of our support who crave the comfort blanket of the club being at the whim of rich men. it is common to see people demand we are run self sufficiently, right up to the point where we need to do something towards that aim and it becomes a tragedy.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
No. Stop. The argument being put forwards is that we cannot demand the board do better because they give us loans. That is it. It is puerile.

It is not a case of we can live within our means, it is a case of we must live within our means and we must get there soon.

If we are losing players on frees, failing to cash in, generally not trading effectively, take a stab in the dark at who exactly that lies with when looking to see why? This season and last I get completely, we were operating under different demands and needed to keep players but from the end of this season, win or lose, we will enter the period where we need to trade our way forwards.

We are such a weird support. We hate having people talk for us, refuse anyone who steps up into the limelight while at the same time we have a large percentage of our support who crave the comfort blanket of the club being at the whim of rich men. it is common to see people demand we are run self sufficiently, right up to the point where we need to do something towards that aim and it becomes a tragedy.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the board can’t do better. Although it’s only this year they’ve really started to make a couple of mistakes. Something clearly went down in the summer and what would have cost them £10m extra investment in the squad to keep us ticking over and be the last of the investment could cost them double.

To be honest, this season we clearly had no bids for players when you could say for some key players it was their window to go - the last dance for them. The bids never came in. Therefore we find ourself in this period after where we still want bids and now it’s getting into dangerous territory. What if the flip side of your argument is that the living within our means is directly linked to not being able to offering the key players better terms? Let’s say Morelos is on 30/35k a week. He’s only going to sign an extension for say £40k minimum. Then Kent and Aribo - if we pay them say £20k a week jsut now, are they worth an improved £30k a week? Can we get 2 players for £15k a week that provide overall the same numbers at the end of the season?

And FWIW I also started a thread last week about the “comfortable with contracts” line being fgiven by the club RE Aribo and co and wondering if it was fully accurate or if we were bluffing
 
Supersonic2.0 said:
See the budget and team we have now, that’s being funded by a yearly deficit of a minimum of £10m. So if you want to downsize tell us 5 of the starting 11 you would be happy to have sold and not replaced
Click to expand...
The idea is to make profit by developing players good Euro run extra games in cups as well as ST money. That should cover the costs if we are to survive long term. Sponsors will not invest if they don't get something in return. Hence I will buy my VPN,tyres and cars from others not our sponsors the message will get through if friendly goes ahead. No merchandise either. May choose between RTV and Season ticket but greater direct impact on club especially as I use seatsub when not able to go. M votes at AGM would currently be against certain votes as well. Board have done so so but have not set club on an even footing as yet so in that respect have not succeeded and have failed with the friendly decision. I would hope that the board stay but the management team go
 
Looking at the state of the various comments and even some agendas on these threads and other forums I can conclude that fans should not be allowed anywhere near running or owning the club, it would be a disaster, carnage, too many people who think they are special and would rather spend so much effort and time hating their own than come together for the club we all claim to love. Would be a really bad move IMO. Imagine the money wasted on blazers as well....
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
We will have a contract with the organisers that means we pay a fee to break the contract.

The scum will have a contract with the organisers that mean they get a fee if the organisers cannot fulfil their part of the contract.

If we pull out, we will pay the fee to the organisers because we render them unable to fulfil their contractual obligations.

The fee we pay to the organisers will then be, at least in part, paid to the scum because the organisers will not be able to fulfil their contract.

We will pay, at one step removed, the fee the scum are due as payment.
Click to expand...
Nonsene, any clause we have to pay for pulling out would go towards paying another ream to compete.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
We are such a weird support. We hate having people talk for us, refuse anyone who steps up into the limelight while at the same time we have a large percentage of our support who crave the comfort blanket of the club being at the whim of rich men. it is common to see people demand we are run self sufficiently, right up to the point where we need to do something towards that aim and it becomes a tragedy.
Click to expand...

