Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

By

Sugar Daddy/Jim Bhoy Same point but different. Not that McCoist …

Comment on Podcast Episode 3 – David Low by Smugas.

Sugar Daddy/Jim Bhoy

Same point but different. Not that McCoist is deserving of any sympathy but what was he supposed to do? The instruction to him (and several others, eh Campbell ๐Ÿ˜‰ ) was firstly get us back to full time football whatever the cost. He has done that with aplomb. Unnecessary aplomb but then whilst the bears might have enjoyed a bit more edge of the seat stuff the money men certainly wouldn’t have – plus the fans poneyed up for the ‘irresistables’ so it doesn’t really matter if they came to actually watch it and enjoyed it or not, does it?

It would take a very brave manager just now to be handed a 7 figure budget and say right I’m going to blow it all on youth development, just see the team we have in five years time. Alan Hansen kids comment anyone? Admittedly it takes a manager with galling crassness (at best) to blow an 8 figure budget on journeymen, and an incredibly stupid one not to have said when they were 10 points clear still with money in the bank say around AGM time not to say “em, just a wee query about next year boss? According to these bampots…..”

So whilst I’ve no sympathy for the situation he now finds himself in – potless with massive expectations re the championship and possibly a points deduction on top, I can understand how, seemingly unrestrained as he was, he has gotten to this point but a realisation has now kicked in – as demonstrated by his sudden understanding of everyone’s wages to turnover ratios.

Lastly, I absolutely take on board JB’s point – that a glorious team/club cruising to victory on a drammatic and exciting journey was nothing more than a front for a massive scam. (that’s a scam in Ibrox/Daily Record language by the way, normal people call in Return on Investment) A winning team was simply a byproduct. It’ll be interesting to see how they view it going forward.

Oh and finally finally

Sugar Daddy says:
May 5, 2014 at 12:15 pm

The squad, Wallace aside, is worth next to nothing.

In that case can we have Templeton for “next to nothing.” Ta.

Smugas Also Commented

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Sugar,

McCoist was told to get them back to full time football in the first instance. He was told not to worry about the medium term (him foolishly thinking because a/ everything was rosy, b/ King was coming and c/ money doesn’t matter anyway) because the spivs weren’t worried about the medium term anyway (insert appropriate reason here).

Had he set up a scouting network, youth policy and appointed a director of Football who’s name wasn’t Walter and in so doing meant they weren’t cuffing guys off the nightshift on a regular basis then the illusion (mask) would not have been created and his employers wouldn’t have looked on him too kindly, never mind history. But to do so they needed cash, pots of it and someone else’s obviously. And now they need more IF the footballing illusion is to continue and IF the spivs require the footballing illusion to continue.

I do take on board to be fair, that McCoist could have done the things you say and built genuine legend status for himself almost in spite of the spivs. But he didn’t, and now, without cash, he can’t. Option 1 – McCoists plan – was risk free with a minor hiccup right at the end if someone didn’t time the admin right Ooops. Option 2 – what the bears now wish they had (keep me right here Ryan) was fraught with two immediate risks – fan rebellion because the kids weren’t winning in the Rangers way a bit like Hearts mid season (AJ, EJ?), and god forbid if he was too successful a la Walter, do you really think the spivs would have kept him about the place?

I am no defender of the Ally faith. He had a quick, lazy, relatively risk free option available to him and he took it.


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
Mad bhoy

You forgot the personal expense, time and wasted emotional effort of following a Diddy side which didn’t involve playing the rest of the league where 80% of the teams were little more than a taxi ride away. Factor that in and you’re halfway to understanding our disgust not to mention surprise that our in built hatred for two big teams ( just because they’re big) could have been extended by the knowledge that one cheek was cheating, that it was assisted and supported by the powers that be and that somewhere in there even our own clubs at the very least looked the other way. Factor all of that in and you’re at least in the foothills of understanding our chip engorged shoulders!


Podcast Episode 3 – David Low
I wonder which came first. An unpalatable truth, or the fact it was anti rangers?

Just saying, randomly. ๐Ÿ™„


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author