forlanssister

10 hours ago, buster. said:

On this subject, an important difference is if they are good, bad or indifferent at what they do.

Whatever the job title is.

 

The elephant in the room in this discussion is the former CEO on the other side of the city and the general impression that although a C**T, he was an effective politician in the various corridors of power that football would come into contact with. That on most issues, he had his club coming out on top regards Glasgow/Scotland......You could add professional PR to the above. A vital cog these days to help get the right message out. In a way that doesn't come back to bite you on the arse. 

 

Basically, some think we have been lacking that type of influence and have given them a clear run at the politics of fitbaw, etc. We have also lacked professional and competent PR (always have, even when Sir Duped hired Mediahouse, it was more to protect himself rather than the club).

 

My impression is that the remit of Stewart Robertson (MD) and that of the former CEO of Celtic, Peter Lawwell, have important differences. Those impressions can be formed simply because X is more visual and loud. However in the above case, Lawwell definitely had a track record of favourable outcomes.

 

More recently, we have been attempting to chip away at some of the legacy of Lawwell. The obvious one being the SPFL executive. So, who is in charge of how we go about that ? Douglas Park (given involvement of his business?). Robertson represents the club on the SPFL board in alternate years.

 

We almost had them bang to rights at the early calling of 20/21 but IMO, our communications were poor and lacked professionalism. We also suffer from a lack of empathy from too many other Scottish football clubs.

 

 

Bottomline

I don't know the remit of Stewart Robertson.

I don't know exactly who decides on structure of business, executive recruitment (at Rangers) and strategic decision-making. (I get the board are generally responsible)

 

I do know we have went a long time politically second best in Glasgow.

 

 

 

 

I concur re the PR and Communication failure it's something that puzzles me how can so clearly intelligent, highly successful businessmen not "get it"?

There is a world of difference in the remits of Robertson as Managing Director and Lawwell when he was Chief Executive, it really isn't comparing apples with apples.

On 09/12/2022 at 18:36, CammyF said:

 

 

Said earlier, Davie Weir is building a great reputation for himself as Technical Director at Brighton. Probably out of our reach, but would be a good alternative to Park and / or Robertson. 

 

 

That's quite a tangent you've gone off on there. Weir's job at Brighton is more akin to Ross Wilson's at Rangers miles way from Robertson's brief t Ibrox.

6 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Someone's gotta finish last......

The fact his name was still on the ballot come Polling Day I suppose can be classed as an achievement in itself. 

1 minute ago, buster. said:

You are cruel, you could have just said he finished 8th 😁

 

I was referring to a thread on here about a fans election.

Might try and look it up for some sad entertainment.

I know but it jogged my memory bank into action! 😀

2 hours ago, buster. said:

Seems many moons ago.

 

I have hazy recollections of winding him up to the point he couldn't credibly stand for an election for something around that time 🙂

Didn't deter him.

Came 8th out of 8.

27 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I'm not against the NDA - makes complete sense. I was questioning the part about not being able to pass on any information they (C1872) got from 3rd parties without clearing it with the Rangers board. 

I absolutely get the frustration of not being able to share information that you think should be in the wider domain but that's just something that goes with the territory.

Just rewatching the AGM on youtube.

Watching gratefully as John Bennett revealed he's into us for £23m then minutes later who pops up with a question  but none other than a former poster from here who not only tried to chase him away from Rangers (he preferred the Easdales & Co) by writing to Mr Bennett's boss but openly boasted about doing so for no other reason than to fluff his own ego. True to form he didn't take the opportunity to consume some humble pie or thank the Vice Chairman for all his endeavours and his capital. 

Alas an NDA prevents me revealing why he was the only person dismissed from the Rangers Fans Board que sera sera.

5 hours ago, CammyF said:

I believe the issue Club1872 have (and always have had) with the NDA is that it stops them communicating information gained from 3rd parties with their members.

 

If I'm honest, I'd have an issue with this if I was Club1872 and do have as a fan and investor. 

They are incredibly common, personally I've had to sign 2 in regards to Rangers once regarding the Rangers Fans Board (incidentally we weren't even allowed to set our own passwords for the internal email system) and once for the Disability Matters Group. Personally I think they're essential otherwise it isn't possible to function effectively without that in place.

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

Apologies, another question that popped into my mind today. 

 

Have the club looked at funding (part or full) from National Lottery funds? Don't know if this project would be entitled to funding, but would be worth investigating (if it hasn't already been looked at).

I'm sure they'll be aware of all avenues of funding but I'll mention it in dispatches, thanks. Years ago there would have been grants from the Football Trust which was funded via a levy on the Pools companies Spot the Ball competitions but the last time I mentioned that I was told it was no longer an option.

2 hours ago, Bluedell said:

Is there still a shortage of disabled spaces? There were a lot added a few years ago. I'm not sure how well monitored some of these spaces are.

Yes there's still a long waiting list of over a decade.

Don't think there's ever been an effective monitoring system per se and undoubtedly if one were in place better use could be made of existing spaces. This has been raised numerous times over the years but for 6 or 7 years we didn't even have a ticket scanner at the entrance. 

I assume when the ticketing system is finally replaced our tickets will be fully integrated into the system so better use can be made of the spaces.

I'm confident the proposals will adequately cater for the need/demand of wheelchair fans and will allow a lot more people access to see Rangers play at Ibrox.

It's worth pointing out too that the propsals will create an equal amount of ambulant disabled easy access seating.

57 minutes ago, Graeme Ro55 said:

Thanks for your kind offer, but I got to see the AGM on Rangers youtube channel. It was parking I was interested in and one question adressed it, albeit the response was lacking. I have had bad experiences of this in the past and I'm put off trying it again.