The 'comfort blanket' generally means success. Running self-sufficiently requires a lot more discipline and realism - and I'm not sure sections of the support have the patience or understanding.

Indeed in this thread are suggestions that the previous manager wasn't backed and calls for just about everyone to be sacked, along with criticisms of sponsorship, ticket prices and every facet of the business.

Playing trading generally means weakening the squad and (hopefully) rebuilding to a similar standard.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
This is entirely the wrong question.

If we are still relying on director loans in 12 months time from now then the board are failing. The entire point of our rebuild and restructure was to front load the investment needed to get the club back operating at the top and then get it operating at the top while generating enough revenue to be self sufficient.

This tangent the debate keeps taking, talking about how much we need these benevolent directors with their deep pockets is so fucking stupid and frustrating. We have players worth several millions and we should, from the very next window, be selling one ahead of taking further loans. We need to work within our means and we have had the period of front loaded investment, we need to start breaking even and trading effectively.

Also, if the only answer to the criticism they are receiving over several decisions made is 'yeah, but they put money in' then you have no defence of their decisions. End of story.
Click to expand...
Bang on.

If we need directors to keep putting in money, its a fucking failing on them and we shouldn't be grateful for their ineptitude.
 
Calcio said:
Bang on.

If we need directors to keep putting in money, its a fucking failing on them and we shouldn't be grateful for their ineptitude.
Click to expand...
To be fair, if they are paying for their own failings that’s on them. I’m not sure anyone on here gets an opinion.

And I say that as someone that has been advocating proceeding with “player trading” for some time. If they don’t sell Morelos or Kent or Aribo or another talent, they’ll need to plug it. My take is we have a big rebuild and need to roll the dice this summer.

To say we shouldn’t be grateful for over £100m in cash injection is amazing.
 
Calcio said:
Bang on.

If we need directors to keep putting in money, its a fucking failing on them and we shouldn't be grateful for their ineptitude.
Click to expand...

A heck of a way to look at it. So backing a manager by not selling a player, such as Morelos, is now failure and ineptitude...

It's due to the football environment we are in that money is required - or at least to maintain the level we're at.
 
Gary said:
How did we survive in the 3rd division and upwards? Are you suggesting the board at the time were "ploughing" cash in as you put it?
Click to expand...
Our costs were miniscule compared to now though. St money, merch and any tv deals , sponsorship may have covered it.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
This is entirely the wrong question.

If we are still relying on director loans in 12 months time from now then the board are failing. The entire point of our rebuild and restructure was to front load the investment needed to get the club back operating at the top and then get it operating at the top while generating enough revenue to be self sufficient.

This tangent the debate keeps taking, talking about how much we need these benevolent directors with their deep pockets is so fucking stupid and frustrating. We have players worth several millions and we should, from the very next window, be selling one ahead of taking further loans. We need to work within our means and we have had the period of front loaded investment, we need to start breaking even and trading effectively.

Also, if the only answer to the criticism they are receiving over several decisions made is 'yeah, but they put money in' then you have no defence of their decisions. End of story.
Click to expand...
I am not defending the board, just pointed out a financial fact.
I agree we need to be self sufficient. Our players are only worth millions though, when someone pays millions for them. We have only sold Patterson so far.
There is another issue though. If we continue to progress like we have, and go further in Europe etc, most will want to keep the players, and players may want to stay for a shot at CL. They will need new contracts and will expect ever higher wages. Otherwise they go for nothing end of next season.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
This is entirely the wrong question.

If we are still relying on director loans in 12 months time from now then the board are failing. The entire point of our rebuild and restructure was to front load the investment needed to get the club back operating at the top and then get it operating at the top while generating enough revenue to be self sufficient.

This tangent the debate keeps taking, talking about how much we need these benevolent directors with their deep pockets is so fucking stupid and frustrating. We have players worth several millions and we should, from the very next window, be selling one ahead of taking further loans. We need to work within our means and we have had the period of front loaded investment, we need to start breaking even and trading effectively.

