Rangers 2017

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Forget Hollywood tripe.

 

The Club issued statements. Either Board members agreed with them or not. If they did not, if they contained lies, they should have acted properly.

If they disagreed with the lies, and said nothing, then they assume responsibility for the lies. In other words, they too are liars. Therefore, we may trust no one on the Board, even those who are leaking "the truth", to their friends, acquaintances, relatives, and 'football writers'.

 

Yes but were the board actively looking to punt Warburton or were board members?

 

We know Warburton wanted to leave but why? Did he feel undermined not wanted or did he just want out?

 

The Mcleish stories who was pushing for that? As soon as MW was gone he was hotly tipped. Almost rightaway. Had discussions already taken place? In fact if rumours are to be believed Mcleish and Rae til the end of the season was a done deal. Then all of a sudden, Murty is the man.

 

So while I don't doubt the basic statement our board made is true the goings on and the events surrounding it would tell a much broader story than what we've been told.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thing is all the people ''in the know'' whether true or not have an advantage over the rest of us fans so it is very frustrating for the rest of us without substantiated evidence of such matters!, I suppose it must be equally frustrating for the ''in the know'' guys?, however posting cryptic messages and then expecting the rest of us to believe them is asking a bit much!.

As for the current board yes they are having problems, however I believe they have Rangers best interests at heart. We could do with a couple of big hitters on the board for sure.

We have all heard a rumour of the fresh investment, possibly March?, then we can only wait to see if that materialises!.

 

Are King and Park not supposed to be the big hitters?

 

Is part of the problem that they are at loggerheads over funding etc?

[Uilleam 5,928]

It seems, to me, that the writing was on the wall for Warburton & Co. Performances, and results, were piss poor; acquisitions did not deliver;

Who knows whether he was tipped the wink by the Board? I doubt that such was necessary.

 

McLeish and Rae? Well King and the Board are damned if they didn't speak to potential successors, and, equally, damned if they did.

 

We are told that certain Board members are unhappy, that the Board is divided, that there are issues with the departure of Warburton, yet none of the apparent stand up guys are prepared to stand up. They prefer, it seems, to deal in rumour and innuendo, nods, winks, and taps of the nose, to those, and such as those. The unwillingness to speak truth renders them complicit in any of the malfeasance, which their whispering purports to condemn.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Agree with both of you. I would only really post something of ITK status if it was generally my view based on putting 2 and 2 together anyway and then I get a 'titbit' usually because i have steered a conversation a particular way to verify my opinion. My ITK stuff is not at the the level of the Russian secret service however. In the end we all put 2 and 2 together based on what we think is reliable evidence and we don't do it in isolation. For example rbr (who i do not know) posted something which I recognised as having truth and from completely different sources I would guess (it certainly isn't from Celtic bloggers btw). So I thought it was worth adding to that based on whatt I understand. In the interests of integrity and credibility of the gersnet board it would always be wise not to draw too many conclusions from people like me and outside formal comms from the club. But then if I have something that i think fans who invest their time and money should know it is difficult to say nothing. At the end of the day I am just another anonymous internet being but I hope my posts at least show I'm a Rangers fan and want the club to succeed. That's all I hope to be recognised but rangers fans have generally been to unquestioning in the past and it didn't help.

 

With respect to Ulis comment re what was shambolic about warburtons 'resignation' I can only respond by saying I have never seen any Rangers manager moved on or moving with such public disagreement about what actually happened. It does not seem clear cut. Resignation is a pretty straightforward process normally. Right now we are skint and we are paying for a manager and team who are not working whilst we have no effective leadership of the first team squad at a critical part of the season and we are behaving in a reactive mode rather than dictating the direction.. That's what's shambolic. Whatever the facts turn out to be in the end the board and chairman are accountable to the shareholders and fans for everything and the way the whole club is managed and that includes giving the right perception of the club to the public and projecting the best image possible. I don't think that has happened here.

 

Surely if Rangers say he resigned we are not paying him any more?

 

Or do you mean we are paying the price for said manager

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It looked (and looks) to this observer that MWs departure was almost a fait accomplit presented by his man to the CEO/Board, and the Club, therefore had to react. As I said, it was not a clean offer, but was circumscribed by financial conditions, to which the Club, also, had to react. That the Club did not have a new man in place was surely determined by the fact that the resignation was unanticipated. It would have been, in my view, close to ludicrous to retain Warburton & Co as management, after the resignation.

The outcome is less than optimal, and perhaps the Board should have installed a manager, pro tem, but that is easier said than done, quite frankly, as, if it was not to be an audition for the Big Picture, it would have to be a favour; given the circumstance, and the possibility of reputational damage a pretty big favour, at that.

