Florentine_Pogen Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I think there are many people who view patronising Vodafone, Starbucks etc as immoral. Just like the choice to follow follow on supporting newrangers is viewed by some (me) as an admission of moral bankruptcy. I note the suggestion of being stuck between a rock and a hard place with King and the board. Is there not 'a compete at the level you can afford' option somewhere out there? Oh no, not in SashBashLand. Wouldn't be dignified, you see ? There can be no slipping of the Mask of Superiority. But what they need to realise is how it will all pan out with Laxey and the Kraydales. [yt] [/yt] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 McCoist defending the number and scale of his summer signings in the wake of chairman Somers comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26791393 I struggle to see how he can say the influx was necessary, and the wage bill dropping isn't really a justification if it's still too high. Steve Simonson has appeared in 1 game all season (v Forfar in SPFL1). Stevie Smith has appeared in 7 games (all in SPFL1). Neither have really contributed to league or cup achievement at all. Others like Foster have a dozen-odd starts, but again, has that swung anything? You can't even use the defence that they're prospects for the future. Simonsen is about to turn 35, Smith and Foster are turning 29 in the summer. Both the number of signings and their cost in wages are ripe for criticism as some/all of 'unnecessary', 'wasteful', 'excessive', 'extravagent', etc. EDIT: And for all that they've reached the Scottish Cup SFs, they also went out of the League Cup in R1. Reaching the Ramsdens final was expected. Its like two alternate realities have over-lapped. In one, the club is in financial peril, leaking cash, needing to cut costs, raise investment and fight to keep the wolves from the door. In the other, theres Ally McCoist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Its like two alternate realities have over-lapped. In one, the club is in financial peril, leaking cash, needing to cut costs, raise investment and fight to keep the wolves from the door. In the other, theres Ally McCoist Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? Because he's telling the fans exactly what they want to hear, whilst, almost cleverly, deflecting away from his own inadequacies (I use the term cleverly in its loosest sense). In an odd way, I also think it takes the focus off the BoD. Imagine the reaction of the fans if they had a CEO and a manager telling them how much money they needed to save, how they were going to cut the playing staff and how tough the next few years would be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? Perhaps they can't afford to. Although his 'annual rolling contract' must be coming up for renewal soon. It may well have a clause guaranteeing him a hefty bonus for each promotion achieved on his watch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) McCoist defending the number and scale of his summer signings in the wake of chairman Somers comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26791393 I struggle to see how he can say the influx was necessary, and the wage bill dropping isn't really a justification if it's still too high. Steve Simonson has appeared in 1 game all season (v Forfar in SPFL1). Stevie Smith has appeared in 7 games (all in SPFL1). Neither have really contributed to league or cup achievement at all. Others like Foster have a dozen-odd starts, but again, has that swung anything? You can't even use the defence that they're prospects for the future. Simonsen is about to turn 35, Smith and Foster are turning 29 in the summer. Both the number of signings and their cost in wages are ripe for criticism as some/all of 'unnecessary', 'wasteful', 'excessive', 'extravagent', etc. EDIT: And for all that they've reached the Scottish Cup SFs, they also went out of the League Cup in R1. Reaching the Ramsdens final was expected. More faces than the toon clock as usual. Astounding that he continually comes sway with this nonsense without being questioned by the compliant media. Remember according to the leaked e-mail Ally knew exactly what each player was on and how this affected his budget, and then he comes away with his "I don't know, I don't do the accounts, I don't do the finances." pish. Utterly contemptible man. I think it's bad enough having Danny Lennon, but I'd be utterly horrified if this duplicitous snake was any where near my football club. Eta- Needing to spend tens of millions to get to the Diddy Cup final. Edited March 28, 2014 by AberdeenBud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? He's cleverly positioned himself as a kingmaker for hire, so his managerial and budgetary abilities are irrelevant to his continued employment. Death of oldco has been the best thing that ever happened to McCoist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 What are you on about? I was talking about why the government allow vodafone, starbuck etc to pay little to no tax. If they tightened up the rules to make avoidance impossible these companies would simply set up elsewhere. Why do you bring up rangers? As I pointed out to benny this subject has nothing to do with the rangers saga and that is why it hasn't been discussed much on here. And I was pointing out that the corp tax they pay is almost a drop in the ocean compared to the tax raised via VAT, ERS NIC, & property taxes as well as PAYE & EES NIC paid by their employees. The idea that they would up sticks and leave if corporation tax was foolproof is beyond stupidity 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Death of oldco has been the best thing that ever happened to McCoist. Not to mention he hasn't lost a penny since it all began 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Ive said it before, Why doesnt he put his £30m in a trust then and prove its ready to be used? I met him the other day, (just by pure coincidence, we were both in the same queue for the confessional at St. Aloysius) and asked him that very question. He said......................................... "Look!.......a squirrel! