What happened to Rangers First?

[Frankie 8,151]

Apologies for the forum downtime this morning. We're having some server issues which I've raised with our hosts.

 

While the forum was down I've put together the following Sunday sermon!

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/150-what-happened-to-rangers-first

 

Itâ??s not been a good few days for Rangers fans. After a reasonable pre-season and a confident first win against Albion Rovers last weekend, the fragile state of the club was in evidence again as, firstly Charles Green was announced as an external consultant; then a requisition was submitted to try and force through further board changes; before, on the pitch, the team was defeated away to Forfar Athletic in the League Cup First Round.

 

Letâ??s deal with the actual football first. Iâ??ve not seen the game but, from bears that were there, clearly they were disappointed with much of the performance and find it hard to excuse another defeat against supposed lower quality opposition. Yes, it was very windy and, yes, the manager was missing all his new signings but in a team that contained several internationalists, can we really excuse such a poor result? Iâ??d strongly say no so for the manager to then go into quite an incredible rant against a club employee was as ugly as his teamâ??s display. Were Charles Greenâ??s (and Craig Matherâ??s for that matter) pre-match words helpful? Of course not but letâ??s not pretend the players or manager were all that worried about them. And if they were, they should have stuffed them up Greenâ??s jumper with another victory like we seen as Livingston last week. To suggest otherwise only shows a well-paid manager and team struggling with the pressure of working for Rangers. Hiding from the weaknesses of our manager/squad is not putting Rangers First.

 

Of course, all the above is related to whatâ??s happening off the park. The share price has been tumbling lower and lower so those who control the club â?? supposedly led by Imran Ahmad and Charles Green â?? are trying to protect their investment by re-appointing former CEO Green as an external consultant. Of course, if it is indeed the case these people control over 50% of the shares then they could give him a job anywhere they like. Indeed, itâ??s debatable that the Greenco influence has ever left the club in any case. After all Green retains the largest single shareholding while Ahmad also has a significant portion of stock. Add in the institutions they brought on board when they bought the club (and via the IPO) then itâ??s without doubt their leverage remains high when it comes to decision-making. As such, attempts by them to deflect blame elsewhere for club strategy are weak and disingenuous. Rangers First or self-interest?

 

Moving onto Fridayâ??s shock EGM requisition from a variety of concerned shareholders then weâ??re starting to reach the crux of the situation. It transpires another significant group of shareholders want to force changes: much in the same way Blue Pitch Holdings lobbied to remove key personnel such as former chair Malcolm Murray; it seems a group containing successful businessman Jim McColl want other directors removed whilst installing their own favoured people â?? including former director Paul Murray. As of Sunday morning, weâ??ve yet to hear from this group but the involvement of Murray has once again only served to divide fan opinion given his previous failed connections with Rangers. The extent of Murrayâ??s part in the clubâ??s key decisions of the MIH/LBG regime is difficult to quantify but when we juxtapose that with his failed attempt(s) to buy the club last year, for many heâ??s simply too toxic to be credible. As such, if McColl et al are looking to stage some sort of coup (hardly a new exclusive given weâ??ve discussed this months ago here) then suggesting Paul Murray as a replacement director perhaps wasnâ??t their best strategic decision. Once more, can these actions be described as selfish rather than putting Rangers First?

 

Generally speaking much of the above can only be interpreted as unacceptable by fans. Going back a month or so, we were told stability was all everyone wanted yet it canâ??t be a coincidence just as the huge bulk of season ticket holders have renewed (almost 35,000 at last count) we have two distinct shareholding groups going to war. Now, as much as us online commentators like to think weâ??re representative of the majority support, in actual fact most bears wonâ??t care much about the boardroom politics but are only interested in how the team perform. Thus, Saturdayâ??s defeat means theyâ??ll also be equally worried about the direction of the club. However, itâ??s increasingly challenging for fans to have their voice heard. After all, itâ??s been around six months since the last time the club even held an â??openâ?? meeting with fan representatives? That is nothing short of disgraceful.

 

Within this information vacuum, there are few people at Rangers right now who the fans can look to for guidance. Obviously one such person â?? perhaps now the only one â?? is our non-executive chairman Walter Smith. Although his role (to his own concession) is mainly a symbolic one, he may be in the unique position of knowing what is happening both in the boardroom and with regard to any de facto takeover attempts. In that respect, the fans will be eager to hear his thoughts to help make sense of recent political matters. However, as Smith says himself, is he the right person to judge the situation given he concedes his business knowledge isnâ??t that of others?

 

In actual fact, that probably doesnâ??t matter now. Smith was brought on board to provide stability and recognised leadership for Rangers fans. It can be argued that stability has gone so Smith must be as frustrated as the rest of us with ongoing events. With that in mind, he can no longer be silent on the implosion that is directly affecting the clubâ??s ability to compete on and off the park.

 

In conclusion, Walter Smith is arguably the only credible person left to explain what exactly is happening in the battleground that is the Ibrox boardroom. Like others Smith may understandably be reluctant to put his own spin on the current situation but given heâ??s the one focal point the fans trust he must speak out. And when he does comment, itâ??s absolutely vital that, unlike others, he puts Rangers First.

