For the Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative Version)

[Frankie 8,126]

Are these people known Rangers Supporters or anonymous posters?

 

A few of the more vocal ones are certainly Rangers fans. A few more I'm not so sure about.

 

Just to be clear, people are entitled to their opinion on any subject, Chris Graham or anyone else but it's when this criticism goes beyond that to insults, abuse and division that it becomes a problem.

[Guest JCS]

Thank you for all the responses. Sorry that I didn't respond earlier, but other matters intervened.

 

Whilst I haven't read every response, I've got the gist of them.

 

Firstly, may I say that I am NOT one of those who hurls abuse at Chris Graham on RM or on any other forum. There are no circumstances in which I would abuse him, and I deplore those that do. Whilst I am a regular contributor to RM, you will not find any post of mine that engages in that sort of nonsense. I have, indeed, been critical of Chris's behaviour in recent weeks, but that criticism has been relatively mild, accurate in terms of the articles Chris has written and the statements he has made and, above all, always cognisant of the undoubted contribution he has made to the Rangers 'cause'. I trust that none of you will equate me with those who have subjected him to personal abuse.

 

In relation to my 'alternative' take on James Traynor's article (if indeed it was his article), let me make the following points.

 

1. I believe the original article to have been ill-judged, ill-considered and unprofessional. It was more notable for what it didn't say than what it actually did; for it's obvious omissions and its lack of recognition for those who have carried the fight to our more persistent detractors - including Chris Graham.

 

2. The article did not even attempt to offer a balanced statement of the club's position, and was overtly partisan.

 

3. This statement, yet again, offered no meaningful 'partnership' to the fans and, singularly failed to recognise the contribution made by many fans to the defence of the club in recent months.

 

4. I have NO expectation that James Traynor, or anyone else at the club, will respond to every Tom, Dick and Harry who has an axe to grind against the club. I HAVE SAID SO CONSISTENTLY, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. However, that in no way endorses James Traynor's/the Club's consistent unwillingness to confront the major, and serial, anti-Rangers media.

 

5. The Club/James Traynor has consistently failed to provide meaningful, and substantive, information in respect of the ongoing boardroom squabbles, or any of the major stories that have broken in recent months, on any of the official platforms, and to suggest that they are the only source of information and truth is disingenuous to say the least.

 

Finally, I do genuinely wish to see a comprehensive rapport and relationship between James Traynor and the fans, but he has shown no willingness to engage at any level. My article was designed to demonstrate the deficiencies in Traynor's article, and its failure to 'bite the bullet' in respect of the internal leaks and the obvious contradictions in a number of the points he made within it.

 

Again, thank you for your constructive responses. I'll try and check in later to read any further comments.

[Frankie 8,126]

The nonsense about supposedly 'club aligned bloggers' and 'double-standards' aside, I really think you need to rethink your constant criticism of Jim Traynor and ask yourself just how influential one man can be when we have a PR firm and a boardroom deciding our strategy in terms of legalities, fan interaction and media operations.

 

JT is far from perfect and deserves criticism but for such criticism to be effective, it may be better to frame it in a more balanced fashion - alongside a more rounded look at his (albeit somewhat vague and oft misunderstood) job description. Like you, I felt Saturday's statement was rather weak and lacked clarity but there is clear evidence of the club acting on some of our concerns while improving the way they interact with us. That's to JT's (partial) credit and unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be recognised in many of your recent critiques.

 

Generally speaking it's much more helpful to recognise that the whole club is failing us in a variety of ways so wanting to spend time analysing bloggers, websites or going after individual club employees is perhaps counter-productive.

[Guest JCS]

I wish 'club - aligned bloggers' were nonsense but, regrettably they're not. The 'double standards' are obvious, even in this most recent statement. Tne double standards are there for all to see and I've highlighted a number in recent weeks, so I don't intend to reiterate them here. I'm certainly not the only one to comment on them, and I've no doubt that there are many more fans much more concerned about that particular issue than me. As for retinking my 'constant criticism' of James Traynor, I will happily do so when I see some evidence that he is responding meaningfully to the more obvious attacks on our club and fans, and that my criticisms are unnecessary.

 

When James Traynor decides to share his vision and his communications strtegy with us all - you know the one he promised but hasn't yet delivered - I'll willingly reconsider my position. As for his 'vague and often misunderstood job description', he could rectify any misunderstanding very quickly if he chose to do so - but he hasn't chosen to do so.

