buster.

12 minutes ago, Blue Moon said:

Another injured player?

On the face of that tweet, it would be another outside bet but with a low stake.

 

13 hours ago, forlanssister said:

I think their roots took hold long before the current regime gained control. They then failed to adequately convey to the fans just how far the Club had fallen in EVERY single department, a failure to communicate at the basic level. There are things we may not like to hear but we should hear (imho).

 

In some respects their errors compounded already problematic areas (i.e. retail) but I don't think they're claiming infallibility.

 

As much as Bisgove gets it tight from the fans he's the calibre of people we need to recruit, if only everyone fulfilled their remit as well as he does.

 

Given how much the Board and the other backers have invested I expect them to get it right after it is their OWN money they're playing with.

 

Whilst they did indeed listen to me regarding the disabled situation they're not going to be knocking on my door for advice on how to run the Club. 😂

Thanks for the reply !

 

Communicating with the fanbase is quite a daunting responsibility for an ordinaty mortal and goes way beyond anything the directors will have come accross in their own business environment. Microscopic analysis is almost immediately applied by what must seem like half the country, all of the media and reaction soon follows.

 

What we (as a club) have tended to do over the years is communicate with the fanbase, telling the fanbase what we think they want to hear / what we think will go down well and/or anything to distract from poor performance or boardroom shenanigans (spivs).

 

Sir Duped mainly used the MSM to get his narrative to dominate and have most of the support in the palm of his hand. When things got difficult he would line up the legends to support him in same MSM. He eventually hired Mediahouse, mainly to protect himself.

 

Jack Irvine (Mediahouse) was used as what I called a Continuity Bridge between various spivs taking the reigns (Not CWhyte IIRC). ie. hired and paid for by the club to protect and shield the spivs. IIRC he would also brief Ashley's PR man, Bishop.

 

In 2013 I got a fleeting glimpse at relevant attitudes to professional PR that I didn't think important beyond that particular moment, but now I wonder. In the long lead up to the December AGM, one group opposing the spivs contacted me, mainly to help relay some information onto the FF messageboard. I'd get the info via PM on FF. Then a go between (an ex journalist at The Glasgow Herald & BBC) would speak to me about things and would ask me for my view on X or Y. He said the group lacked a PR consultant and were considering hiring one but in his last email to me, said that Paul Murray had said he'd do the PR stuff.

 

Firstly, I couldn't believe that this group would ask the opinion on X or Y from a punter on a messageboard. Relay info, yes but consult in an area that I had no training or experience in !!!

Secondly, that they decided not to go with professional PR and predictably had their arse handed to them by Irvine.

 

Moving on,.... to his credit, Paul Murray came out on RTV in April 2015 laying out a realistic projected timetable as to the next 3-5 years. Dave King repeated the strategy of Constructive/Structured losses funded by directors/investors.

 

Jim Traynor and David Graham came and went. Another two who hadn't much, if any, direct experience in PR.

Positive change was that they were hired to protect the actual club....BUT No surprise the rookies ended up as two poor appointments.

 

We have spent years heavily focusing on the positives and regards finance, have recently had to give the fanbase a crash course in the negatives, to partly justify their own (in)actions.

 

Alignment has been a popular buzz word for the board but it needs to incorporate the fanbase, using reality and not just positivity.

 

Despite the business experience of the Rangers board, I don't think they know what they are doing when it comes to communication. I think they are almost daunted by it and it now looks as though they are winging it , crossing their fingers that Beale is a success and keeping the support happy (and quiet).

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Rousseau said:

Teams now generally adopt different shapes in different states of the game. 

 

Man City and Arsenal, for example, line up in a 4-3-3 on paper, but in possession their RBs play as a third CB and their LBs invert to create a double pivot, so it's more like a 3-2-5. Then when they defend, Man City adopt a 4-4-2. 

 

We've seen this flexibility in the WC with France, Brazil and Argentina etc. adopting different shapes in different states of the game. I really couldn't tell you what formation Argentina play!

 

Moreover, it doesn't describe how a team will play. Man City and Liverpool both adopt a 4-3-3 on paper, but the way they play morphs into wildly different shapes.  

 

That's why 'on paper' formations are largely meaningless. However, you can certainly use formations to describe the shape in possession and out of possession, for example.

They aren't meaningless. You just need more bits of paper and footballers with a memory.

11 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

One of JJ's frequent sayings is that formations are largely meaningless. 

They seem to be an important framework within a plan, even if that plan has an element of fluidity.

 

What can render them meaningless or ineffective are players who don't adhere to instructions or/& are not suited to position/good enough or/& an opposition with a better plan/players etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

cant be that underrated if barca paid over 100 million for him

Within this French team there have been so many excellent players that he often goes overlooked.

 

He is fundamental and effective to this French setup in a way he has seldom been at club level during the past few years.