[D'Artagnan 173]

It seems Frankie "Rangers First" is a standard those within the club expect the support to aspire to, but are unable to put it into practice themselves.

[andy steel 0]

My browser tab shortened your title to 'What Happened to Rangers', which is depressingly accurate.

 

Chin up Frankie! Someone will have bought the club by the end of the year, and it looks like it will be people who are Rangers fans, even if many have serious issues with their previous behaviour. If nothing else it will be a basis more solid than the current one to work on.

 

It'll all be over by Christmas, you'll see.

[foggy dewhurst 0]

so much in fighting but dont worry fellow fans , for we will overcome .

[Tumshie RFC 0]

I wish we only had one fan body representing the entire united support but we as fans can't even do that. There's infighting in the stands and infighting within the club. It's a disaster.

[ian1964 10,416]

All this shit off the park is wearing me down!,more depressing than the result yesterday,when will this all end?,can we the fans be doing more?

Edited August 4, 2013 by ian1964

[Mountain Bear 0]

Frankie, you hit the nail of the head when you described the lack of recent engagement with fans as a disgrace. As I said on the Green is back thread, both factions need to start treating us like adults and giving us information rather than PR statements (or silence).

[Tannochsidebear 2,315]

There can be no doubt that all the off-field nonsense that has been happening to our club for the past 2 years has a major effect on the perormances of the manager and players.

 

As 2011 turned into 2012 we were sitting as favourites to win the SPL in Ally's first season as manager. Indeed it was the sectarian bigot in charge of our rivals that was in danger of losing his job, and only a miraculous comeback at Rugby park temporarily saved his job. Then we started getting all our money problems starting to be aired in public, and all denied by Whyte until the day he walked into a courtroom in Edinburgh and placed the club into administration "for a couple of weeks". Our results went into freefall and a 10 point penalty was the final straw for the title race, with the saving of the club being far more important as results as players were asked to take pay-cuts to avoid widespread redundancies.

 

Move forward to last summer and after all the nonsense about where we would be playing and even if we would get a licence to play, things started to calm down as Green and his board wewnt all out to promote the club and the upcoming IPO. There is no coincidence that this period of stability also saw our best run of results and performances as we went into a long winning run.

 

A couple of months after the IPO and the boardroom wranglings start up again, with seemingly unworkable relations between Malcolm Murray, the Chairman, and Green and his team. This rumbled on towards the end of the season, and results and performances started to tail off as well.

 

With Green having left the club and his patsy Mather in charge operationally and Walter as Chairman, things settled down again, we started being positive again with new signings, some decent pre-season displays and a lot of positive energy around the club again.

 

Which brings us to the events of the last few days. Firstly we have the announcement that Green was to get a wage again from the club as a consultant, then the bombshell from Paul Murray and his backers which seemingly include Dave King that they want all Green's men out and their men in. On the way up to Forfar yesterday the talk again was not of players and formations, but boardroom nonsense and most Bears you spoke to were totally fed up of it all. It was absolutely no surprise to me therefore that the performance and result yesterday was so poor, as it was only following the pattern of events that the last 2 years has shown us.

 

Of course, it is not as cut and dried as simply that. There were some good performances during bad times and vice versa, and on chances created yesterday we should have won the game at a canter, before any ciriticism of the referee, Callum Murray who again seemed to manage to not see 2 Rangers penalties, calling one as a foul a yard outside the box despite the fact Temps landed on the penalty spot, and totally ignoring the other in the second half, and before any ciriticism of the manager, who after pushing McCulloch up to make amends for his howler as we chased an equaliser then retreated into a negative mode for the extra time period and gave away all the initiative we had worked hard to gain. In any game we dissect it this way and that and can always do better in hindsight.

 

Unfortunately the course of events we are now going to have to go through for the next 6 weeks until the boardroom war is resolved is not going to make watching the team very pretty if our recent history is anything to go by. You and I as Bears will have to suffer while those who clearly feel Rangers are a commodity to wrangle over first and a football club second continue their ugly war where all we can hope for is a clear winner, and for the loser to leave and never darken our door again. If only it were even that simple.

[rbr 1,247]

Just had a very lengthy conversation with a mate who works in the media , the amount of spin and counter spin is getting beyond a joke , this is all about money and how much it will cost per share , buckle up for a very bumpy next 5 months

[der Berliner 3,249]

Just had a very lengthy conversation with a mate who works in the media , the amount of spin and counter spin is getting beyond a joke , this is all about money and how much it will cost per share , buckle up for a very bumpy next 5 months

 

Yep, but you do wonder whether these 5p or 10p per share are that problematic for any would-be buyer of King's or McColl's pedigree? Will we end up seeing a battle about a few hundred thousand pounds like we had pre-CVA? That would give not so grand a testimony of these people's actual interest. After all, the price of the shares will rise sooner or later anyway, which should make up for any of these business-men's "loss".