As Rangers fans are no doubt
aware, news broke on Thursday that a pay cut had been rejected by Rangers
players. Initial reaction from supporters was mixed, then the reality of the
situation emerged;
aware, news broke on Thursday that a pay cut had been rejected by Rangers
players. Initial reaction from supporters was mixed, then the reality of the
situation emerged;
There was no genuine demand by
CEO Graham Wallace of a paycut. Indeed, in a meeting between himself, manager
Ally McCoist and club captain Lee McCulloch, a number of proposals were
discussed. A potential wage cut for the players was one of those proposals, in,
and let us be clear, an ‘exploratory’ capacity.
CEO Graham Wallace of a paycut. Indeed, in a meeting between himself, manager
Ally McCoist and club captain Lee McCulloch, a number of proposals were
discussed. A potential wage cut for the players was one of those proposals, in,
and let us be clear, an ‘exploratory’ capacity.
No player rejected a wage cut.
Captain McCulloch merely forwarded Wallace’s suggestion of one to some senior
players to investigate how receptive they would be to the idea, and none were.
Captain McCulloch merely forwarded Wallace’s suggestion of one to some senior
players to investigate how receptive they would be to the idea, and none were.
This was the equivalent of
players being asked if they fancied using a lesser club coach to matches to
reduce costs, and all blankly said no. The word ‘hypothetical’ is critical
here.
players being asked if they fancied using a lesser club coach to matches to
reduce costs, and all blankly said no. The word ‘hypothetical’ is critical
here.
But let us suppose for the moment
this proposal, eventually confirmed at 15% (a theoretical 15% of course), had
been formally requested of the players – that they take a reduction in their
pay to help the club’s costs. Would they be justified in rejecting it?
this proposal, eventually confirmed at 15% (a theoretical 15% of course), had
been formally requested of the players – that they take a reduction in their
pay to help the club’s costs. Would they be justified in rejecting it?
Manager Ally McCoist certainly
seems to think so. Asked if he agreed with their rejection of the idea, his
answer was firm and absolute;
seems to think so. Asked if he agreed with their rejection of the idea, his
answer was firm and absolute;
“I can assure everyone that the players
have my 100% backing.”
have my 100% backing.”
Well, let us be frank; he would
say that, being their manager. He needs his players to play for him and
starting an internal civil war is the last thing on his mind.
say that, being their manager. He needs his players to play for him and
starting an internal civil war is the last thing on his mind.
But looking closer, is a wage cut
a fair request? Is it outrageous?
a fair request? Is it outrageous?
The last time one took place the
club was in the throes of administration, and senior players like Davis,
Naismith and Whittaker took a massive 75% cut in their salary to steer the club
through an incredibly tough time. No fan has ever forgotten these actions, and
despite the fact a number of these players left the club in ignominy thereafter
does not alter the fact their gesture was an excellent one.
club was in the throes of administration, and senior players like Davis,
Naismith and Whittaker took a massive 75% cut in their salary to steer the club
through an incredibly tough time. No fan has ever forgotten these actions, and
despite the fact a number of these players left the club in ignominy thereafter
does not alter the fact their gesture was an excellent one.
Indeed, Rangers fans posted
pictures online thanking the likes of Whittaker for taking the cut, calling he
and others ‘heroes’ of the club for such an incredible act.
pictures online thanking the likes of Whittaker for taking the cut, calling he
and others ‘heroes’ of the club for such an incredible act.
This time, however, a 15% cut has
been rejected even in theory, and fans are divided by this.
been rejected even in theory, and fans are divided by this.
The arguments opposing each other
appear to be:
appear to be:
Against:
These players signed a contract
and should not expect to have to tolerate a loss of cash because irresponsible
board members brokered deals the club could not afford. That it is the board’s
fault and they should look at other ways of dealing with the haemorrhaging of
the club’s finances, rather than ‘punishing’ those who have nothing to do with
it.
and should not expect to have to tolerate a loss of cash because irresponsible
board members brokered deals the club could not afford. That it is the board’s
fault and they should look at other ways of dealing with the haemorrhaging of
the club’s finances, rather than ‘punishing’ those who have nothing to do with
it.
My gripes with this initial argument
are thus: firstly it was not the current board who brokered these contracts.
None of the current executive board, Stockbridge aside, were on the board when
these deals were made. So why blame the current board for what its immediate
predecessors are perceived to have done in error? They are the ones trying to
fix it, so why are they under criticism for taking measures?
are thus: firstly it was not the current board who brokered these contracts.
None of the current executive board, Stockbridge aside, were on the board when
these deals were made. So why blame the current board for what its immediate
predecessors are perceived to have done in error? They are the ones trying to
fix it, so why are they under criticism for taking measures?
Secondly, why are our current
players justified in rejecting a rather small wage cut to save the club when we
thanked the ‘deserters’ for taking an even bigger one back in the day? If the
current players had accepted the wage cut, would we be complaining, or thanking
them?
players justified in rejecting a rather small wage cut to save the club when we
thanked the ‘deserters’ for taking an even bigger one back in the day? If the
current players had accepted the wage cut, would we be complaining, or thanking
them?
The opposition argument in favour of these cuts is thus:
We have known for months that
this club needed to cost cut. We have offloaded promising youngsters like Andy
Mitchell to help with it, and we all discussed the idea of a paycut months ago.
Why is it that now it has actually been proposed, the idea appals us? Why have
we reacted in outrage at an idea we expected to take place anyway?
this club needed to cost cut. We have offloaded promising youngsters like Andy
Mitchell to help with it, and we all discussed the idea of a paycut months ago.
Why is it that now it has actually been proposed, the idea appals us? Why have
we reacted in outrage at an idea we expected to take place anyway?
We all know fine well that the
club needs to live within its means, but if every single cost-cutting
suggestion Wallace makes is objected to angrily by fans and players, the club
will be in administration before we know it.
club needs to live within its means, but if every single cost-cutting
suggestion Wallace makes is objected to angrily by fans and players, the club
will be in administration before we know it.
We have to cut the cloth now, and
cut our nose off despite our faces, because otherwise we will sink.
cut our nose off despite our faces, because otherwise we will sink.
And criticising every suggestion
made by those trying to steer the club to safety will not help anyone.
made by those trying to steer the club to safety will not help anyone.
Ally should manage for nothing that would save a few bob as his tactics are shocking.
Bring back Bomber he would manage for nothing, do a better job and get rid off much of the dross around the place
maybe the manager should be a beacon for all and take a real wage cut and sell his shares which he bought under charles green who he supported and bought for 1 penny a share FFS and give the profit to the club he loves so much or says he does
The way I see it is that the question of a pay cut for the players was handled badly. If they were advised that the entire board were going to cut their salaries by 75% and then asked the players if they would contribute by taking a 15% pay cut there would have been no problem of that I am certain
Those directors are a disgrace.lining there own pockets.at fans expense.they would certainly be a match for david cameron and the snobby tory party.kick the evil directors out of the club.they are scum who are running the club.makes my blood boil.ive been a rangers man all my life.those toffee nosed directors dont give a toss about the club
mcoist has taken about 2 million in wages and bonus in the last two years and we have to watch that crap every week i just wish he would walk away and bring in jimmy calderwood
Try bringing in brian laudrup in as manager .
Comments are closed.