Frankie 8,187 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) Today on the Gersnet main site, @AMcKellar89 & @TheBigBlueBear6 review the Rangers board's performance just under two years after regime change: The Extraordinary General Meeting of 2015 was undoubtedly a turning point in Rangers history as Dave King, Douglas Park & Co wrestled control from the parasitic regime that had brought our club to its knees and turned our institution into no more than a glorified outlet for Sports Direct. Supporters heralded the beginning of a bright new chapter and the first steps on our ‘irreversible’ road back to the top of Scottish football as the Rangers men in the Blue Room began their attempts to restore our club to its former glory. The fans rallied behind the new regime and, as ever, ploughed our hard-earned cash into the coffers to fund the rebuild that was needed firstly to achieve promotion to the Premiership and secondly to challenge Celtic for the title. But trust has to be earned and maintained. No board at Rangers Football Club should ever again be afforded the luxury of blind faith regardless of who they are or what they have achieved. So almost two years on from their ascent to power I think it is more than reasonable to revisit some of the promises made and evaluate the performance of the current custodians in that time. More here: http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/744-two-years-on-appraising-the-rangers-board Edited February 27, 2017 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,302 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Interesting summary, but yet again it simply is another article questioning the board's and/or King's ability from an outside position with not that many news or info levelled at them. Much like today's babble by Jackson or Bell's timely revelations, it comes at a rather inopportune moment for the board and the club, and thus will sure see, like the aformentioned articles, much handclapping and ovations. Yet, we all know how complex the topic is and, essentially, had the team not forgottoen how to score goals, this whole debate would be very secondary. Football is a success-driven business, and not more so than at Rangers FC (and at times "no matter what"). And when success is hard to come by, the search for victims and culprits takes on new, or rather different dimensions. A minefield for all parties concerned and IMHO one of the worst illnesses of this day and age. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,187 Posted February 27, 2017 Author Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) Interesting summary, but yet again it simply is another article questioning the board's and/or King's ability from an outside position with not that many news or info levelled at them. Much like today's babble by Jackson or Bell's timely revelations, it comes at a rather inopportune moment for the board and the club, and thus will sure see, like the aformentioned articles, much handclapping and ovations. Yet, we all know how complex the topic is and, essentially, had the team not forgottoen how to score goals, this whole debate would be very secondary. Football is a success-driven business, and not more so than at Rangers FC (and at times "no matter what"). And when success is hard to come by, the search for victims and culprits takes on new, or rather different dimensions. A minefield for all parties concerned and IMHO one of the worst illnesses of this day and age. The point about our analysis coming from an outside position is of course correct. But, that is the point in many ways i.e. we need more information and leadership in order to maintain our support. Listen, what Kingco has done over the last two years shouldn't be under-stated. We have a lot to thank them for. However, that doesn't give them a free pass now or ever and if progress is poor, then we have to say so. Ifs and buts just don't cut it I'm afraid. Edited February 27, 2017 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,357 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Not much to argue with in the article. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,357 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 it comes at a rather inopportune moment for the board and the club, Murray, Whyte, Green..... There is no inopportune moment to assess the performance of the board. Have we learned nothing during the past 20 years? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) I'll leave the financial and fiscal commentary to those who know about those things, so purely from a supporters need. I think they have been pretty poor defending the club and the support against lies and smears from the mhedia, different attitude though when it's one of the board being attacked or smeared. Edited February 27, 2017 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,878 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) I think its unlikely that the Board will step aside and give someone else a shot, so its therefore vital that we look to the incumbents to show ckear leadership and vision - a point very well made by the OPs. Amongst other things, in my view, we must: - strengthen the Board with an independent director and reconsider the fans voice on the Board - we need checks and balances in the Boardroom. I could live without a fan rep on the board in the short term, but an independent non-exec is vital. - strengthen the executive team - agree completely we need a strong FD, but also there's just far too many plates for Robertson to spin - we need a clear set of delegated authorities for the executive to work within - the fact that every key decision requires King's sign-off may be not be unreasonable, but we simply have to to look at the decision making process so that it is proactive and efficient - if that means delegating more to the executive, or have some sort of proxy sub-board that can step in at short notice if King isn't available, so be it. - the value of transparency needs to be upheld - the final days of the Warburton saga are as clear as mud. Its taking the Michael of the support not to clear this up and resolve things in a professional manner Edited February 27, 2017 by stewarty 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,187 Posted February 27, 2017 Author Share Posted February 27, 2017 Agreed Stewarty... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 We need less transparency not more. We cannot accept reality as a fan base and our support unlike other teams crosses classes giving our support vast differences in perspective . This week I have heard we spent to little, we spent to much, we don't want a DoF we do want a DoF. we can't get a large majority agreement on the main infrastructure let alone the specifics. All our support does is cause trouble and argue. Doesn't matter what the board do we will have large disagreement across swaths of the support not just little pockets here and there. Our fans are a problem not a solution when it comes to direction. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) Re non-exec. Directors, this post from forlassister on another thread may have a bearing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Edited February 27, 2017 by chilledbear 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.