In what regards? 

Just now, CammyF said:

Firstly great work and glad there is now firm commitment to address the issue. 

 

Is there a guaranteed timescale for the work to be complete? 

 

Does the proposal also address parking as well as accessibility and viewing positions?

 

Can you tell us who specifically on the board has been the driving force, or was it all board members? 

I'm assuming all going well with planning etc that work will start at the end of tge season though there are factors outwith the Clubs control. I'd be happy enough to start in BF and do the wheelchair facilities and the cantilever before moving on to CF that would ensure any capacity reduction would be kept to a minimum and for the shortest possible duration. The works can actually be carried out during the season without too much disruption. 

Parking is a perennial problem I'm not sure it can ever be solved to everyones satisfaction. I think they'll be trying some things to make the current disabled parking arrangements work more efficiently.  I presume there will be some increase in provision but to what extent I'm not certain. The collapse of the Albion sale altered what was planned re parking.

There have been numerous Board members involved in this particularly over the last 12 months it would be remiss of me to single anyone out. There was a collective determination to address the situation at all levels.

5 hours ago, Bluedell said:

If the disabled facilities are to be along the front of the Broomloan, will this impact the activities of the UBs?

I suspect this is part of the reason for wishing to move the UB into BF3 it's a larger section than BF1 so even with the wheelchair area at the rear it should accommodate all those that are currently in BF1.

I don't think in the grand scheme of things that the wheelchair platforms will have much if any impact on the UB's.

Also those advocating safe standing shouldn't fret about this hindering safe standing because if anything this assist them as it removes an obstacle.

15 hours ago, Graeme Ro55 said:

I would be very interested to learn more about the overhaul to disabled facilities. Where can I find more info on this?

Ask away and I'll endeavour to answer as best I can.

On 23/11/2022 at 09:24, Frankie said:

I've increasingly little interest in what King has to say.

 

When your primary motivation is recouping money then your opinions don't often make for sympathetic reading. It's a real pity Club1872 have become his cheerleader instead of remaining neutral. 

 

Of course we should be critiquing the board where necessary but I'm unconvinced by King and he has no-one to blame but himself for that.

Nail on head.

His opposition to Resolution 8 is particularly galling given how big a part the equivalent previous resolutions have played in harvesting investment into the Club especially at the beginning of regime change.

He has no intention of investing another penny in us but seems determined to stop others from doing so in case it lessens the chances of recouping his money in the shorter term.

3 hours ago, Rousseau said:

No movement yet?

 

The longer this takes the less time the new man has to work with the team during this most opportune break. 

3 hours ago, stewarty said:

The players are on holiday though, but agree the sooner the better.

I think we'll get that wish granted without too many restless nights.

1 hour ago, RANGERRAB said:

Last summer’s recruitment was shambolic. GvB has now carried the can for it. 
A new manager will fare no better with the current crop of players. 

We'll find out soon enough.

As disappointing as it was inevitable and has been for some time.

Whilst he is in the main undoubtedly the author of his own misfortune some of the players need to take a good long hard look at themselves. If only it was so easy to remove them for performing below expectations. 

8 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Perhaps these other clubs you refer to have a DoF/Sporting director who is more competent than ours. One that wouldn’t let Morelos and Kent run down their contracts and leave for nothing or allow four CB’s to leave last summer and replace them with Souttar and fellow injury-prone defender Ben Davies. And don’t get me started on the goalkeeper debacle or other issues too

 

If GvB does go then who replaces him and will it be the DoF who gets the new guy in? And will this guy all of a sudden work miracles with the squad he inherits a very large number of whom are constantly picking up injuries. Others well past their best. And if the new guy doesn’t do any better will we bin him and get someone else in and start all over again? Meanwhile will the DoF still be in his position? See an issue here? I do

 

Finally, no issues in the board ? Not sure about that. Dave king seems to think so too. 

Dave King threatened to liquidate us if his loan wasn't repaid, John Bennent just loaned us over £10m at a rate 25% lower than what King charged, I know which one gets my vote.

Souttar was a relatively cheap gamble with the bonus of being Scottish we are always going to take punts like that some will work out others won't que sera sera.

It isn't a case of if GvB goes but when that's been clear for long enough. Clubs don't tend to change the FoF as often as they change manager that's part of the attraction of the system. The DoF will be part of process of appointing a new manager again that's part of the system.

Our injuries are appalling and my views of what's wrong there have been repeated many times, both the amount of injuries and the length of the subsequent recovery periods need to be at the bare minimum severely scrutinised and the required changes implemented asap as a priority. Our squad with a 90-95% availability is way good enough for Scottish football and should st the very least show up for European football.

7 minutes ago, Dragosani said:

If we're supposedly going for the likes of Henderson, Kelly & McKay (I know, not exciting), I wonder if they now recognise a need for Scottish players, who gets what's needed to play for one of the big two and not give up at the first sign of a battle. 

Not averse to McKay but that three options are lazy options. Kelly nowhere good enough if that's who we are seriously looking at for No1 then we're f*&ked.

11 hours ago, Graeme Ro55 said:

I wonder how many senior pros are fit to pic a team from now? I wonder how many of the players who are running down their contracts you Bears would want to re-sign? I wonder how many of you Bears would want to retain the services of the current DOF? I wonder how many of you Bears feel like the manager has had a fair level of support from the board? 

For me the answers are - not enough, none, not me, no.      

 

Far less than we should expect.

Perhaps Kent on the basis that there is still some value to be obtained there, that's all I can make a case for offhand.

I'd keep both the position of DoF and the current incumbent.

More than I think he merits