Agm and club accounts

[Bluedell 5,345]

I agree with the first statement and saying how we played well while obviously being hammered by a much lower team was more than a wee bit patronising.... Or was it was just me? Walter to me is an expert at stating the obvious but at least somehow there seems some kind of genuine truth there that was just totally missing from the manager I most highly anticipated at the club.

 

So is it really pathetic to expect your manager to be able to pronounce your club's name? After all, my French isn't exactly impressive but I can say "Par�©e sang shzermong" instead of "P�¡riss saintt Jerr-mann" and if that's not quite right I'm willing to be corrected before I make a twat of myself in front of a press conference and pretty much every fan of the club. All he needed to do was write it down as R�©ngers and visualise it a dozen or so times. Doesn't take much more than a humble fool to do that.

 

But if you read my post you will have gathered I suggest that his pronunciation was "symbolic" of his stay at Rangers. This is where I struggle not to sound insulting or pompous or something lately - but do I really have to spell out what that means?

 

I sat expectantly at the feet of a guy whom I thought was a genius, the wisest of the wise, the prophet of all things good at the club I support, the Rangers manager for whom I gave the greatest respect and most deference - and I was rewarded with the words of a fool, the actions of a fool and pretty much the results of no better than a fool. Yet even though he didn't have the slightest stomach for the job, never mind the nous, he is still a deity in some supporters eyes.

 

Contrast that with the man who replaced him - someone who I originally thought was a backwards step, a bad choice for Rangers AND Scotland - who then talks like a sage (even if clich�©d) acts like one and actually gets the expected results and more, but somehow is treated like a pariah by the same supporters.

 

Sorry if I'm "pathetic" and don't get it but I really seem to be struggling with what seems to be becoming some kind of party line...

 

I'm sorry but PLG to me was a Raungers manager because he can never be compared in the same breath with the esteemed Rangers managers of our long and otherwise successful history.

 

His mistake to me was that it seemed he never bothered to research our club or league or culture or pretty much anything to do with the job and so struggled from the off. His embarrassing, cringeworthy pronunciation of the club was in retrospect a glaring indication and reflection of his lack of preparation for a task which in my mind cannot be taken so lightly.

 

This mispronunciation in itself was, I suppose, pretty much nothing on the surface of it: but such a pathetic error by an otherwise obviously intelligent man, a mistake your average Govan ned (non educated delinquent?) would unlikely make after being handed a million quid job abroad, was a terrible omen of how little the guy researched about how to transfer his obvious surfeit of skills, to his new place of employment.

 

Come on, does my contrary posture to the prevailing doom and gloom party line really make me deserve to be patronised so? Or do people actually believe I thought PLG was shite just because of his French accent?:box:

It was a discussion on Le Guen's appearance (at that point).

 

I can't see that the pronouciation of a word reflects anything, other than he is a foreigner. The fact that you read something more into it says more about you than him, in my opinion.

[Super_Ally 0]

Results suggested PLG had to go. But it somehow is now convenient to believe that the results are all PLG's fault.

 

The buck stops at the manager

 

 

I don't think it's all PLG's fault.

 

I'm just not a subscribed member of the blind faith loyal. I.e. Believing he would come good when there was little to suggest he would. The PLG experiment did not look like it would work for a number of reasons. And plenty of them were down to the man himself.

[craig 5,199]

 

I don't think it's all PLG's fault.

 

I'm just not a subscribed member of the blind faith loyal. I.e. Believing he would come good when there was little to suggest he would. The PLG experiment did not look like it would work for a number of reasons. And plenty of them were down to the man himself.

 

Iam not a subscrber to the blind faith loyal either S_A. That said..... I dont believe that 6 months in the job is enough to determine how good or bad any manager is.

 

I dont doubt for a minute that he contributed to his own downfall.... but so too did the players, that much cant be denied.

 

From what we have seen/heard, he expected a much more professional, dedicated attitude from his staff - and that is right to want that. Seems though that some of the players preferred their nice little cushy life and didnt fancy much that they would have to actually work for their living.

[Super_Ally 0]

Iam not a subscrber to the blind faith loyal either S_A. That said..... I dont believe that 6 months in the job is enough to determine how good or bad any manager is.

 

I dont doubt for a minute that he contributed to his own downfall.... but so too did the players, that much cant be denied.