Also, if the only answer to the criticism they are receiving over several decisions made is 'yeah, but they put money in' then you have no defence of their decisions. End of story.
Click to expand...
The board have failed us massively this season and I don’t think it will be forgotten by a lot ( most bears who I know who don’t post on here are not renewing if we don’t win the league as they feel after all we have been through enough is enough.

I’m hoping this statement doesn’t get me a ban but I’ll say it because it’s how I feel.

We were lucky Paterson had the run in the Scotland team because without that he would still be here and if we are that skint then god knows where we would be.

The amount of merchandise is just a piss take

The press conferences are now football manager amateur stuff with how they are conducted and imo not fitting of the biggest club in the country.

We have allowed Goldson to run down a contract ( learn your lesson and either sign him on his terms or get a fee for him since we need the money )

The rebuild ahead in the summer is going to take money that I’m told we don’t have - I don’t read the books or accounts as I see us a the champions who have been successful in Europe for 3 good years now.

Was there more to Gerrard leaving - the fact King his alluded to it should be cleared up.

They never back us ever - we delay a game for a few minutes because a large majority are fuming at their decision but what about the 4 week delay in January, still waiting on the board telling the truth about that but then again that would just confirm the Robertson is weak so never happening.

It’s fairly obvious that behind the scenes there are fractions and I only hope the players aren’t impacted and can win the next 10-12 games.
 
Mustang mad said:
I am not defending the board, just pointed out a financial fact.
I agree we need to be self sufficient. Our players are only worth millions though, when someone pays millions for them. We have only sold Patterson so far.
There is another issue though. If we continue to progress like we have, and go further in Europe etc, most will want to keep the players, and players may want to stay for a shot at CL. They will need new contracts and will expect ever higher wages. Otherwise they go for nothing end of next season.
Click to expand...
I more pro active business man would have tied these players up last January when it was clear the league was one! It’s just ridiculous that we have so much talent entering the danger time on their contracts
 
GVB56! said:
I more pro active business man would have tied these players up last January when it was clear the league was one! It’s just ridiculous that we have so much talent entering the danger time on their contracts
Click to expand...

We can't do much if players don't want to sign or we can't meet their demands within our budget.

A "more pro active business man" would have take the 12m from Lille, for example. Instead the Board thought like fans, retained the player and covered the losses. And now they're being barracked for it.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
We can't do much if players don't want to sign or we can't meet their demands within our budget.

A "more pro active business man" would have take the 12m from Lille, for example. Instead the Board thought like fans, retained the player and covered the losses. And now they're being barracked for it.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends if we attempted to open negotiations at all?

For example Kent and Aribo, will agree to an extra year for 5K extra a week? If they say no then fine but I’m not convinced we would have
 
Alex Venters said:
They're the ones who have have dealt with the devil and all for a few bucks.
Whatever this board go on to achieve, this Australian debacle will forever be a stain on their legacy.
It's that simple and I have absolutely no shame in saying so.
Click to expand...
What has that go to do with Saturday's crowd
 
GVB56! said:
I more pro active business man would have tied these players up last January when it was clear the league was one! It’s just ridiculous that we have so much talent entering the danger time on their contracts
Click to expand...
Yes, I am sure they tried. Players or their agents though would have wisely from their pov, knocked back contracts, thinking they would either get better offers from the club later on, or attract bidders that summer.

It can't be easy to run any club , never mind Rangers.
Sell our best players, yeah, self sufficient. We didnae win anything. Bastards board sold our best players, sack them all.

Rock
Hard
Place
 
GVB56! said:
I suppose it depends if we attempted to open negotiations at all?

For example Kent and Aribo, will agree to an extra year for 5K extra a week? If they say no then fine but I’m not convinced we would have
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why the negativity bias.

Morelos has received additional terms, Kamara + Tav likewise and we offered Goldson a contract., for example. But now you're suggesting we haven't bothered speaking to Kent and Aribo?

