Exactly the reason I did that. Thought that was obvious.
Sack ‘the board’
‘The board’ need to sell
‘The board’ have ruined the club.
Etc x 100
Can we stop talking about ‘the board’?
- Thread starter Halek
- Start date
Sack ‘the board’
‘The board’ need to sell
‘The board’ have ruined the club.
Etc x 100
CortesGoldenBoots
Well-Known Member
There's very little rational thought in a lot of the discussion around the club at the moment. There is a lot of anger and frustration which is becoming very destructive. The reaction to the press conference today merely underlines that.
Barry Slimfit
Well-Known Member
Vocal morons
To put it simply, you are being thick.
The mess we're in post-55 is completely, utterly and detrimentally on the board. It's still humping us and will continue to do so for a couple of years yet.
Until the problems they've caused are fixed, we should take every chance we get to, and I'm putting it nicely, 'let them know how we feel about them'.
The mess we're in post-55 is completely, utterly and detrimentally on the board. It's still humping us and will continue to do so for a couple of years yet.
Until the problems they've caused are fixed, we should take every chance we get to, and I'm putting it nicely, 'let them know how we feel about them'.
You and I know who people mean when they say the board. It’s quite clearly the people who have oversaw years and years of setbacks.
The board are responsible for putting people into positions within the club who made poor judgement decisions on players with a high wage long term contract policy- it’s the boards duty to keep due diligence on finances, particularly player sales that generate income revenue- we have had very little return from player sales over the past 4 years - for every Patterson, Bassey and Aribo we have let over 20 players leave for nothing or minimal transfer fees and that is down to the policy of just signing off on deals that produced very little income
This is one of the reasons we have become dependent on soft loans - think about all the players who left us in the summer- then tally up the income against expenditure as this will give an insight into how we posted a £17m loss and the 2 or 3 seasons before this were the same- and that reeks of incompetence from the top down
We had the chance to kick on after 55 but the board decided not to invest to maximise revenue before the Malmo game and this decision was the catalyst for everything that happened since then
Midfield General
Well-Known Member
Since the 3 Bears came in there has been lots of turnover in the Board Room.Thats not to say that whoever has been there at any given time has not made mistakes.Pedro and Beale being glaring examples.
I think we need stability in the Board Room and a clear strategy moving forward.The much vaunted player trading model needs more focus as does our youth player development and first team opportunities.
The mhank board is pretty much detested by their fans but has been stable for years because the team is successful on the pitch,we need our Board to have stability and that will filter down throughout the Club.
Fothyman
Well-Known Member
Fans would be going off their heads if manager wanted to sign the same players but the board rejected them.
Cortes looked great in his first few games before injury. Nobody was moaning when we splashed money on Dessers, Lammers or Danilo. Transfers are a risk and we've had a few that haven't worked out but that happens. Danilo still looks like he could come good, Cortes I'm really not sure about. I don't think we'll see him at his best for a few months.
Ceo is no different from anyone else they have board the board they set the kpis and ultimately big decisions will have to be approved through them.
Ceo in football club is managing to those expectations, in a football club where the board are also major investors is probably different as they have to tie the line....... they are saying they are fixing it but the investors have had to much control over operations for a while at the club.
A normal business is slightly different in that the ceo can implement that strategy with generally full control and annually the shareholders will vote then on and off the board with large probs of shares are spread around that no one can dictate to the board or ceo what to do they are there to get a dividend not how its done.
There has been lots of turn over but there has been a few constants.
You know exactly who people are talking about. The main stays who have oversaw the shit shows that have came.
I don’t even need to name them. You know. I know.
In fact, i’ll go as far as saying anyone who has had any involvement since withdrawing the financial support for Gerrard should be under fire.
New CEO’s etc is all good and well but its the same people working above them. The same people hiring and firing them, the same people who have time after time got the big decisions wrong. Why should they be absolved of any criticism because they’ve filled a position? That’s the bare minimum of their role.
Luca Stroppi
Well-Known Member
We can all stop talking about the board as we’ve seen enough to know we’re going nowhere with the current ownership. We’ll just have to accept TAKING PART, that’s our level now.
