For whom the bell tolls

[Gaffer 1,665]

19 minutes ago, Soulsonic5791 said:

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.

I don't think D'Artagnan's points make sense at all, sorry.

 

And now I'm confused about what money you're interested in.  There has clearly been money spent on the team.  Would you accept that?  There's also been money spent on the stadium.  Would you accept that too?

 

As for you not liking McInnes, i didn't want him either.  The point is however that many fans did, but more importantly the board and the shareholders did so they went for him.  That's what they're supposed to do.  They are supposed to go with the person they think is best, even if we don't think so.  Do you think they're trying to get it wrong?  Would you accept that their motives are correct but haven't executed very well?  I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

And I then go back to the main point.  The players we had on the park should have beat Celtic.  Do you agree?  Had we won that game, would you have posted these points against King or the board?  I doubt it.  What you're doing is so disrespectful to our manager.  He WAS the under 20 coach but he IS now our manager and continuing to refer to him as an under twenty coach is insulting.

 

Finally, I'll ask it again.  Who has the money and inclination to replace King?  He's been pretty vocal that he's only there because no one else could or would.  I don't see a queue of people ready to replace him.  Do you?

[Gaffer 1,665]

15 minutes ago, Frankie said:

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.

I'm hoping we can supplement the existing board with better leaders, or even replace some of those already involved.  I feel we need someone with the strength (gravitas) of King involved in a more hands on role.  He can't obviously so I'd welcome a change there.  Money aside, is there someone we could identify that would make an ideal chairman?  I can't think of anyone but I'd be interested in others' thoughts.

 

My preference is for the board to state quite clearly what the strategy is and some of the key milestones.  I wouldn't even freak out if they said "We are building over the next three years, and that means sticking with Murty and younger players no matter what" because although I may not like it, at least it's a strength of commitment and a vision.

 

I'd also like to see that strength of character coming out of the club in terms of dealing with the detractors (i.e. The media, politicians, etc).  I accept that in the majority of instances it is better to deal with these issues privately and confidentially, however I don't see much if any progress on that front so I'd at least like to see an acknowledgement from the board that there is an issue and that they are dealing with it, even if that is then managed behind closed doors.

[colinstein 294]

just another attack on King for who knows what reason....see Jackson's at it as well in the Record....change the record both in and out of the paper

[Bluedell 5,342]

Just a wee reminder that, for all his faults, King stuck £20m into oldco and had stuck £6.7m into newco as at June last year, and had committed to another £7.2m over this season and next.

[Bluedell 5,342]

32 minutes ago, colinstein said:

just another attack on King for who knows what reason....see Jackson's at it as well in the Record....change the record both in and out of the paper

Jackson has it in for King for some reason, and never hesitates to stick the boot in. It appears to be personal for Jackson.

[Gaffer 1,665]

What I find so strange is that we are so close to beating Celtic for the first time in years and yet we now want to attack the manager, the board and King.  I'm sure everyone associated with Celtic wants us to change direction but surely it's just about tweaking things now.  Why risk it all now?

 

Of course there is merit in always trying to improve on things by making changes, but are we really that far away?  If we are, can someone point it out to me please?

 

Yes, there are ways to improve the board and I don't think many of any would deny that.  I've already mentioned things I'd like to change there.  Yes, there is maybe another manager out there who could advance us a little bit, and of course there are better players out there.  However, with two or three quality additions to the first eleven I'd still be happy to see Murty lead us into next season.

 

I can appreciate we all want success.  I do too, but as I've said previously we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water here.  Isn't this a time for calm heads?  Thankfully the people that are in charge of our club seem to be remaining calm despite the hysteria going on out here.  I just hope they don't lose their heads in the madness.

 

I may disagree with certain decisions or actions (or inaction) coming from the board but I have no reason at all to doubt their motives.  That's more than can be said for certain people who seem to want to cause trouble at this critical time.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Gaffer

[Volbeater 17]

That prick Jackson is trying to sell newspapers. Hope they go under! Utter wank!  

[Uilleam 5,440]

16 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Jackson has it in for King for some reason, and never hesitates to stick the boot in. It appears to be personal for Jackson.

Apparently, King, at a function in Glasgow, gave Jackson his character/short shrift/what for, whatever, and Jackson, who regards himself as no small drink, bridled at this treatment, subsequently taking several opportunities in print to deprecate King and all his works.  His latest jibe is here, for what it is worth:

 

Blame Dave King for Rangers woes not Graeme Murty and Celtic are miles clear because of Ibrox boardroom botches 
Keith Jackson
Keith reckons Rangers are being completely outmuscled by their rivals and it should be the Ibrox chairman who is held accountable.