 

Yes, his statement was weak and lacking in clarity, that's what I sought to highlight, and I'm content that I did so effectively. I don't share you confidence that there is clear evidence of firm and forceful action by James Traynor and you are, of course, right to acknowledge that my 'critiques' of late have not been glowing about his contribution.

 

What little he has delivered has been, quite literally, a drop in the ocean and much too little too late. I see no substantive or tangible evidence that he is genuinely seeking to engage with the fans, and when I do I will certainly give him the credit that his actions merit.

 

The club is indeed failing as you rightly say, but that is not a rationale for overlooking the significant, and often vindictive and malign, attacks on our club. You know that I'm not advocating that we respond to all and sundry, so why try and imply it.

Edited August 20, 2013 by JCS

[Frankie 8,126]

I never implied anything of the sort.

 

Once again you ignore the variety of recent work the club has done - banning the BBC, ending a partnership with Clyde, legal letters to the Record, statements about the media, legal requests for official documents to be taken down and the various improvements in our digital delivery efforts. If that's not 'meaningful evidence' of action, I don't know what is.

 

Now, none of those are directly down to JT alone (in the same way he shouldn't be criticised alone) but they are an indication someone (or some people) at the club appreciate fan frustration with specific regard to PR. It's far from perfect though and results are not yet evident so hopefully we'll continue to see some balanced, quality criticism of all responsible until such time we are agreed on an effective strategy.

 

As for JT engaging with the fans, I'm not sure that's his job. That's why we have a fan liaison and I've never seen the club's media team meet with fans in the past - it's always/usually been the CEO and or chairman. As it should be as they're the ones who ultimately determine strategy.

 

Traynor has been in the job for just over six months (he had some time off for urgent family leave) and is currently negotiating an unprecedented workload due to the constant fire-fighting internally - never mind externally. To demand improvement is all well and good but the time-scale and context has to be realistic. Expecting whole-sale changes from a divided club inside 9 months is not realistic. Not even close.

[andy steel 0]

The best evidence that Traynor is doing something right is the continued bitter sniping from BBC Scotland.

[Frankie 8,126]

The best evidence that Traynor is doing something right is the continued bitter sniping from BBC Scotland.

 

And the Record.

 

You make a fair point but it's not solving the problem though. Not in an obvious sense at least.

 

I'd like to see the club (and fans) take a more active media role rather than back itself into a corner.

[andy steel 0]

It's hard to see how any settlement could be reached, in the short term anyway. So much needs to happen for closure: the club would have to be stable, in the boardroom and on the pitch (and dugout); from that, leaking to the media at the level we've seen would also have to stop, for at the moment sundry outlets know all they need do is reach for the mobile and chances are their source will give them yet another story; rapprochement would have to be gained with the governing bodies, so that we fight on one front only; while, in the nature of things, favoured outlets would need to be cultivated in order to spike those less favoured.

 

I mean, this is going to take years, not months.

[Frankie 8,126]

It's hard to see how any settlement could be reached, in the short term anyway. So much needs to happen for closure: the club would have to be stable, in the boardroom and on the pitch (and dugout); from that, leaking to the media at the level we've seen would also have to stop, for at the moment sundry outlets know all they need do is reach for the mobile and chances are their source will give them yet another story; rapprochement would have to be gained with the governing bodies, so that we fight on one front only; while, in the nature of things, favoured outlets would need to be cultivated in order to spike those less favoured.

 

I mean, this is going to take years, not months.

 

Correct - which is why people criticising specific individuals is unhelpful.

 

The club deserves criticism and of course we should be analysing where it can improve but there has to be an element of context. Some of us do strive to bring that thankfully...

[stewarty 1,876]

It's hard to see how any settlement could be reached, in the short term anyway. So much needs to happen for closure: the club would have to be stable, in the boardroom and on the pitch (and dugout); from that, leaking to the media at the level we've seen would also have to stop, for at the moment sundry outlets know all they need do is reach for the mobile and chances are their source will give them yet another story; rapprochement would have to be gained with the governing bodies, so that we fight on one front only; while, in the nature of things, favoured outlets would need to be cultivated in order to spike those less favoured.

 

I mean, this is going to take years, not months.

 

Agreed. What's missing is trust between the club and the SFA, and trust between the club and the media (particularly some sections).

We are undoubtedly weary after constant battling over the past two years, and I don't think we are ready to let bygones be bygones. And we wont be until the governance of the club is settled, and we all get back to enjoying the fitba. The way this thing is going, its definately going to be years, rather than months.