Tom Davison

I do agree to an extent, but football fans are a fickle bunch. If we were going out and winning 3 or 4 - nil each week, and playing decent football, I believe there wouldn't be as much focus on the board. Fans would be happier that the team was looking good & winning well. How concerned were fans about boardroom issues when they were watching Laudrup, Gazza, Arteta, De boer Gattuso etc. The team was entertaining & fans were happy.

 

Ultimately any business is about producing a product & paying the bills (at a very basic level).

 

As for GS comment about not 1/2 the deficit. £3.5m loss for the 1st 6 months compared to £7m for the same period the year before, looks pretty positive to me - it may just be accounting mumbo-jumbo, but the accounts still report that losses were halved.

Just one point in response to hat Darther has included in his piece. I don't recall any great concern being directed at the board

when instead of watching Gazza and Laudrup, we were watching our team with guys like Hugh Burns in it, getting grubbed by Clydebank at Kilbowie. I just feel that the board have brought much of the concern/hassle upon themselves by failing to convince the supporters that the welfare of Rangers Football Club is their top priority.

D'art writes, " Probably many more of us who are utterly confused." That is so true. The test of good leadership is to provide clarity and that just hasn't happened.

Thought that the article was fair enough. There are bound to be some things in this review, which will attract both approval and disapproval but for me, at least, the key part will be all about the success or otherwise in attracting new investment and the basis for doing so.

Is there really a problem? Many premiership clubs in England have people who are owners and/or majority shareholders who don't participate in board meetings but whose influence is unmistakeable. Quite a few live outside of the UK. If the SFA etc. chose to impose restrictions on DK, it would be a futile gesture. If DK decided to make a significant investment, he is unlikely to have reached such a decision, without considering his options and his ability to ensure that his wishes are implemented and adhered to.

"He seems like an expert in evasiveness and twisting and dodging questions very much like an experienced and cunning politician.." Wallace obviously enjoys many good business related qualities but it is the words these words that you have used in your description of him, which will be his biggest hurdle. Mr Wallace has said more than one that transparency was a key factor in the re-building process. He has yet to convince that he is prepared to walk the talk. It may be that he is restricted by those who he reports to. The 120 days that he requested did seem excessive but it would seem reasonable to consider the content of this report before assessing how effective he will be.

True indeed, still, the pendulum about accusations with regard to "lying" et al firmly swings in just one direction for some. King is the Bluenose in this game of power, but he should not be treated differently either. At the end of the day, I would assume that no matter who succeeds here, if the club is safe and well run, all people will be satisfied?

Just a wee point of clarification dB? DK and his possible involvement is a separate issue. Are you satisfied that our club is safe and well run at present?

This is really simple. This board will never get us back to the top. They have no interest in doing so. They know it and so do we.

 

The sooner we start the painful process of removing them the better.

All that you say is correct, GS. While the desire to see the board removed is simple, sadly, what is far from simple, is how this can be achieved.

It seems evident that the team needs to be improved but the tough questions are how and from where? I am far from convinced that taking the so called better players from the top league here in Scotland and paying them the top dollar is wise. The quality of our top league is poor and even the better players are average. Guys like Black, Law ad Daly supply the evidence, with others such as Templeton, Bell and Wallace also attracting question marks. We don't have the money to lure decent players from England. I am aware that I have not provided any solutions. It may be that we are just going to have to be realistic and accept that we play in a country where standards are low and there is unlikely to be sufficient funds available to improve things. Apologies for this depressing take on things.

Yes, dB, Darther and Brahim come over as bright guys. I am intrigued that they seem comfortable with a board who have no problem with a remote individual in David Somers occupying the main leadership role, as chairman. People are entitled to raise issues over DK and he has provided ammunition to do so. However, the credibility of our existing board is another issue and that is what DK is challenging.

You would have thought that DK would have had the foresight to have someone with him when he met the board, who could verify his version of events. And so it goes on!

Announce an immediate share issue which is a must, Gut the squad of highly paid imposters if that costs us in the short term it's a price worth paying to rid our club of such poison, sack the management team which is the deal breaker for me, build a scouting network, make an end to 2 and 3 year contracts for over 30's, acknowledge it and then rid the club of our jobs for the boys mentality, let fans know exactly what each board members is earning to put a stop to "board stealing money" rumours, tell us who BHP and Margarita really are and tell us what exactly is Laxeys game, head hunt a young, vibrant, exciting and ambitious coaching team and show ambition. Bring back expectations and targets. Be Rangers.

 

That's just for starters.

Thanks for an honest answer to what was a genuine question Super. However, I suspect that like me, you know that even half of what you have listed will not be addressed in the 120 day review and that is why I felt that the importance being attached to it, in relation to season ticket renewals was unrealistic.

I am genuinely struggling with the importance that some contributors are attaching to the 120 day review. There are quite a lot of people who are uncertain over whether to renew or not. So what would be the key issues that are included in this 120 day piece that would persuade anyone who is doubtful, to take the decision to renew their season ticket?

i think we always knew they 120 day review was to keep us quiet till this came out.

Doubt whether this tactic will work though. Those who are unsure about a renewal will probably take the view that they can afford to wait for a time. Anyway, do you know too many people who believe that what is in this 120 day review will persuade them to be converted to optimism? I don't.