 

In Russia 2018 he was the main man IMO and come the big game (England) he is again.

9 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Because it's interesting to identify the basic shape, in and out of possession. 

 

When it's so fluid, though, it's difficult. 

I've watched a few of the TIFO WCup podcasts with the Scottish guy (JJ?) explaining how he saw teams setup and why or why it didn't work against opposition X.

 

I found that quite interesting.

Just now, Gonzo79 said:

The transfer window is longer than a couple of weeks.  

Thread titles are meaningless.

52 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I'm not surprised. 

 

Formations are largely meaningless nowadays. 

So why go on about them so much ?

44 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

I'm not convinced that is indeed the case.

Fair enough but how would you describe the shortcomings, their roots and how it plays out going forward ?

 

 

If we can't make up our minds about the formation, maybe it will confuse the opposition. At least for the couple of weeks this thread refers to.

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

I've been very critical of Morelos lately but he looked a lot sharper the other day and was more effective than Colak in the 4-2-3-1 we used - he did well in deeper and wider areas especially. 

 

Overall, although it was a friendly, there was lots to be positive about.  If we can get a few more defenders fit asap then we should be better placed than before the break.

Slightly sharper because he was kind enough to actually try a leg but still way out of shape.

3 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Does it say who the others are?

 

I don't know why I'm intrigued: their wages will be too much for us. 

Brings back bad memories

#TheNewcastleFive

 

No medicals conducted

#Lambias

 

 

3 minutes ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Listening to the Gerset podcast and I hear the line about the January transfer window being difficult to do business in. I think there is truth to that in some ways where teams are half way through a season and competing for prizes. They wont want to sell key players.

 

However in some cases, like the lad Josh Onomah we have been linked with at Fulham he is exactly the profile of a player who would be an ideal January signing. If we are smart enough the players are there and available. There are lots of similar cases of players who are now out of favour due to change in manager or circumstances who we could be targeting. 

Transfer windows are like going out on a Friday night.

 

You begin with hopes of getting your hole with a durty looker. In the end you get lucky with a relative munter and 2 weeks later you have a dose.

 

 

1 minute ago, Gonzo79 said:

Couldn't agree more.  I think some are a bit too hung up on what's gone on/poor performances but it's time to refocus, in my opinion.  

Can't blame folk for that.

 

Starting on Thursday, the team need to give the support a good reason to look forward.

10 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

But for the wrong reasons.

 

Souness, on the other hand …….

Problem was that Bain was called this and that by our support. The other side of the city just laughed at him.

 

 

4 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Lawwell was a Dictators Dictator all powerful and answerable to one man. We have a collegiate structure than relies on the MD reporting to a Board and that Board reaching a consensus. Lawwell was virtually autonomous. 

Aye, but the problem is that our structure / executives (remit/competence) doesn't cover some important areas.

 

If the board as a whole can't see this or act on it, then that is the problem.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

 

We have to win every game. 

There is a sentence you hear all the time.

 

As meaningless a collection of words as they come. 

 

We do have a couple of things in our favour as the year comes to an end.

 

Firstly, we have 2 days more to prepare for Pittodrie than the home team  (who will hopefully be coming down after beating Celtic).

 

Second, if we can get some positive momentum, then there is no break in January to halt it.

8 hours ago, forlanssister said:

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.

The difference in remits was what I was getting at.

 

IMO, when you take the political manouvering / influencing part of what was Lawwell's remit that doesn't appear to be Robertson's bag and you add the lack of professional and competent PR/Communication....it leaves a significant and important hole in our structure.

 

The results of which have been all too obvious for a long time.

34 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Don’t think it will be too far away, matondo wont start, and I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that Morelos will start ahead of Colak.

Morelos doesn't look in a fit enough state to start a match yet.

Colak will start and Morelos will probably get minutes as a sub.

42 minutes ago, compo said:

Well back to work for them on Thursday I wonder how many of yesterday’s starting eleven will start against Hibernian 

Vast majority I would have thought. Possibly all eleven.

 

I doubt we'll risk returning central defenders and Devine looks ready.

 

17 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Let's put it this way: for most of the game we played how we play best in Europe: straight in their faces, press hard and keep them as far away from our area as we could. Especially the Germans don't like that sort of style. As soon as we let others start playing though ... 

 

 

2 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

As far as I can tell that depends on the company. I know that some will apply the terms arbitrarily.

 

I think that chief executive is a strategic role whereas managing director is about the day to day management and implementation.

 

I say this having only ever encountered chief executives and never once a managing director. I would guess that a few here have encountered many of both so I'm happy to be corrected.

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 didn't think Harry was the sharpest tool in the box but........

 

 

28 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

As long as errors are too frequently made, I'll feel the need to hand out English lessons.

I appreciate those lessons in how to say things and will continue to reciprocate by offering you lessons of what to say.

 

😉😁