Problems at Ibrox....

[Darthter 542]

13 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

3 poor managers, zero scouting network, rubbish leadership on and off the park, the constant stupid club statements, lack of defending fans and players, low quality recruitment, no footballing philosophy that is matched by playing staff, TOP distractions, not listening to fans (customers) re  scum at Broomloan, 26k a week for a Mexican alcoholic, watching opponents spit on  and wipe snorters on crests and humiliate our name, etc etc. I could go on and on but all of the above happening at the same time across a club IS the board’s problem and whilst in their defence they have been fire fighting Ashley they have not shown the aptitude and organisation to lead our club overall. The AGMs are non events, the supposed strategy is clouded in mystery, the contribution of AJ is vague, the performance of Robertson is abysmal, the PR is garbage and they can hardly get RTV to stream properly. 

 

If a company produces a rubbish product you may you may be able to point to an employee issue or a supplier issue or a production line issue on occasions and fix it but if the problem is constant and widespread it is the Board's problem. If you are constantly humiliated by your biggest competitor and arch enemy it is the Board’s problem. 

 

Some steps have been taken re DoF and his role and legacy contracts but it’s simply not enough. They have a scapegoat in Murty and that is another shameful piece of hiding and deflection from them. 

worth noting, that since our demotion we have also had multiple Board "configurations" & members...yet the same problems exist.  (Yes, I know about the problems with Green etc, which didn't help).

 

A fair number of the points/failures you raise are completely irrelevant to the actual running of the club & the performance on the pitch.

- The Board have never knowingly employed a poor manager, we only know that they were poor through hindsight.

- The Board are not responsible for player recruitment - that's the managers job.  Yes, they will sign off the contract, but only based on information from the manager

 

What happens if we change the Board....what immediate effects are we going to see??  It is simply NOT practical or possible to completely clear the decks - it would bankrupt us.

 

If a company is producing a product, how many times do they replace the workforce or machinery before they realise that it's not the people or tools that are the problem, but the overall procedures or work ethic.  That IS the Boards responsibility (as I have stated previously).  It is up to the board to identify the root issues within the club & fix them.  So far I feel they have been addressing the symptoms rather than the cause.

You also have to separate what is important to the fans, and what is important to the actual running of the club - shouting loudly about every misdemeanour committed by other clubs won't help the teams performance on the pitch.  Also throw in that our own fans are happy to pick apart & slaughter our OWN club statements then, the Board simply can't win.

 

Blaming the Board is (IMHO) the easy way out for fans....the biggest question there is who replaces them???

[Darthter 542]

3 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Regarding Murty ...

 

The truly bad thing is that even before the Ibrox OF game we were questioning the line-up's of Murty, despite him getting results.

Using hindsight and conjecture, one might say that he simply didn't trust Cardoso and/or Alves as centre-halfs, when both were sure better footballers than the likes of Wilson, Bates, or indeed Martin. What neither of the Portuguese were used to where a) the aggressive nature of the Scottish game and b) the way they were left exposed by the fullbacks. We hardly addressed that up until McCrorie came in as sweeper in front of the defence. Losing Jack as the destroyer in midfield was really bad too.
Goss, a youngster, had probably one or two bad games and was instantly dropped. The one chap who's passes could split a defence. Very peduliar man-management.
Docherty was brought in as a "replacement"(?) for Holt, when the latter had been mis-used as a DM rather than the right-sided attacking MF that he is. (I saw more activity, application and creativity from Holt in these last two games than in Windass ever since his OF goal at Ibrox).
Dorrans was good enough at the start of the season, but has hardly shown anything to validate a starting slot after his return. Which again probably has to do that he is mis-used as a DM. But Murty picks him time and again.
Windass is almost ever present with Murty's teams and while he scored a hatful of goals mostly presented to him by his fellow hard working players, he's simply an empty jersey for long spells, instead of taking responsibility required for a No. 10 slot.

One striker ... utterly bizarre, given the packed defences we play against. Waste of Morelos and Cummings.

All the above was sure questioned by Nicholl et al, Miller and Wallace. I don't think it is far from the truth in saying that Murty was having none of it though and was doing his own stuff, no matter what. Hence Nicholl casting an isolated figure and the players, apparently affected by that scenario, can't get their act together.

Change the names, and pretty much EVERY point mentioned has been evident for the past 5-6 years.....

[buster. 4,808]

36 minutes ago, pete said:

I have just looked at our Director of Football's past and seemingly he has never played at senior level but has been a business man for most of his working life. He was well liked as Academy director but i would think that is mostly a business role.

The worrying thing is that Murty keeps telling us that he and Allen have been working on players for next season. I really worry the whole rangers set-up looks like the blind leading the blind.

I think the board sometimes try to placate the support thinking o the VERY short-term rather than properly run a business thinking at least a couple of years down the line.

 

This should have been about building something rather than the annual look for an expensive, veteren and immediate fix.

 

If the board had done what I think they should have with regard to giving manager and public realistic expectation levels then they wouldn't have been popular but they may have been doing something right. What is evident is that the cut-price immediate fix route doesn't work and leaves a trail of expensive but unproductive  contracts to pay.

