Why the Board Lack Credibility

[andy steel 0]

In response to a number of threads which kinda veer into polarised positions, I'd like to set out why I think the running of our club is in the wrong hands at present.

 

I avoid calling them 'the board' because it's hard to remember who is actually on which board at the moment, who is responsible for what and who gets to lock the safe, so to speak. That in itself is a criticism of those at the top & I haven't even started!

 

The two people who are most often seen & heard as our main people are Sandy Easdale & Graham Wallace. To begin with Mr Easdale: he's had a struggle to be accepted, since he came with baggage.

 

I would be the last person to insist that to be a Rangers fan or official you need to sign up to the whole manifesto of beliefs. But when it comes to blazers, I do feel that 'not having been to jail to VAT fraud' is a broadly non-controversial opening qualification. This raises the philosophical debate about whether jail is for punishment or rehabilitation: as a lapsed socialist I see it more as the first than the second, since those who are there tend to have harmed society and, bluntly, society deserves to get a kick back.

 

Even, however, if you lean toward rehabilitation, does Mr Easdale strike you as rehabilitated? The world of West Scotland's bus garages may not sound like the sort of place to find Sonny Corleone tied to a chair, but neither is it a clear, visible symbol of someone having learnt a hard lesson and overtly trying to do better. You could liken it to a pimp who is jailed, does his time and buys a strip club; not criminal, but not much use in persuading folk you are a reformed character.

 

All this is speculation and could - who knows? - be most unfair on Mr Easdale. Nevertheless image counts and his image, which is now tied to our club, is not a good one. Coming with such baggage, he would have had a hard fight to get some fans, maybe puritan ones, onside in any event, but he has decided that steady, unobtrusive work with tangible results is not the way to go and plumped for issuing legal threats to fans, questioning the loyalty of fans, and blaming fans for the club's problems.

 

Whether you agree with the man that he was being impugned unfairly, threatening Rangers fans while ignoring the libelous attacks of fans' of every other team in Scotland is, bluntly, an insane policy if the aim is to promote yourself as a trustworthy figure. The lack of the ability to think a situation through and deal with it is dismaying; when the UoF or Sos were at Murray Park last week for a photo-opportunity it showed how anyone with any sense ought to have dealt with it.

 

His remarkable access to ST sales figures and the financial status of a plc of which he is not a board member could, you might argue, point to a searingly sharp analytical business mind. Graham Wallace certainly made it clear that Mr Easdale was speaking in a personal capacity as shareholder last Thursday; I wonder if every shareholder, should they chap Mr Wallace's door, would receive such detailed information as Mr Easdale apparently gets?

 

Mr Wallace, Mr Wallace. His deflection of Mr Easdale's blatant presence as eminence grise didn't do much for his credibility either, which was a shame because he at least of all the players who have high-kicked their way across our stage in the last two seasons seemed to come without baggage and with, it seemed, the tools to get the job done. He didn't have to lay out his credentials, they were there to see. However, trying to sell the most obvious of nutmegs over Mr Easdale's position did not leave him looking very sharp and counts against him.

 

If it has been disappointing to see him bullshit us over Mr Easdale's interview. It has been doubly disappointing to find out, a day after the event, that far from Rangers credit facility being withdrawn due to the actions of fans or agitators, it was withdrawn because credit companies see us as a bad risk. I'd urge you to consider for a moment that credit firms - the leeches, the parasites, who cause so much suffering by lobbing bales of cash at people in no state to repay them - even these people don't want to touch us. This is not, in my book, an achievement which goes down in Mr Wallace's 'debit' account and, although it cannot be exclusively laid at his door as 'his fault', his dealing with it has been pitiful and serves only to erode both trust and credibility.

 

His legal case seems a little vindictive; frankly there are deals and tranches of missing money more deserving of investigation. I think Mr Wallace dealt well with the media following the 139 Day Fantasy press conference last Friday, and in an ideal world he could probably do the decent job we all hoped he would. But you have to assume he sanctioned or was at least asked about hiring Paul Tyrell a day before he announced job losses; on the one hand we know we have to cut costs, on the other cutting them to pay someone to defend he and the rest of The Keystone Kops seems grotesque. You have to assume he is going to take a bonus unless more pressure is brought to bear, since he declined to answer questions on the subject and that seems grotesque; you have to assume he was aware that it was not fan issues which led to the credit situation described above but decided to blame them anyway.

 

That's a lot of assuming, but since Mr Wallace won't answer the questions what else can I do but assume?

 

So my view of the 'current lot' is one person with a dreadful reputation and image who constantly engages in battle with the people he then asks for money and trust from; and another person who is either massively out of his depth or finds clarity and transparence subtle concepts to be moulded as needed. Neither inspire any confidence in me, not because I desire Dave King and his millions to bail us out, nor because I have a reflex condition which means anyone in office is immediately a crook.

 

There's no doubt we're heading for complete division as a fan base between those who back the board (beyond belief in my view but it's a free country) and those who perceive that the malaise lies at the boardroom door(s) and until they are cleaned out we're going nowhere. As a lonely handwringer these many years I am not especially freaked about splits in the support: but it's going to be sad to see nonetheless. Anyhoo, that's how things look from here.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Ultimately what you need to pay attention is who the major shareholders are at the club. Until they change this situation will not improve.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Good read Andy, i especially enjoy any article with a spice of humour.

[andy steel 0]

Ultimately what you need to pay attention is who the major shareholders are at the club. Until they change this situation will not improve.

 

True, yet the situation can be altered to provide both a return for major shareholders and a stable, progressive future for the club. Of course, if we knew who the major shareholders actually were we could gauge their intentions far more accurately, but on the assumption that they are institutional leeches we can present them with two choices: carry on as you have been and watch your investment dwindle to nothing, or hand over the running of Rangers to actual Rangers supporters (what a novel concept!) and see a return.

 

The more pressure that is brought to bear on Krusty & Sideshow Bob the sooner scenario 2 can happen.