When their club was dumped on skid row they responded by turning out in record numbers, forking out money hand over fist and embarking on road trips from all points between Peterhead and Palmerston in order to nurse it back to a better place.
Even now they continue to pour in through the turnstiles, selling out Ibrox and filling up away grounds all over the top flight in the hope of being there to witness the great resurrection when it comes.
But there’s a problem with this unflinching loyalty. It may be the greatest strength of the Rangers support but when it’s offered up blindly it can also become their biggest weakness. A critical flaw which leaves them wide open to exploitation.
And God knows they’ve allowed themselves to be exploited over the course of this arduous and at times excruciating journey.
Back at the start when Craig Whyte dispatched a banning order to the Daily Record HQ for warning them about his season-ticket scam – a full six months before it eventually tipped the club into the grubby hands of the administrators – they lauded him like he’d just notched a winner on derby day.
And this pattern has repeated almost ever since. Time and again they have placed their unconditional trust in almost anyone purporting to represent their best interests even when the very opposite ought to have been obvious.
Up until eight days ago a large section appeared to have abandoned logic again in order to convince themselves Graeme Murty might be the man to lead them back to the summit of the Scottish game even though the Under-20s coach boasts almost zero actual credentials for the job.
Some called it Murtymania. Perhaps it was a distant strain of the Rangersitis disease which Charles Green once unleashed on them like a suitcase full of Novichok but, wherever it came from, it caused its victims to become detached from reality.
Yes, Murty has performed stoically during his two stints as night watchman. In fact, he has done better than anyone could have reasonably expected of him. But the very fact he is still holding the fort is an insult to the intelligence of the fans who have given so much to this club throughout these years of unrivalled chaos.
He is no more Rangers manager material than Vladimir Putin is a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize and the back-to-back defeats suffered over the last two weekends should at least help put this notion to bed.
In total Rangers have lost seven league games in one season at Ibrox for the first time in 103 years. Murty has been in charge for five of them.
But there is little point in blaming him for these stats as he’s performing to the best of his abilities. Similarly, there is nothing to be gained in pointing the finger at Pedro Caixinha.
The crux of the matter is, they were only in the job in the first place because chairman Dave King is failing so abjectly in his. Surly, remote, unapproachable, King has the charm, people skills and leadership qualities of a despot but it is time for fans to go against their instincts and hold him to account.
They should ask themselves if they are getting their money’s worth from his board or if they are being shortchanged by a chairman who, having earned their trust, is now abusing it whilst abdicating his own responsibilities? More over, is King now in danger of doing Rangers more harm than good?
There is one school of thought which says having rescued the club and stabilised it King may now be prepared to sell up and move on. That might be a smart move as it would most certainly protect and safeguard his legacy with these Rangers supporters for the rest of time.
There are rumours too of would-be buyers waiting in the wings who might be ready to offer him a way out if or when a new share offer gets off the ground. Although this is proving difficult to substantiate, any suggestion Sir David Murray might be among them can be routinely ignored.
In any case, King’s own intentions are far from clear. If anything, his recent more hands-on, increased-visibility approach points to a man who is digging in for the long haul. But if he really does plan to hang around then he will have to improve upon his own performance or Rangers will be destined for a sustained period of Murtyesque mediocrity.
First his own boardroom needs to be put in some sort of order. There are too many big egos and loud voices for it to function properly and there is also a reluctance to delegate or to give up any sort of meaningful power to any of the hired hands. That’s why in managing director Stewart Robertson they continue to take a knife to a gun fight where Celtic’s chief executive Peter Lawwell is concerned.
It’s a mismatch of huge proportions but this imbalance is reflected down the spine of both clubs. From the boardroom to the dugout Celtic are winning the battles hands down. And King has played a huge part in this.
When Dermot Desmond needed a new boss he reached for his cheque book and delivered Rodgers for £2.4million a year. The rest of the time Celtic’s majority shareholder lets Lawwell rule the roost.
If King can’t match that kind of spending power then he should at least appoint a chief executive and properly empower him to run his club without constant meddling from above. After all it was King’s interference in the attempt to appoint Derek McInnes which led to that operation being botched.
Somehow he managed to talk McInnes out of accepting the job he has coveted more than any other since swapping his boots for a manager’s jacket. Again, this was celebrated as a good thing by large sections of the Rangers support but how will they feel at the end of the season if Aberdeen’s boss secures second place and maybe also ends up with the Scottish Cup?
If that would be deemed good enough for Murty to land the job permanently surely the same logic would have to be applied to McInnes. If he was the one outstanding candidate to replace Caixinha then his credentials would surely only be cemented by such a strong finish to the campaign.
And yet curiously there remains a hard core of Rangers fans who refuse to believe he’d be up to the job. Perhaps they too are prone to putting their trust in all the wrong places.

 

I have little time for Jackson, but he does raise an interesting point about rasellik: 

 

"When Dermot Desmond needed a new boss he reached for his cheque book and delivered Rodgers for £2.4million a year."

 

I wonder (I don't, really) if Jackson knows what he has written, implying that Brenda's emolument is "off the balance sheet", and ignoring the implications of that. 

 

 

 

[forlanssister 3,050]

1 hour ago, colinstein said:

just another attack on King for who knows what reason....see Jackson's at it as well in the Record....change the record both in and out of the paper

I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised if it were revealed Jackson had been dining on succulent lamb.

[forlanssister 3,050]

1 hour ago, Gaffer said:

I'm hoping we can supplement the existing board with better leaders, or even replace some of those already involved.  I feel we need someone with the strength (gravitas) of King involved in a more hands on role.  He can't obviously so I'd welcome a change there.  Money aside, is there someone we could identify that would make an ideal chairman?  I can't think of anyone but I'd be interested in others' thoughts.

 

My preference is for the board to state quite clearly what the strategy is and some of the key milestones.  I wouldn't even freak out if they said "We are building over the next three years, and that means sticking with Murty and younger players no matter what" because although I may not like it, at least it's a strength of commitment and a vision.

 

I'd also like to see that strength of character coming out of the club in terms of dealing with the detractors (i.e. The media, politicians, etc).  I accept that in the majority of instances it is better to deal with these issues privately and confidentially, however I don't see much if any progress on that front so I'd at least like to see an acknowledgement from the board that there is an issue and that they are dealing with it, even if that is then managed behind closed doors.

We need a heavyweight Chairman from either the business world or from politics.

 

The Board will not appoint Murty permanently that should be clear for everyone to see.

 

It will require a change of Boardroom personnel before we start dealing with our detractors as at present they won't adequately fund a proper PR strategy to do so.