 

 

[Darthter 542]

56 minutes ago, pete said:

I have just looked at our Director of Football's past and seemingly he has never played at senior level but has been a business man for most of his working life. He was well liked as Academy director but i would think that is mostly a business role.

The worrying thing is that Murty keeps telling us that he and Allen have been working on players for next season. I really worry the whole rangers set-up looks like the blind leading the blind.

To me, that's irrelevant.  The DoF is there to essentially bridge the gap between football & business - a foot in both camps.

A sound understanding of footballing principals etc is ll that is required.  He then relies on the various dept heads to provide the specific technical info/analysis required.

[Walterbear 557]

The point is not to suggest a replacement for the Board. I cannot do that and ultimately they control even that aspect.

 

The point is to demonstrate their failings and let them know about it. I’m sorry but a poor quality product is ultimately their responsibility. If a major reason for the poor product has been systemic poor recruitment and/ora poor work ethic and poor process and tools they can address that in a number of ways but they have to take accountability. This Board has put a sitting duck in place and remained silent. This Board has recruited (or not recruited) poorly. No one is suggesting it has been intentional but it is a fact that they have.

 

This Board has squandered money and ultimately a poor product leads to the behaviour of others rubbing our faces in it. That affects our brand and image,  it affects the atmosphere around the club and diminishes our status. That may in turn affect a generation of fans who may not support us which in turn will further affect an already dire product. If we had a good product now we would not be getting humiliated by the antics of others. There must definitely us a relationship with issues I mentioned and the product. I could have doubled the list of issues and others could have too. 

 

If our club make a laughing stock of themselves through stupid statements they deserve to be panned and that also affects our brand, image and attractiveness for recruitment and investment. That in turn affects the product. If we were doing better in the pitch then many of these statements wouldn’t be needed because they seem to be fob offs after poor results. 

 

If we cant improve RTV for example then income and advertising is affected. 

 

You suggest there is something in the way processes and culture operate at Auchenhowie. You may be partially correct I don’t know. Everyone who has worked there across a number of appointments however talks in glowing terms of the facility and how it operates. So contrary to your view that the tools are poor and they need replaced or improved, I would suggest that they do of course constantly need upgraded but the evidence is we don’t have the capability and people to use the tools properly. If the problem has been systemic in terms of tools, processes and people then it should have been identified and fixed by now. 

 

We’re not even even talking about a major company here. It is an SME in its assets, number of employees, finances, operating complexity, organisational structure, customer base. The Board should be on top of this especially if the product is garbage. 

 

Investment is needed and all the other things need fixed PDQ and the question in the first instance is whether we think the Board can deliver? I would say a substantial number of fans seriously doubt they can. That doesn’t mean people have not put money in. They need to prove they can put sufficient funds in but also fix and manage the constant shambles off the pitch which ultimately affects the product on it. 

[Rousseau 9,390]

1 hour ago, pete said:

I have just looked at our Director of Football's past and seemingly he has never played at senior level but has been a business man for most of his working life. He was well liked as Academy director but i would think that is mostly a business role.

The worrying thing is that Murty keeps telling us that he and Allen have been working on players for next season. I really worry the whole rangers set-up looks like the blind leading the blind.

Of course he's not got a 'footballing' background; otherwise you get a Levein situation at Hearts, interferring all the time.

 

He doesn't actually scout players: the scouts scout the players. The DoF sets the strategy, of the player profiles etc.  

[compo 6,154]

When did we last have a day without some kind of a problem at the club to many chiefs and not enough Indians. 

[rbr 1,247]

5 hours ago, Darthter said:

but it was a "relative" shoe-string budget.  If memory serves did we not have a transfer ban in place at the time as well???  he was VERY restricted in who he could bring in due to being in the bottom tier.

Mate he was paying Ian Black 7 grand a week in Div 3 , look back and see who he signed , the majority were past it or were paid way over the top .

[Walterbear 557]

Agree. Lots of folk who have put time and money in and lots of consensus mgt needed. I had assumed MD would lead but don’t see it. Parks in fact has been bought in to oversee investment strategy whatever it is. 

[Unicorn 206]

5 hours ago, rbr said:

Can't believe anyone thinks McCoist had to build a team from scratch on a shoe string budget , he authorised contracts to players such as Sandaza and Black at £7000 a week each ( oh and we had been offered them 3 weeks prior for £1500 a week , before they both changed agents ) , this at a time when we were playing against part timers in the 3rd division.

 

McCoist wasted 3 years that were a golden opportunity to rebuild for the future , this board have further wasted 3 years , its enough to make you cry .

It’s almost childlike naivety to think that managers authorise contracts on behalf of clubs.  Most of them left school at 15 to chase their dream of becoming professional footballers with no qualifications, do you really think they’re negotiating complex contracts on behalf of big businesses like football clubs?!

 

Actually, seeing as you think there was a ‘golden opportunity’ in 2012 when the club was on its knees then you probably do.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by Unicorn