 

The description "shambles" is one I have heard bandied about on many, many occasions over the years, mostly inaccurately, lazily, and based on little analysis. It's a great shorthand for a situation you don't like, or which is not covered in the textbook.

 

Again, I would say that if Board members are unhappy, let them say so, publicly, telling the truth and shaming the devil, rather than pee heeing with 'football writers', pals, or second cousins twice removed, powering the rumour factory, and, I may say, making themselves look like school lassies, and young ones at that.

 

I'll go with most of what you say but don't understand how you can assert as "fact that the resignation was unanticipated" given that the Chairman sated that he was aware that the manager had been in discussions elsewhere, did he not?

[pete 2,499]

I'll go with most of what you say but don't understand how you can assert as "fact that the resignation was unanticipated" given that the Chairman sated that he was aware that the manager had been in discussions elsewhere, did he not?

 

Nottingham must have asked Rangers for permission to speak to Warburton so the board must have known he was in talks with them.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It seems, to me, that the writing was on the wall for Warburton & Co. Performances, and results, were piss poor; acquisitions did not deliver;

Who knows whether he was tipped the wink by the Board? I doubt that such was necessary.

 

McLeish and Rae? Well King and the Board are damned if they didn't speak to potential successors, and, equally, damned if they did.

 

We are told that certain Board members are unhappy, that the Board is divided, that there are issues with the departure of Warburton, yet none of the apparent stand up guys are prepared to stand up. They prefer, it seems, to deal in rumour and innuendo, nods, winks, and taps of the nose, to those, and such as those. The unwillingness to speak truth renders them complicit in any of the malfeasance, which their whispering purports to condemn.

 

I am sure that if there is disagreement and there is enough ITK evidence to support this contention, then the problem that the dissidents will have is the doctrine of collective responsibility. For the uninitiated this means that as a member of a Board you not only have to accept the decisions of the majority but you must maintain the confidentiality of these discussions and any public pronouncements you make must support the agreed position; or else you must resign. The classic example is that of the resignation of Michael Heseltine over the Westland Affair in 1986.

 

The difficulty for the dissidents whoever they are on Rangers Board is that if they wish to be in a position to influence future events then they either need to buy out the other side, thus diminishing their ability to invest in a future share issue for the benefit of the Club; or else keep their silence for the time being (and use their friends in the media etc to leak their version of events). If they break ranks now then it becomes all out war again and frankly no one will benefit from that.

 

So someone needs to lock them all in a room and tell them they are not getting any food or water till they agree on a new manager, funding and produce the so far mythical Plan for the Future of Rangers Football Club.

Edited February 25, 2017 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Nottingham must have asked Rangers for permission to speak to Warburton so the board must have known he was in talks with them.

 

Yes, if it was done above board; but it may just have been their agent flying a kite.

[Uilleam 5,928]

I'll go with most of what you say but don't understand how you can assert as "fact that the resignation was unanticipated" given that the Chairman sated that he was aware that the manager had been in discussions elsewhere, did he not?

 

 

OK. But how many "discussions" come to fruition? How many in the fraught and fabulous football world do not end in "mutual agreement"? (Straight sackings, I suppose.) I think that it happened quickly and left the Club on the back foot. I think also the speed with which circumstances seem to have changed suited Warburton & Co, rather than the Club.

 

As Harold MacMillan said, "Events, dear boy, events."

[forlanssister 3,110]

My biggest issue with MWs removal , is the way it was engineered , this will eventually come out ( unless there is a deal that suits MW and the other 2 and they sign a non disclosure ) , because the club took advantage of something that was partly of their doing without having fully discussed the "what next " bit , you know the important bit after the old regime has gone , but they had nothing , they were so hell bent on getting rid of them now that they rushed it and now we are in the shambolic situation of certain board members barely talking to each other .

 

Any board of any club has the right to run that club in the best way they see fit , our board are a million miles away from that situation , and God only knows how they will get non exec directors to take up a post , something we badly badly need .

 

I assume you mean independent non-executive directors if so then I concur. I'd certainly like to see a couple of strong independent non-executive directors on the Board and not necessarily Rangers fans either as we need them to have the ability to say no if the rest let their hearts rule their heads. However as King pointed out rightly (whatever your opinion of him) that as desirable as that is it's simply not possible until some legacy issues have been addressed namely in this instance the Directors liability insurance problem which means we don't carry any Directors liability insurance due to Charles Green writing into his own contract that he had to be insured for a period (5 years or so iirc) on the same basis as any current Director. The current Directors are taking quite a personal risk operating without such cover in place more so given the various court cases, unfortunately I don't think it's possible to ask any potential independent non-executive director to do likewise.