Jimmy Mac
Well-Known Member
You could also add closing the club shop to turn it into a sports bar and leave it lying empty for 2 years now.
Coplandfrontier
Well-Known Member
The board has responsibility of making sure the club is financially stable and competing on the pitch, it’s failing on both issues.
I think your last sentence is perhaps pretty close to the mark. Along with King I suspect Bennett & Park would also want out the level of discount they might get against what they have paid may be the issue.
CoplandRoad
Well-Known Member
12 years of the same crap is enough for me.
We badly need new club ownership and fresh investment.
That’s the other thing. Fresh investment. We are already close to the ffp limit. What does fresh investment mean?
Why don’t we just run the club properly? Make money from player trading, Euro runs and merch
No one is turning up to burn £30m on us. Nor should they
onedadoprso.1
Well-Known Member
The ceo works to deliver on the strategic plan given to him by his employers, if he's been given the wrong plan that isn't on him, he has no authority to implement his own plan, only theirs.
No that’s not the case - a large part of the CEO is strategic
That’s not true.
Check the accounts first the last 10 years.
scooter70
Well-Known Member
That would be a start, the board you are protecting has delivered a loss of £17m, that’s not running the club properly
We can only hope those they have brought in lately help improve that, they badly need to
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
I’d put money on that your take isn’t how they directors look at it Joseph.
They want to put money into the club so they, at an individual level, can increase their stranglehold of the club ? Really ?
There’s some shit on this thread.
Grigo Yossarian
Well-Known Member
Who is going to do that given King has been trying to sell his shares for a few years ?
I’m not protecting the board. Not by a long shot. I’m just saying that the focus on thr board, at this point, is wasted energy.
We have two new appointments between the board and what’s delivered who are in a place to do so. It’s now on them.
Have we made the right appointments? Time will tell. If they aren’t. Then they back on the board
KGR98
Well-Known Member
They are still given a remit by the same incompetent people above them
KGR98
Well-Known Member
Interested parties when they know that the investors want to sell up the status quo isn't good enough that much is clear and there has only been one major constant throughout it
But if these people didn’t agree with the remit, they wouldn’t sign up.
It’s lot like it was bisgrove who was promoted beyond his ability. Or Robertson who game in with a strong financial remit.
KGR98
Well-Known Member
It's a well paying job of course they will do it. I don't know how many more examples folk need that the investors can't run a football properly in any capacity and are failing to notice it themselves.
3 failed managers in a row, years and years of heavy investment wasted because they can't put a proper footballing structure in place.
Not to mention wasting money on old high earners, a glorified warehouse and giving a manager who had proved nothing a contract extension
Jim Prideaux
Well-Known Member
Our largest shareholder has been trying to sell for 5 years.
KGR98
Well-Known Member
Hence why I said investors rather than investor someone will need to come in and buy multiple out to get a controlling share
Jim Prideaux
Well-Known Member
I mean, I hope that could happen but it seems almost impossible anyone with that capital would be interested in buying us with the challenges we face.
KGR98
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of folk looking to invest in football at the moment but the investors would need to make it known that enough of them are looking to move on but they seem happy to dilute expectations instead of doing what's right for the club
Arkanoid
Well-Known Member
What magic money tree were we investing from pre Malmo? King had pulled his loan at that stage and wanted immediate repayment, there’s a lot of factors in what happened post 55. We could have had another season of front loading with cash that never materialised and be in an even worse state right now. It would have been great if we could have backed Gerrard but that team should have walked past Malmo regardless, I don’t think it’s as simple as we should have thrown money at Gerrard and it guarantees continued success
Mate, are you living in cloud cuckoo land?
There are no interested parties.
The “investors” you are speaking about are having to provide loans from their own funds. There are far better ways in investing money that ploughing it into Rangers hoping for some day to get a return.
I agree with all of that.
Since we got back, we have had 3 CEO’s/ managing directors. Stewart Robertson. James Bisgrove. And now Patrick Stewart.
Now, over the years have been very critical of Robertson for many reasons. But he was brought in for a reason which was to provide financial stability and to get is through the transition from the spivs. In many aspects he was successful. Many aspects not though.