 

From what we have seen/heard, he expected a much more professional, dedicated attitude from his staff - and that is right to want that. Seems though that some of the players preferred their nice little cushy life and didnt fancy much that they would have to actually work for their living.

 

I've never said the players did not contribute. I just usually see that arguement trotted out as a way of deflecting blame from the man who ultimately carries the can.

 

As i've pointed out, his professionalism is in question too.

 

Do as I say, not as I do?

 

How bad do you let things get before making a change?

[calscot 0]

Iam not a subscrber to the blind faith loyal either S_A. That said..... I dont believe that 6 months in the job is enough to determine how good or bad any manager is.

 

I dont doubt for a minute that he contributed to his own downfall.... but so too did the players, that much cant be denied.

 

From what we have seen/heard, he expected a much more professional, dedicated attitude from his staff - and that is right to want that. Seems though that some of the players preferred their nice little cushy life and didnt fancy much that they would have to actually work for their living.

 

Time is not a luxury managers have at a club Rangers - how many times have we heard the phrase - "they have to hit the ground running".

 

Managers do get some leeway but then need to buy time with results - like Fergie and his cup final. PLG just put one nail in his coffin after another.

 

Eck bought himself a couple of seasons by winning 5 trophies off the bat, and then won himself one more season with his last minute title win.

 

But when your just not competing you get closer and closer to that exit door.

 

When you're 17 points behind and out of cups like PLG and Eck then your time just runs out. The same would be true of Walter but the weirdly some don't want to give him any time at all even though he hasn't had a sniff of the above scenario and has bought himself plenty of time with his employer.

 

His results in his first season showed he deserved to be in the hot seat, the next season he won two trophies and a UEFA runners up plus came very close to winning the league - and many Rangers fans feel we and Walter were actually cheated out of it. However there are many Celtic fans who now have allies in the anti-Walter brigade who would say it was not so.

 

That level of success bought him only one more season when the same results would be hailing PLG as a genius and a clamour for a 5 year contract.

 

He then won the league and cup double while coming runners up in the other which surely buys him a whole season if not more? Again Le Guen would have been incredibly lauded for the same results. There was the Kaunas debacle but his average in Europe over two years is way above average for a Rangers manager and surely the achievement of the final granted him some forgiveness for one year.

 

Four trophies in the last two seasons should buy another two seasons and like Eck, he should be able to even withstand one disaster season. However, it hasn't happened yet and if you think PLG shouldn't have been sacked at 17 points behind and out of one cup at the first time of asking, then surely Smith deserves a bit of slack for 4pts behind and still in all competitions.

 

It seems Walter can do no right and instead of being fairly judged on his last couple of seasons he's being judged, juried and executed on his last few games - none of which he has lost.

 

Even if you hate Walter fairness suggests he deserves till the end of the season or until he's 17 points behind. Whichever comes first.

 

There seems to be a lot of double standards with those who still seem to think PLG deserved more time and it's not even a little bit subtle.

 

However, that man's stock has fallen considerably and even PSG let him go and no big club has picked him up. If Camaroon lift the World Cup then some of the maudlin regret about him may actually have some justification.

 

However, in the end shouldn't we be consistent with all managers at Rangers? The fact is that 17 points behind and out of the cup to a first division team combined with the worst run in our history is a crime at Rangers. You commit the crime and you just don't get the time.

 

However, the rules seem to have changed for our current manager where winning the double then getting 4pts behind while being unbeaten, and still in the cups is now a sackable offence.

 

There ARE no "Walterites" on here or "rosie gardeners", there are just some who use a results based criteria that is actually consistent instead of a wildly speculative ones that just don't seem to tally with reality or have any prudence.

 

When you look at the above it makes you wonder where the disparagement to those who don't hate Walter comes from - one even weirdly thinks some supporters love him more than the club. The likes of "Walterite" is such an obvious mud slinging ploy to detract from the reality of people's reasonable argument.

 

The thing is, I look above and everything I've said seems pretty reasonable and obvious and based on fact (and I'm sure I've said it before - although somehow I feel people still don't understand it), but I just know that none of it will make any difference to some on here.

 

It's just so strange that I'm the one who is supposed to be blind and delusional...

 

Maybe I could just simplify and and say ok, the number of points behind for a sacking to me is 15 points, the number years without the title is two, the worst place in the table is third, what's yours? There is mitigation allowed but it has to be close. Mine consistently takes care of Greig, Wallace, Advocaat, Eck and PLG while keeping Walter in his job.