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) And I was pointing out that the corp tax they pay is almost a drop in the ocean compared to the tax raised via VAT, ERS NIC, & property taxes as well as PAYE & EES NIC paid by their employees. The idea that they would up sticks and leave if corporation tax was foolproof is beyond stupidity So why do you think it is then? It's easy to call something stupid without providing any alternative explanation. Companies move for tax breaks all the time. For example Aon plc relocated to the U.K. in 2012 because the tax burden in the US was deemed too high, to assume the opposite doesn't happen is naive in the extreme. You would have to be a complete moron to think a company will not attempt to maximise it's profits. ETA. Again this has nothing to do with rangers or indeed sevco. Edited March 28, 2014 by aofjays 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 So why do you think it is then? It's easy to call something stupid without providing any alternative explanation. Companies move for tax breaks all the time. For example Aon plc relocated to the U.K. in 2012 because the tax burden in the US was deemed too high, to assume the opposite doesn't happen is naive in the extreme. You would have to be a complete moron to think a company will not attempt to maximise it's profits. ETA. Again this has nothing to do with rangers or indeed sevco. I know and we're going to piss folks off...my last word on it and I'll assume your reply will be your final statement too. Maximising profits or minimising tax liability is something a multi national will do but so too will McGhee the self-employed heating engineer, it's how the system is set up and the fact of the matter is that people and businesses will avoid as much tax as possible because they can, simple as that. Aon moved its HQ to the UK, it didn't pull out of the USA and everyone lose their jobs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 He's cleverly positioned himself as a kingmaker for hire, so his managerial and budgetary abilities are irrelevant to his continued employment. Death of oldco has been the best thing that ever happened to McCoist. Of that there is no doubt...with the money he's spent they could have hung a painting of Ron Manager in the corridor and won Div 2 & 3. If it hadn't been for Admin and the mercy killing of V1.0 he'd surely have been up for the high jump for losing an apparently unassailable lead in 2011/12 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 McCoist defending the number and scale of his summer signings in the wake of chairman Somers comments: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26791393 I struggle to see how he can say the influx was necessary, and the wage bill dropping isn't really a justification if it's still too high. Steve Simonson has appeared in 1 game all season (v Forfar in SPFL1). Stevie Smith has appeared in 7 games (all in SPFL1). Neither have really contributed to league or cup achievement at all. Others like Foster have a dozen-odd starts, but again, has that swung anything? You can't even use the defence that they're prospects for the future. Simonsen is about to turn 35, Smith and Foster are turning 29 in the summer. Both the number of signings and their cost in wages are ripe for criticism as some/all of 'unnecessary', 'wasteful', 'excessive', 'extravagent', etc. EDIT: And for all that they've reached the Scottish Cup SFs, they also went out of the League Cup in R1. Reaching the Ramsdens final was expected. Both McCoist and Sommers are wrong. Around half the players we brought in would have been more than ample and Somers comments give the impression that Jack Irvine is still lurking around. Somers need to remember the millions which have been squandered at boardroom level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) Seriously, why hasn't he been fired? How about winning the league without losing a game, being in the final of one cup and the semi of another, for starters? It's certainly job done. And he really doesn't set the playing budget. Edited March 28, 2014 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) Somers need to remember the millions which have been squandered at boardroom level. Good point Ben and why isn't this emphasised? We spent more on non-playing wages than we did on playing wages. This is a new world record. Fuckin' beelin'. Edited to add that The Plastics and Diddies rage more about Rangers than I do Edited March 28, 2014 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 How about winning the league without losing a game, being in the final of one cup and the semi of another, for starters? It's certainly job done. And he really doesn't set the playing budget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 He's cleverly positioned himself as a kingmaker for hire, so his managerial and budgetary abilities are irrelevant to his continued employment. Death of oldco has been the best thing that ever happened to McCoist. I'd agree with all of that except the "cleverly" part. I think McCoist is a quick witted, reasonably articulate bloke, with a natural charm. I don't think he's that calculating though. I think a gullibility, coupled with a fairly primitive instinct for self preservation has seen him endorsing this succession of chancers. It's certainly served him well though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 How about winning the league without losing a game, being in the final of one cup and the semi of another, for starters? It's certainly job done. And he really doesn't set the playing budget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Good point Ben and why isn't this emphasised? We spent more on non-playing wages than we did on playing wages. This is a new world record. Fuckin' beelin'. Genuine question: How does that now break down in terms of published figures? I do think far too much has been spent on players for the level they're needed at, but in terms of a proportion of turnover, I get that the playing staff wage bill comes in at an entirely reasonable, nay enviable level. Now that the one-offs are surely receding, where the Hell is the rest officially going? 0 Quote Link to comment 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.