Time for a change demo yesterday

[CammyF 6,781]

1 minute ago, craig said:

Not that it was the case here.... but what if you ARE wrong, and force good people from the club ?

 

How much has John Bennett personally put into the club yet one Gersnet member in particular (who no longer posts) basically attempted to prevent Bennett from investing, even so far as to contact Bennett's employers 🙄

I've not mentioned the RIFC board with exemption of Park where I questioned his reluctance to appoint a full time chair. 

 

Said previously the protests against Murray were futile as there was nothing that us protesting could do or achieve, other than highlight SDM steering the good ship Rangers to disaster. 

 

However, no matter how much evidence was "presented" we were decried as "moon howlers" and didn't know what we were talking about. Which is fine, everyone sees things differently.

 

Same goes for Robertson and Wilson. Some fans may think they are doing a fantastic job, others may think differently. 

 

Both sides of the debate are entitled to their views and to openly express these.

 

Maybe we'll see banners in support of Wilson and Robertson at games in the future.

 

[gaspard 562]

To accurately appraise Wilsons performance I think we would need to be fully aware of his operational parameters, budget and crucially, how much weight, others, including managers and directors have within his remit.

More complex and nuanced than just one man buying and selling players.

 

One good window,  couple of wins against SEFC and Wilson would be a genius, tis ever so.

 

In regards to Robertson, I'd assume he's a first rate administrator and office manager. 

Too many supporters think he is a CEO though, a blue Peter Liewell and judge him thus. His "Walter the softy" persona, unfortunately, only exacerbates the frustration associated with this misconception. 

 

The real issue for me regarding the MD is not the man but the role. Sack Robertson? Then what? Appoint another administrator who may or may not be better the incumbent?  Pretty much futile and damaging IMO.

I have always said we need a strong CEO, to lighten the burden on our directors who all have other businesses very demanding of their time and resources. 

The right man would be costly, he would need to be strong, ruthless and tactically astute. A strong character who our enemies fear.

 

Not ten a penny granted, but they do exist. 

 

 

 

[Scott7 5,156]

Correct in every word.

 

54 minutes ago, gaspard said:

Not ten a penny granted, but they do exist

Is that a job application?

[gaspard 562]

1 hour ago, Scott7 said:

 

Is that a job application?

Skeletons in my cupboard are playing sardines. 

[buster. 4,808]

On 21/03/2023 at 08:38, gaspard said:

To accurately appraise Wilsons performance I think we would need to be fully aware of his operational parameters, budget and crucially, how much weight, others, including managers and directors have within his remit.

More complex and nuanced than just one man buying and selling players.

 

One good window,  couple of wins against SEFC and Wilson would be a genius, tis ever so.

 

In regards to Robertson, I'd assume he's a first rate administrator and office manager. 

Too many supporters think he is a CEO though, a blue Peter Liewell and judge him thus. His "Walter the softy" persona, unfortunately, only exacerbates the frustration associated with this misconception. 

 

The real issue for me regarding the MD is not the man but the role. Sack Robertson? Then what? Appoint another administrator who may or may not be better the incumbent?  Pretty much futile and damaging IMO.

I have always said we need a strong CEO, to lighten the burden on our directors who all have other businesses very demanding of their time and resources. 

The right man would be costly, he would need to be strong, ruthless and tactically astute. A strong character who our enemies fear.

 

Not ten a penny granted, but they do exist. 

 

 

 

I think you are spot-on regards structure/ CEO.

 

It looks like a board who don't want to relinquish or delegate much power (they have money invested and perhaps want to keep a close eye on things). You add the role of PR spokesman that seems to be currently lacking or in the past have seen repeated failures.

 

It could be a board who don't want to spend the necessary money because there isn't much of it around.

Or likely, a combination.

 

Lawwell basically took over the day to day of Celtic (one man, Dermott Desmond giving go ahead).

Their board taking their lead from DD. 

 

I have previously talked about the lack of a strong, competent CEO and consistent, strong communications.

Another reason why they are way in front of us at most levels.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2023 by buster.

[Bill 13,717]

4 hours ago, buster. said:

I think you are spot-on regards structure/ CEO.

 

It looks like a board who don't want to relinquish or delegate much power (they have money invested and perhaps want to keep a close eye on things). You add the role of PR spokesman that seems to be currently lacking or in the past have seen repeated failures.

 

It could be a board who don't want to spend the necessary money because there isn't much of it around.

Or likely, a combination.

 

Lawwell basically took over the day to day of Celtic (one man, Dermott Desmond giving go ahead).

Their board taking their lead from DD. 

 

I have previously talked about the lack of a strong, competent CEO and consistent, strong communications.

Another reason why they are way in front of us at most levels.

Alas you're right, a fully empowered CEO is more likely to emerge when you have a board dominated by one powerful shareholder. I think what we might have is a board where no one has secure control and everyone feels they need to keep a hand on the reins.  I always thought Lawwell was Desmond's chosen surrogate rather that a normal board appointee, which is OK as long as he's competent but a disaster if he's not. I thought it was revealing that Lawwell's replacement didn't last 5 minutes.

[buster. 4,808]

19 hours ago, Bill said:

Alas you're right, a fully empowered CEO is more likely to emerge when you have a board dominated by one powerful shareholder. I think what we might have is a board where no one has secure control and everyone feels they need to keep a hand on the reins.  I always thought Lawwell was Desmond's chosen surrogate rather that a normal board appointee, which is OK as long as he's competent but a disaster if he's not. I thought it was revealing that Lawwell's replacement didn't last 5 minutes.

Aye, the Sir Duped / Martin Bain combination turned out disasterous.

 

Towards the end, Lawwell entered into the disaster zone with the Hampden Showers appointment of The ticking time bomb, Lennon. By that time, he was past his sell by date.

[Scott7 5,156]

2 hours ago, buster. said:

Towards the end, Lawwell entered into the disaster zone with the Hampden Showers appointment of The ticking time bomb, Lennon. By that time, he was past his sell by date.

Either or both?

[Bluedell 5,329]

4 hours ago, buster. said:

Aye, the Sir Duped / Martin Bain combination turned out disasterous.

Bain was never a CEO under Murray. He was acting purely as an MD, acting under Murray's instructions.

 

However, near the end when Murray had been neutered and Bain was running things along with the likes of Alastair Johnston, he did OK and the financial situation was being brought under control and the net debt had reduced to £27m.

[26th of foot 5,829]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

Bain was never a CEO under Murray. He was acting purely as an MD, acting under Murray's instructions.

 

However, near the end when Murray had been neutered and Bain was running things along with the likes of Alastair Johnston, he did OK and the financial situation was being brought under control and the net debt had reduced to £27m.

Martin Bain climbed the greasy pole by using Nick Peel for the necessary leverage. Sir Duped gave him the nod to prompt newly appointed Chair, John McClelland and ensure he adhered absolutely to the rails laid down by Sir Duped. You are correct, he did successfully manage down the debt, I seem to remember he had it down to £18 million?

 

We did have fun with Martin - those advertising hoardings immediately outside his office window adorned with invitations to join the RST - the BHS Catalogue photos of the then male model, Martin Bain in his pyjamas(looked very Andrew Ridgely) and - Martin gave a Sunday broadsheet interview where he told of spending all his down time, hillwalking. At our next meeting I asked if the hillwalking interfered with his munro bagging? The ensuing delicious silence went on forever.