Ally more or less had to start from scratch last season and it would be unfair to blame him for the very patchy performances of the team. However, I guess what most supporters were looking for was some signs of progress this season and that has just not happened. Rather than progressing we seem to have deteriorated as the season has gone on. We got through against QOS and Falkirk, two championship teams, away from home, earlier in the season but in recent weeks we have been pretty hopeless and the result against Raith Rovers was not a total shock. Ally McCoist has many great qualities but no one can be good at everything. It seems that he is just not very good at managing a football team. It is unlikely that he needs the money and I hope that he will decide to step aside.

In any business/organisation when people lose confidence in the top man or woman, a change becomes inevitable. Most of us believe Ally to be an outstanding type of guy but very few now believe that he has the capability to provide the leadership that is essential to manage our club. It is nothing to be ashamed of. He has done his best but the confidence of the people who pay his wages now seems to have evaporated and a change would be for the best.

Andy Steel is so right. We look back because we all have good memories to cling to. In contrast, we are fearful of looking forward.

In the same way as many Rangers supporters, I know nothing about the Vanguard Bears. This recent blog, on their behalf, to be fair, gives helpful background information. However, it comes across that their desire to slag off other Rangers people commands too much of their time and possibly deflects from what they say is their chief aim "to safeguard Rangers history and future."

No Tom - it would be entirely irrelevant.

 

There is far too much focus on individuals and groups and too little on probity.

 

There is a constitution for the operating of the RFFFF monies' date=' and the set of circumstances which was progressed to a vote by general meeting, was outwith the remit of the constitution. This was the feeling on numerous forums, including FF I may add.

 

The sensible decision would have been to set up a separate account and allow persons to donate to that in respect of Craig's legal costs.

 

Or they could have been really sensible and deferred announcing any decision until they learned the outcome of the meeting that same night, between the 2 concerned parties, and thus saved all this nonsense that has subsequently transpired.[/quote']

 

Entirely agree with your separate account remarks, D'art. However, Mr Easdale, in acting in the way he did, is a different issue. On this forum, the contributions tend to be more mature than in some other places, but posters, nevertheless, are not hesitant about airing disappointment when a custodian of the club, acts in ways, which can tarnish the reputation of our club.

I just felt that Mr Easdale's threatened action was excessive and if the fans groups want to release statements, it seemed reasonable to expect them to cover all aspects of this sorry business.

For me, one surprising aspect of both the NARSA and VB statements was a failure to. indicate any disapproval of Sandy Easdale going in so hard on Craig Houston. If they considered that Mr Easdale had acted reasonably that would be disappointing. After saying that, how many of the wider Rangers support here and abroad, really care what either organisation think?

The question was "who will lose us more season tickets-McCoist or the Dave King v Board wrangle?" Not sure of the precise numbers but both McCoist through the lousy football on offer and the dissatisfaction with the board will be responsible. Most will remember the "We deserve better" banner on display at the St Johnstone game some years back. A growing number of good Rangers people are identifying with the same three words, right now.

If there is a representative of Vanguard Bears on this forum, it would be genuinely appreciated, if you could answer a couple of questions. Why does Vanguard Bears exist and what are your aims and objectives. I have asked a few friends who have supported for Rangers over many years and none have ever heard of Vanguard Bears. However, your statement seems to suggest that you carry some influence over the club's support. You have singled out two people Mr Dingwall and a Mr Graham as two who are damaging our club''s reputation and finances. Some of us know little or nothing about either gentlemen and it seems unlikely that two people who are strangers to the wider Rangers support could achieve what is being claimed in your statement. I am pretty certain that others would find it helpful to be given some background information on Vanguard Bears.

He is only another patsy I'm afraid,he probably won't be the last either unless we can get the club out of the hands of these parasites.

"Unless we can get the club out of the hands of these parasites." There will be no shortage of people who will share your opinion about that but the next question has to be " how can that be achieved? and I guess that question leaves most of us floundering.

I am not sure that I go along with the suggestion that Wallace is incompetent. People like Alistair Johnston spoke highly of him. Instead, for whatever reason Wallace was out of a job before the opportunity to join Rangers arose and he is prepared to be the front man for the board but just does what he is told to do. It is unlikely that there are not individuals in and around the boardroom, who would hesitate to influence Graham Wallace. The bloke from Dundee in turning down the CEO job perhaps gave an indication as to how things work at the executive level at our club. Some CEO types see their chief duty to provide leadership while others might feel that they are there not to put over their own individual views but to represent what the board members want put out. Charles Green very much fell into the first category while Wallace is probably more inclined to a different approach.

While having no time for Sandy Easdale who comes across as someone who tries to hide his insecurity behind a tough guy front, I hope that Craig Houston steps back for a while. A couple of weeks ago, Craig was explaining how his parents were upset over a letter that arrived at their home from Easdale's lawyers. I have no idea whether Craig Houston is married or has children but he owes it to himself to consider whether the emotional stress that he must be encountering is worth it.

While having definite reservations over Ally's capability as a team manager, there is a tendency to band about names of people who have not demonstrated that they are likely to be better. Billy Davies has a very mixed record, last year, names like Derek Adams and Alan Johnston were put forward. No one mentions them now. Apart from being a staunch Rangers man, Stuart McCall hasn't done enough yet, to suggest that he would be a definite improvement. I believe that Ally's biggest flaw is not recognising that he could do better than sticking with his two colleagues, I.e. Ian Durrant and Kenny McDowall and that it would benefit him in getting the assistance with someone who has a fresh approach, to work with him.