Hildy

What a load of fabricated pish! :lol:

 

"I believe this board would have kept Ally McCoist on if he hadn't already walked away - and remember - he's still an employee". - They would have kept him if he hadn't gone - but remember - he is still there - hes not gone. :lol:

 

Quality stuff!

Should we get into a slanging match or discuss the issue?

If I'm wrong, can you tell me what is right?

You don't seem to have been doing the Trust or FO any favours at all the way you've been banging on about how badly you think the new regime are doing after only 7 days.

Should I remain silent as the board errs?

If the RST board was running the club I'd have hammered it for its limited outlook on appointing a new manager.

There is no point in pretending that the board is right when it is clearly so wrong.

I hope the RST puts someone else forward, and preferably someone who will prioritise the case for full fan ownership.

McCall is the new manager.

Apparently the board looked at Smith, Gough, Davies and McCall. Smith refused the offer and McCall grabbed it with both hands, which he was perfectly entitled to do.

Only if he is seriously awful will he be moved on in the summer, but if it happens, expect another Rangers-minded appointment.

I believe this board would have kept Ally McCoist on if he hadn't already walked away - and remember - he's still an employee.

In its first five minutes, the board has already demonstrated that it lacks vision and professionalism. Those who have given up on the club will not be tempted back by a board which has been found to be seriously wanting on such an important matter.

That's extremely worrying if true.

If McCall gets Rangers promoted, the job will be his.

If he narrowly misses out after being seen to improve Rangers, it will be argued that he has done enough to be worthy of a longer contract.

If things improve a little and we lose in the playoffs - and how can things not improve - there may be a feeling from the board and other influential figures at the club that we should stick with him and give him a 'fair chance'. I'm sure you can imagine it: 'Now he knows what he has to do".

It will take quite a lot for Stuart McCall not to be given a longer contract at the end of this season.

Has a mystery man been identified who is waiting to come in and replace him at the end of the season?

If you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy.

I would suggest that you make comfort with your pain until at least the end of the season, because the board have made their move for now. Let's hope it is successful, eh?

It is because I want Rangers to be successful that I have been critical of the new board.

We should be holding it to account. It seems that we are quick to backslap McCall but reluctant to look closely at the board's inadequacy on this matter.

Is that for real?? They have been in office for six days. They haven't even had time to find the phone numbers of people they want to call yet.

After Tue.'s result I commend them for recognizing that something absolutely had to be done to attempt to save the season. This is not how the team, or the team management (probably), will look going into next season.

They have at least recognized that the support deserves better than abject misery for now.

Don't judge the board by your own standards. Judge them by the standards you would expect from a Rangers board of directors.

It has been known since Kenny McDowall was appointed manager that this was not a satisfactory situation - and he's been working his notice. He should have been replaced on day one of the new board with either a short-term candidate, or ideally, a long-term one, but despite knowing the situation full well, we kept him for two more games and had no-one ready to take the reins.

When they finally addressed the matter, they were turned down by Walter Smith and had to go for their second choice - Stuart McCall.

It all seems to have come down to which one of their Rangers-minded friends was going to get the job. This is not satisfactory - or acceptable.

Let's not focus too much on Stuart McCall.

Look at the new board. They have failed to examine the managerial market, failed to prepare for inevitable managerial change, failed to look at anyone who did not have a Rangers connection and failed to adopt a recruiting approach that would have given us a chance of landing a more able candidate.

This is not a new era. It is the old one revisited. We all like McCall and we all want him to succeed, but in appointing him, the Rangers board has demonstrated that it is not the board some of us were hoping for.

I like the new guy and I hope that he succeeds beyond all our wildest dreams, but the way this has come about has not just disappointed me - it has infuriated me.

I hoped that we were getting a board fit for purpose and aleady I have serious doubts about it. We all want to pull together. We all want some harmony and peace, but when the new board makes such an ass of itself with such a key appointment, it's hard to be optimistic about the future.

I think the new board is lacking. It needs someone in there who will read the riot act every time it moves to make cosy and convenient appointments.

It's always a gamble appointing a manager. Just ask Manchester United. A good manager at one club doesn't always become a good manager at another club. Nevertheless, any club with serious ambition should always be on the lookout for the best candidate.

I do not believe Rangers has done that. It has apparently approached Smith, who turned the job down( I've heard it suggested that he would have taken the job on a full-time basis but I have no idea if this is true), and then picked out McCall who has now accepted. Other rumours suggest that Gough and Davies were spoken to, but this is just speculation.

Stuart McCall has always been popular with Rangers fans. He is approachable and played the game in a way that our support likes - by giving everything. No Rangers fan will want him to fail and I wish him well.

My concern is the new board. If it opted for Walter Smith, that was its first mistake. If it spoke to Davies, Gough and McCall and no-one else, that was its second gaffe.

The wind of change has blown the the club and left the jobs for the boys mentality rooted within it. Did the new board not prepare for this moment? Did it not look further afield at other options? Did it only look as far as those who were close by - just like the Rangers board when we needed a new CEO and Craig Mather got the job.

