For the Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative Version)

[stewarty 1,876]

I should add also, that we wont be ready until both sides are ready to compromise or put their differences to the side.

[andy steel 0]

Might not be so bad if all that can be achieved is a wary toleration of each other (I should add that in my book, 'the governing bodies' = Timothy). Add a bit of spice!

 

I know that, as weary as you rightfully point out we all are, when we get back on the front foot I will be ready to tear their throats out. As Bluedell has it, 'Never Forget, Never Forgive', and that goes for Regan and Doncaster as much as it does for Whyte and SDM.

[Guest JCS]

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.

 

 

No I haven't ignored Traynors recent contributions, but I believe them to be scant reward for 6 months work.

 

Banning the BBC was welcome, however late in the day, but it was the fans that forced the apology from BBC Scotland after much hard work and little or no recognition from the club- and that's quite sad.

 

One or two legal letters to the Record, and a few equests for the removal of official documents, all of which we know very little about, hardly constitutes a robust and forceful PR strategy, and our statements to the media have been few and far between, and best described as weak and vacillating. I have previously given James Traynor credit for the improvements in the web site, its vastly improved links with Rangers TV etc. but I'm afraid that doesn't tick the boxes in my appraisal of his performance thus far. Clearly your definition of 'meaningful evidence' is significantly different than mine.

 

But, as you say, much of this work, is not down to JT alone, and is the work of independent consultants engaged to undertake specific pieces of work. Some of it is indeed in response to representations made by the fans, through a multiplicity of channels, and there is undoubtedly a recognition that fans are really frustrated and, in fact, totally 'brassed off' with the clubs consistent failure to 'fight the good fight'. I acknowledge that is not all James Traynors fault, and other more senior officers must carry a significant proportion of the responsibility for our current predicament. But James Traynor is - for good or ill - our Director of Communications. It is for him to lead and to develop and present the strategy he promised. I didn't ask him to develop a communications strategy, he announced it to the world only a few short weeks into his new job.

 

In relation to JT engaging with the fans, I agree there is much ambiguity there. But I'm quite sure that Jim Hanna never envisaged his role as one of engaging with the fans in relation to the major 'political' and business questions that have pervaded the club for well over two years now. Like it or not PR is in JT's baliwick, it is for him, and his team, in collaboration with the executive team and the board to develop and deliver a robust strategy. That simply hasn't happened.

 

I am not at all persuaded by your assertion that his workload is 'unprecedented', and nor do i accept that he has devted the vast bulk of his time to 'fire-fighting' and 'crisis PR' as he referred to it. Undoubtedly that was a core issue for him, but it certainly didn't fill a 6 month void. Certainly few fans believe that to be the case.

 

I don't think there is any expectation of 'whole-sale' changes, just a simple demand for a focused, and coordinated, response to the MAJOR attacks upon our club that regularly pass without any substantive response from the club.

 

It's pretty clear that you and I are not going to have a meeting of minds on this one Frankie, so this will be my last post on this thread. My position on James Traynor AND the difficult circumstances he has inherited are very well publicised, so I don't think I need add anything further.

 

Best wishes, Calvin

Edited August 20, 2013 by JCS

[Frankie 8,145]

Au contraire, mon frère.

 

There has been a coming of minds to a degree as you've conceded that not only has there been a positive JT influence on some activities but, that other staff may be equally or more responsible for some of criticisms you've offered of him previously. Further we clearly agree substantial improvement is still required from all concerned. We're not as far off as you'd like to think here.

 

However, if you think the last 6-12 months haven't been unprecedented ones for the club in terms of internal and external politics, I'd hate to see an example of a worse time. I certainly can't think of one - especially if we add the context of the modern 24 hour news and sports media.

 

I'm glad to see so many others on the thread acknowledge the unique nature of the current situation and recognise the time and effort required to address it effectively. JT is being well paid to deliver that so I'm prepared to give him at least another six months to give us the improvement we all seek.

[Zappa 0]

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.

 

Excellent & detailed response JCS!

