For whom the bell tolls

[Gonzo79 15,236]

5 hours ago, Franc Ergs said:

Club deck rear ?

No, it was the Copland Nutter.

[D'Artagnan 173]

7 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

I see your post has gone down well on RM.  ?

Yes - Im worse than a paid errand boy over there & a serial board attacker over here.

 

You have to love blogging.

[Bluedell 5,607]

3 hours ago, Gaffer said:

On a separate note, I just read through all the posts and someone implied that the original post came from someone inside Club 1872.  Is that correct?

Ex-board member.

[rbr 1,256]

5 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I'll go back to a previously asked question then.  Who would you have replace King and the others then?  I don't remember a queue of likely suitors when we were in trouble.

 

As for your point about "it's no wonder we lurch from one disaster to another" ..... your hysteria has reached new heights.  We've gone from a defeat by Celtic (which was the players' fault), to it being the board's fault, and now apparently it's my fault.  

I dont want all the others replaced , but I certainly want King gone , as for hsysteria , we have the worst home record in over 100 years and an U 20s coach in charge because the current board cannot agree or rather would not agree with the D of F ,s choices and were told that McInnes was the only choice , and look how that would have turned out , the vast majority wouldnt touch him now .

 

I am not blaming you for anything , but this summer will be rebuild no 5 , the 3rd under this current board.

 

As for the players fault being the reason for the celtic defeat , the manager must take some of the blame , his substitutions are way way way too late to change things , point infact , against Killie when he had Morelos warming up , Steve Clark immediately called 2 subs over and changed his team before Morelos could get on , its small things that change games .

 

Last point , in no way am I criticizing a thoroughly decent guy in GM , its the board im aiming at .

[aweebluesoandso 290]

What are we charging Dave King here with? He's already been dealt with the COS for working in concert with others to take control of Rangers.  Are people really complaining that the takeover rules weren't followed 100%, to remove the malevolent wreckers who were in previous control of the club?

 

Personally i think the vast majority of supporters don't give two Monkey's about that, yes they do keep one eye on the board, you just have to read on this very forum the concern about the fact this board do the See no evil, Hear no evil, and Speak no evil routine far to regularly, to the dismay of the Bears.

 

If there is something else going on or in the pipeline let's hear it?

[Gaffer 1,665]

1 minute ago, rbr said:

I dont want all the others replaced , but I certainly want King gone , as for hsysteria , we have the worst home record in over 100 years and an U 20s coach in charge because the current board cannot agree or rather would not agree with the D of F ,s choices and were told that McInnes was the only choice , and look how that would have turned out , the vast majority wouldnt touch him now .

 

I am not blaming you for anything , but this summer will be rebuild no 5 , the 3rd under this current board.

 

As for the players fault being the reason for the celtic defeat , the manager must take some of the blame , his substitutions are way way way too late to change things , point infact , against Killie when he had Morelos warming up , Steve Clark immediately called 2 subs over and changed his team before Morelos could get on , its small things that change games .

 

Last point , in no way am I criticizing a thoroughly decent guy in GM , its the board im aiming at .

I completely understand the frustration.  I feel it too.  I'm just trying to bring a degree of perspective to this though.  Murty has done really well and was (and maybe still is) within touching distance of being a hero.  I also agree that he could and should have made subs earlier, or even different ones, however there can Ben no doubt, surely, that the team on the park that day should have beaten Celtic.

 

All I'm saying is that had we won that game, we would not have had this reaction.  As I've said many times before, I won't blindly defend anyone, but it seems bizarre that it's now suddenly the board's fault.  And even if you thought it was, King is a non executive director.  Shouldn't the criticism be aimed at those in executive positions?  I do not have the inside 'knowledge' that some others claim to have, but equally I don't blindly believe most of that either.  I am however seriously questioning the motives of some people who appear mainly when there is an opportunity to attack our players, our manager, our board, and our club.

 

As for King, my disappointment in him is that he doesn't appear to be able to spend time on our club.  I know he's been up front about that and that's he's only stepped in because no one else did,  I'd still like a more hands on chairman.  King seems to get things done when he's here but that's not very often.  I'm also pretty sure from what I've heard that he'd welcome a real supporter with real money to take over from him.  The problem is that the length of that queue is the square root of zero.  That's why I ask the question .... who could take over?  Who would the chairman be and who would the replacement shareholder be?

[Gaffer 1,665]

I had asked in an earlier post if the OP is a representative of Club 1872.  Can anyone (or indeed D'Artagnan) confirm?  I only ask because I read something that seemed to imply this.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

6 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I had asked in an earlier post if the OP is a representative of Club 1872.  Can anyone (or indeed D'Artagnan) confirm?  I only ask because I read something that seemed to imply this.

Gaffer it's been pointed out further up on the thread, D'art was a full board member of C1872, who then resigned from that position after a few months.

[Soulsonic5791 408]

There's no hysteria on my part on the back of two bad results. I have been watching the management of the club with a keen eye for decades, and D'Artagnan raises some valid points with regard to our chairman. We have been told on several occasions that money has been spent on infrastructure. This may well be the case and visually evident in areas of the club's operations that the average fan has zero access to. Having said that, other than scaffolding being present on the roof of the Govan Stand, some bunting, turnstile faceplates and a change of paint colour in the dressing rooms, I see very little evidence of this supposed sizeable capital expenditure. I'm not being churlish here. The back of the Copland doesn't even get lit up sufficiently on a midweek match night! Please feel free to educate me on this if I'm way wide of the mark. I genuinely want to be informed of outlay demonstrables.

But back to King and Co. The way that they (the board) courted McInnes regardless of lots of us not really fancying him, was an embarrassment. This was on the back of the drawn out farce of recruiting Pedro and all that subsequently ensued during his disastrous tenure. To then compound those errors by giving the job to an u20s coach smacks of either discord at the top or amateur management; at least on the face of it. But we all know that these guys in their other business interests can hardly be classed as amateurs. King is the chairman and by extension the club's figurehead. As such, the support naturally looks to him to provide leadership. Okay, Stewart Robertson makes the odd appearance in delegated matters, but for important issues King takes charge and we hardly look to Douglas Park or his son for leadership do we?

And just for the record for anyone that's interested - I'm no Merlin stooge or acolyte.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Soulsonic5791

[Frankie 8,552]

In addition to Bluedell's post earlier in the thread, I guess there's the chance board members (or indeed the chairman) may well be replaced at some point over the course of the next share issue (or two).

 

In the meantime, it would be folly not to pay close attention to the good and bad points of the incumbents.  Yes, that has to be done under the proviso there's not really anyone else putting themselves or their wealth forward but that shouldn't veto any valid criticism either.