I hope this works out for Stuart McCall, but if the board has been as limited in its managerial search as it appears to have been, this move deserves to fail.

Oh my Lord. Broken record syndrome.

 

Since when was RF created with the intent of being the public voice on Rangers matters ? Was it not created to purchase Rangers shares ?

 

Why the necessity to berate them because they leave the public statements to the RST - who have been doing a fine job in that department of late ?

 

Why such hatred towards a group that are buying shares in the club so that the fan base can be represented in votes and contain an element of power ?

 

Your hate for RF is bordering on obsession.

See my reply on the other thread - and I don't do hatred.

All I'm asking is that you stop repeating yourself and constantly finding new ways of spreading your anti-RF agenda on multiple threads at a time, especially threads which aren't even about RF or BR.

 

It's a very reasonable request.

Zappa, this is a decent forum.

It tries to be even-handed and to love everyone but sometimes things just need to be said.

I have made my feekings clear about RF and I'll let the matter rest for now, but this organisation does not impress me at all - and I reserve the right to say so.

Ive posted a few times that many RST members are also RF members , you dont like RF we get it , get over yourself

Any fan group that chooses to duck out of what is going on at Ibrox just now is not helping itself or Rangers.

Let the RF publicly oppose this board.

People like you should be demanding it.

Well, all I can close by saying is I'm glad you're not in charge of them - you appear to be politically completely naive in regards the fan base, which considering how often you take them to task should give pause for thought.

Who is in charge of RF and why are their mouths shut with regard to the way the club is run?

Another meaningful statement from the RST today and RF says nothing - as per usual.

This thread isn't about Rangers First.

 

Please give it a rest and stop polluting multiple threads with your anti-RF agenda and constant rhetoric.

Anti-RFB rhetoric is okay but anti-RF rhetoric is not?

I see the 2 groups as completely different....

 

The RST is a supporters club, who happen to run a scheme for buying shares.

 

RF is a community company setup for the sole purpose of buying shares in a particular entity - RIFC. At present the volume of shares acquired does not give the RF company a significant voice.

The RST is about fan ownership but it is also prepared to get involved in the issues of the day because the RST puts Rangers first.

It will fight the good fight - alone if it has to.

Not that Craig can't speak for himself, but:

 

No, he means why muddy the waters when progress is being made.

 

No need to, when both bodies are finally working to a common goal and doing so effectively.

 

Anyone trying to stir conflict at this time is helping the board. Frightened? Sensible, more like.

RF speaking out against this board would muddy the waters?

The waters could not be more muddy.

RF is not being sensible. It is ducking the fight to undermine and get rid of this board.

Its continued silence at a time like this is breathtaking.

probably because their members agree with the stance on the whole. or at least understand it.

So the RFB board was put under pressure to speak out, presumably by some who are RF members, and yet they are happy for RF to remain clammed up?

Double standards?

This is much more like it.

This is a bolder article than we're used to seeing in the nation's press. I hope it encourages more people to join the RST in the fight to rescue the club.

You mean why should RF get involved when the RST and others are doing all the heavy lifting?

I should have thought that was obvious.

Is it prepared to speak out against this board or is it going to sit on the sidelines too frightened to wade into the action?

this is a very thin stick with which to try and beat rf and i say that as someone who disagrees with their stance.

 

don't like it then don't join. but that would be a shame.

Some would say that the Rangers Fan Board were hounded into speaking out against the club, but they eventually did it.

Why is there no pressure from here to get RF to speak out?

The 'RF is apolitical' position sounds a bit delusional. Is RF supporting the EGM calls? Voting to oast the board if the EGM takes place?

I can understand them not wanting to go as far in speaking out as the RST have at times but surely there's a currently a fairly binary choice to be made?

Rangers First is not putting Rangers first when it cannot find the words to publicly speak out at a time when credible people are concerned that Ashley could be asset-stripping the club.

If RF opposes the current board, let it say so - loudly.

Its continued silence damns it.

Why does the compliance officer not carpet people who make damaging and inaccurate comments about a member club?

I support the RST's activist stance. Indeed I prefer it to RF's "non political" approach, although I'm a member of both.

 

However, by offering different propositions, the two groups engage a broader constituency than either would be able to do in isolation.

 

Surely that's a good thing for fan ownership?

I fully support fan ownership but I will not support RF.

It is sitting on the sidelines while others are left to engage. I wouldn't want to belong to an organisation like this.

I will say this again , many many RF members are also trust members so get the best of both worlds , you know exactly what your signing up for beforehand , so whats the problem .

 

There are a hell of a lot of fans who dont like the RST , you just have to accept that

I think you need to accept that the reticence of RF at a time of crisis is extremely unhelpful.

RF is ducking the fight while others engage meaningfully.

Are they set up to be a political voice?

Do They have spokesmen ready to take the lead?

Sometimes saying nothing is better than putting up unprepared statements.

RF is set up to endorse the same so-called 'dignified silence' that has been so damaging to the club.

Has nothing been learned from the embarrasing silence of Rangers on serious issues over the years and decades?