Anyone Attending the Club AGM?

[buster. 4,808]

9 hours ago, stewarty said:

Do you disagree with the strategy of equity funded constructive losses...? (investments in players and club infrastructure as its otherwise known)

No, it was necessary to make up a lot of ground relatively quickly and we had individuals prepared to finance it.

 

(I have used the term constructive losses for nearly eight years because it was how Dave King described the strategy, if they could takeover from the spivs). 

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by buster.

[ranger_syntax 3,776]

On 09/12/2022 at 20:33, Bill said:

Is there a difference?

As far as I can tell that depends on the company. I know that some will apply the terms arbitrarily.

 

I think that chief executive is a strategic role whereas managing director is about the day to day management and implementation.

 

I say this having only ever encountered chief executives and never once a managing director. I would guess that a few here have encountered many of both so I'm happy to be corrected.

[ranger_syntax 3,776]

On 09/12/2022 at 19:30, CammyF said:

Articulate, strong, knowledgeable.

 

Bennett has been, and continues to be a success in fund management (managing around £6 billion worth of assets). 

 

Are you aware of the work Weir is doing at Brighton? Worth a bit or research. I was unaware until someone on another forum mentioned him. 

 

Now humour me, why wouldn't they be? 

In the case of Weir it is quite possible that experience as a technical director is not sufficient preparation to be managing director at Rangers. If we are being honest we will admit that he springs to mind because of his previous spells at the club and little else.

 

In the case of Bennett he may not have any interest in committing to any more than he is doing at present.

[buster. 4,808]

2 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

As far as I can tell that depends on the company. I know that some will apply the terms arbitrarily.

 

I think that chief executive is a strategic role whereas managing director is about the day to day management and implementation.

 

I say this having only ever encountered chief executives and never once a managing director. I would guess that a few here have encountered many of both so I'm happy to be corrected.

On this subject, an important difference is if they are good, bad or indifferent at what they do.

Whatever the job title is.

 

The elephant in the room in this discussion is the former CEO on the other side of the city and the general impression that although a C**T, he was an effective politician in the various corridors of power that football would come into contact with. That on most issues, he had his club coming out on top regards Glasgow/Scotland......You could add professional PR to the above. A vital cog these days to help get the right message out. In a way that doesn't come back to bite you on the arse. 

 

Basically, some think we have been lacking that type of influence and have given them a clear run at the politics of fitbaw, etc. We have also lacked professional and competent PR (always have, even when Sir Duped hired Mediahouse, it was more to protect himself rather than the club).

 

My impression is that the remit of Stewart Robertson (MD) and that of the former CEO of Celtic, Peter Lawwell, have important differences. Those impressions can be formed simply because X is more visual and loud. However in the above case, Lawwell definitely had a track record of favourable outcomes.

 

More recently, we have been attempting to chip away at some of the legacy of Lawwell. The obvious one being the SPFL executive. So, who is in charge of how we go about that ? Douglas Park (given involvement of his business?). Robertson represents the club on the SPFL board in alternate years.

 

We almost had them bang to rights at the early calling of 20/21 but IMO, our communications were poor and lacked professionalism. We also suffer from a lack of empathy from too many other Scottish football clubs.

 

 

Bottomline

I don't know the remit of Stewart Robertson.

I don't know exactly who decides on structure of business, executive recruitment (at Rangers) and strategic decision-making. (I get the board are generally responsible)

 

I do know we have went a long time politically second best in Glasgow.

 

 

 

 

[CammyF 6,807]

1 hour ago, ranger_syntax said:

If we are being honest we will admit that he springs to mind because of his previous spells at the club and little else.

 

That's a very lazy assumption especially if you've researched the job Weir is doing at Brighton and the reputation he is building.

 

It also flies in the face of the reaction to Weir and Warberton's departure from the club where a vocal and sizeable minority were using terms like "rat" to describe them.

 

The board may be keeping an eye on Weir's (and others) career but I don't think it's unfair to say that there are many options (if they look hard enough and beyond Weir) who could improve the operational and communication aspects of the club. 

 

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

As far as I can tell that depends on the company. I know that some will apply the terms arbitrarily.

 

I think that chief executive is a strategic role whereas managing director is about the day to day management and implementation.

 

I say this having only ever encountered chief executives and never once a managing director. I would guess that a few here have encountered many of both so I'm happy to be corrected.

There is no difference.

[forlanssister 3,050]

On 09/12/2022 at 18:36, CammyF said:

 

 

Said earlier, Davie Weir is building a great reputation for himself as Technical Director at Brighton. Probably out of our reach, but would be a good alternative to Park and / or Robertson. 

 

 

That's quite a tangent you've gone off on there. Weir's job at Brighton is more akin to Ross Wilson's at Rangers miles way from Robertson's brief t Ibrox.

[forlanssister 3,050]

10 hours ago, buster. said:

On this subject, an important difference is if they are good, bad or indifferent at what they do.

Whatever the job title is.

 

The elephant in the room in this discussion is the former CEO on the other side of the city and the general impression that although a C**T, he was an effective politician in the various corridors of power that football would come into contact with. That on most issues, he had his club coming out on top regards Glasgow/Scotland......You could add professional PR to the above. A vital cog these days to help get the right message out. In a way that doesn't come back to bite you on the arse. 

 

Basically, some think we have been lacking that type of influence and have given them a clear run at the politics of fitbaw, etc. We have also lacked professional and competent PR (always have, even when Sir Duped hired Mediahouse, it was more to protect himself rather than the club).

 

My impression is that the remit of Stewart Robertson (MD) and that of the former CEO of Celtic, Peter Lawwell, have important differences. Those impressions can be formed simply because X is more visual and loud. However in the above case, Lawwell definitely had a track record of favourable outcomes.

 

More recently, we have been attempting to chip away at some of the legacy of Lawwell. The obvious one being the SPFL executive. So, who is in charge of how we go about that ? Douglas Park (given involvement of his business?). Robertson represents the club on the SPFL board in alternate years.

 

We almost had them bang to rights at the early calling of 20/21 but IMO, our communications were poor and lacked professionalism. We also suffer from a lack of empathy from too many other Scottish football clubs.

 

 

Bottomline

I don't know the remit of Stewart Robertson.

I don't know exactly who decides on structure of business, executive recruitment (at Rangers) and strategic decision-making. (I get the board are generally responsible)

 

I do know we have went a long time politically second best in Glasgow.

 

 

 

 

I concur re the PR and Communication failure it's something that puzzles me how can so clearly intelligent, highly successful businessmen not "get it"?

 

There is a world of difference in the remits of Robertson as Managing Director and Lawwell when he was Chief Executive, it really isn't comparing apples with apples.

[Gonzo79 13,671]

That lot always seem to have a dark arts thing going on at the top level, whereas we definitely don't.   

 

As much as I don't like it, sometimes you just have to stoop low to deal with the worst.  Being an absolute bastard is fine if it beats pure evil.  

[forlanssister 3,050]

36 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

That lot always seem to have a dark arts thing going on at the top level, whereas we definitely don't.   

 

As much as I don't like it, sometimes you just have to stoop low to deal with the worst.  Being an absolute bastard is fine if it beats pure evil.  

Pretty sure I recall Martin Bain being described in those very terms numerous times 

Edited December 12, 2022 by forlanssister