 

Regarding your sentence which I've put in bold, I don't understand how you can say this when he's recently stopped to speak to fans and answer some questions outside Ibrox (the time when he told fans he would only answer some questions if Peter Adam Smith and other reporters went away so that he could speak 'off-the-record'). I didn't witness this myself, but it was widely reported by fans and Peter Adam Smith reported on the incident himself.

 

Then there's obviously the recent meeting/Q&A with hundreds of fans where Mather, Stockbridge, Traynor & McCoist were all in attendance and Traynor was answering questions and speaking to fans that night.

 

I'm not saying he shouldn't be doing more, but to say that "he has shown no willingness to engage at any level" is not exactly accurate or fair.

[Fury 0]

One of the things that perplexes me about this 'critique' is that the same writer who accuses TRS and myself of doing Traynor's bidding is now criticising me for speaking to the Daily Record - a publication which he acknowledges Traynor has made a point of criticising. So which is it?

 

For the record (no pun) I spoke to the DR because they were one of the few publications covering the fan meeting and I thought it was important to have some comment on what happened out there for fans who couldn't attend and don't frequent the internet. It was the same reason that TRS tweeted the content of the meeting the night it happened (with permission from the club). I don't make a habit of speaking to the Record and have turned down many previous opportunities to do so. I don't buy it and I'd be delighted if the fans could apply enough commercial pressure to improve the coverage of our club by that paper.

[Fury 0]

I believe Traynor also attended a Q&A with Walter Smith prior to the more recent Q&A.

 

I believe on Monday night that JCS was on Rangers Chat (a call in show on the internet) upset that Traynor had not accepted an invitation to appear on that show. Perhaps the problem is not so much that's he not engaging at all, and more that he's not engaging with who JCS and others think he should be i.e. them?

[Guest JCS]

Sorry Chris, I've just seen your posts. Whilst I do keep an eye on Gersnet, I'm not - as you probably know - a regular visitor/contributor.

 

I was indeed on Rangerschat on Monday night and commented on a statement made by one of the presenters about their invitation to James Traynor to come on the show and respond to his critics.

 

They acknowledged that they had sent invitations to him by email but that he had not responded, and I stated that I was not at all surprised - and nor, I suspect, was anyone else on Rangerschat.

 

Whilst I don't believe that James Traynor will accept the invitation from Rangerschat, I would be delighted if he did. I genuiely believe it would be to his (and the club's) advantage. It would be a valuable platform to set out his strategy and, perhaps, set the record straight about his 7 months in post. He could even use it as an opportunity to respond to the questions I asked in my recent article, "We Seek Him Here, We Seek Him There" if he wished.

 

I'm very much a newcomer to Rangerschat, so I can't speak for those that host the show, or its members, but I have absolutely no doubt that James Traynor would be well received and given a very fair hearing. Neither of the regular hosts would permit any abuse, and any caller attempting to do so would be cut immediately. That has happened before and Fox and Ian would have no hesitation in 'pulling the plug' on anyone overstepping the mark.

 

This is not a question of what I want, or what the guys and girls on Rangerschat want, it's what is necessary for James Traynor to build a meaningful rapport with the fans through ALL of the recognised groups, media outlets like Rangerschat, Seventy Two mag, the major Rangers internet forums etc. etc, perhaps even structured focus groups.

 

Regardless of what you think, and what you say, I am but one of many who are critical of James Traynor. Whilst many others resort to abuse, I do not - and I never will. You may not consider my articles to be reasonable or fair, but most of my readers do, so I'll just have to bear the burden of your rejection.

 

In relation to your Daily Record post above, perhaps you would point out where I have said you/TRS are doing 'Traynor's bidding'. My views about your recent interview with the Record are well documented, so I need not reiterate them here. I have noted your rationale for doing the interview.

Edited August 21, 2013 by JCS

[TheTinMan99 0]

*popcorn gif*

[blue1 0]

Is there not anything going on in the football world? Seems too much chat about RM,FF, and bloggers.