Bisgrove was a disaster. He was promoted way beyond his ability and has fucked us. That’s on the board at the time. There has been changes to the make up of the board now.
Now we have Stewart. Time will tell on this front. But he is an external hire. With a good background. Clearly a level (or more) above the previous two.
His external audit he has kicked off is a great first step. And as much as some don’t want to hear it, I agree with what he said on the recent q&a. He’s not hear to make reactionary decisions based on fans shouting at him. He is level headed and will aim to make decisions for long term stability. That’s the polar opposite to what we’ve done since Gerrard.
It’s no guarantee to be a success. But he absolutely will not have joined if he was agreeing to a remit or deliverables that he knew he could deliver or at least have a chance of delivering.
Most of the major problems we have seen in recent years is down to the board (who don’t know how to run a football club) getting far too involved.
With a proper ceo in place, that SHOULD stop.
I’m optimistic that medium term, we will get back to being a functional club.
MichaelMols10
Active Member
What more do we want
fuckin hell man are you serious ???
You basically have highlighted why their was no investment available- the board were more concerned with relieving King of his position and this infighting in the boardroom directly affected the finances available to Gerrard- the fact remains Gerrard was promised money to spend- he didn’t get it - this was the start of us going down the road we find ourselves on today
Gerrard refused to sell any of our best players. He could have sold Morelos for £15m (or what ever). I’m sure we could have sold Kent for £5m+. And Gerrard would have had plenty to spend
Tomted
Well-Known Member
How would you know that?
KGR98
Well-Known Member
There has been interest, the board have stated many times they have knocked back many investment initiatives. Just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist. There is plenty of people looking to get into football ownership
HKRanger
Well-Known Member
Nobody on the board wanted king to go - he left because the team was underperforming despite big financial outlay and he wasn’t willing to contribute to close the gap. He left - he wasn’t pushed - and frankly it’s been chaos since as not one of the following chairmen ever wanted to be in that position.
The way it actually works is that the CEO and the chairman will work together to devise a strategy, which has to be ratified by the other board members.
In the case of Rangers, there are major shareholders on the various boards that the CEO/chairman are responsible to.
Although the CEO will take most of the day-to-day decisions, anything that has a significant financial impact or is going to cause an impact publicly, the CEO will have to doublecheck that the significant shareholders are comfortable with the decisions being made.
gersrus71
Well-Known Member
The problem is using the board as a collective.
It should be a more targeted approach to certain members that we think/know are out of their depth and holding us back ie target Parks Junior and his old man for starters. We all know senior is tight as %^*& and Junior is well out his depth and as a family they are largely responsible for the current mess.
It should be a more targeted approach to certain members that we think/know are out of their depth and holding us back ie target Parks Junior and his old man for starters. We all know senior is tight as %^*& and Junior is well out his depth and as a family they are largely responsible for the current mess.
Hipster Dashie
Well-Known Member
Want to see some evidence those they have hired have the skills to deliver and most importantly the freedom to act as they see fit to correct the mess they have inherited.
Only time will tell if these things are in place.
You cant really 'sack' a board though, can you?
Its a catchy phrase 'sack the board'. In reality it never happens unless a major stakeholder comes in to buy them out .
As far as i am aware, no one is interested in investing large sums on Rangers shares?
When the other mob had their day in 1994 , they had the the Bunnet ready waiting in the wings.
Ironically our best bet was arguably to someone to come in 2012, and build us back up again. Sadly we ended up in progressively worse hands - at least until 2015.
Its a long way back now, but there's not any worthy candidates or investors making themsleves known.
Best we can hope is that the new CEO actively pursues fresh investors - that will take some time (years).
Its a catchy phrase 'sack the board'. In reality it never happens unless a major stakeholder comes in to buy them out .
As far as i am aware, no one is interested in investing large sums on Rangers shares?
When the other mob had their day in 1994 , they had the the Bunnet ready waiting in the wings.
Ironically our best bet was arguably to someone to come in 2012, and build us back up again. Sadly we ended up in progressively worse hands - at least until 2015.
Its a long way back now, but there's not any worthy candidates or investors making themsleves known.
Best we can hope is that the new CEO actively pursues fresh investors - that will take some time (years).