The reality is that players have a limited shelf life in Scotland. Especially ambitious and talented ones.
 
TinyRick said:
What is it that Robertson has done so badly?

He's not a chief exec, yet so many in here claim he is.

We have folk who wanted a Loyalist Lawell - and the fact that Robertson isn't that seems to annoy them.

King felt he was suitably qualified for the MD role, and continued to do so throughout his term as chairman.

Park has obviously been pleased with the job the MD is doing, and has kept him on.

The other board members - Messrs Letham, Bennett, Wolhardt, Taylor et al - men who have made fortunes and invested chunks of those fortunes into the club all clearly are pleased with the job he's doing too.

Our accounts suggest our MD is doing a good job as well.

Yet FF has some hatred for him, with the usual claims being that he's meek or something.

His job is to carry out the directions set by the board on a day to day basis. He clearly does that. Please do explain why he gets so much ire on here.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for an answer to this.
 
Alex Venters said:
They're the ones who have have dealt with the devil and all for a few bucks.
Whatever this board go on to achieve, this Australian debacle will forever be a stain on their legacy.
It's that simple and I have absolutely no shame in saying so.
Click to expand...
Don't agree with this. They stop the friendly mistake made we move on
 
dereksmallsloyal said:
To be fair, if they are paying for their own failings that’s on them. I’m not sure anyone on here gets an opinion.

And I say that as someone that has been advocating proceeding with “player trading” for some time. If they don’t sell Morelos or Kent or Aribo or another talent, they’ll need to plug it. My take is we have a big rebuild and need to roll the dice this summer.

To say we shouldn’t be grateful for over £100m in cash injection is amazing.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would be amazing, if it was what I said.
 
Supersonic2.0 said:
They won’t need to put money in, now that our commercial operations are back up and running, you know the ones all the fans are ripping Bisgrove for.
Click to expand...
For a man who constantly goes on about people not reading the accounts, you must not have if you’re attributing us not running at a loss to Bisgrove.

And to have a go at the fans in the same breath, even though the commerical figures now include the money that fans give in corporate/VIP sections which makes up a large amount of it.

Hilarious.
 
Calcio said:
For a man who constantly goes on about people not reading the accounts, you must not have if you’re attributing us not running at a loss to Bisgrove.

And to have a go at the fans in the same breath, even though the commerical figures now include the money that fans give in corporate/VIP sections which makes up a large amount of it.

Hilarious.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t that generally be in commercial activity, if you can market packages that normal fans go to in order to treat themselves to a day out?

I didn’t have a go at fans - I had a go at the people who continually cry about a commercial director and in the “same breath” bemoan the directors performance and requirement for them to still put cash in as they are “failing”. You see the irony there?

The commercial activities in this year accounts aren’t really what I am referencing, it will be in the next set of accounts for this year, post covid that we will be able to truly assess Bisgrove’s performance. All 3 or 4 of his categories in the accounts did show an average of about +30% increase YoY.

Notice “they won’t need to put money in” - that’s talking about the future, not the past year.
 
Calcio said:
Yeah that would be amazing, if it was what I said.
Click to expand...
You said something to the effect that the fact they were still needing to fund the business was their fault and we shouldn’t be grateful for their ineptitude.

The only additional way the board could’ve made the club self funding - and noting everyone now squealing about the way the fan base is being exploited despite this being the obvious way to leverage more income - is by player trading. They decided not to accept bids for Tav, Kent and Morelos. That could have “steadied the ship” but it went a long way to winning 55. It wasn’t the board that then fucked up Malmo. I agree the friendly is a bad error but it’s being addressed and frankly people are being hysterical about it now.

I also think we should have sold Goldson last summer if he wasn’t signing a deal and I accept we need to face reality that Morelos, Kent and Aribo will also be sold this summer among others. Wait till we see the meltdown when we don’t get £20m for Alfie.

I remain very grateful to the board and absolutely disagree with the view of some on here that they should be chased out of Ibrox to be replaced by god knows what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top