Should Beale be sacked?

[Uilleam 5,495]

An emergency board meeting, directly after Kirk, today, surely?

 

 

[Rousseau 9,494]

12 hours ago, PoohBear said:

I’ll ask again what exactly doesn’t make sense to you though? Saying “all of it” is a cop out. What is it that you don’t agree with? You don’t agree that we have become somewhat of a poisoned chalice for managers?

I've already said it: You're saying it's damaging to sack managers, so we should stick with a failing manager? It doesn't make sense to me. 

 

We're sacking them because they've failed. Surely sticking with a failing manager is much worse than a 'look'. 

 

It's only a poisoned chalice if the whole club is a sh*t-show. We're not. We just need a DoF and a competent manager. We don't need a revolution. 

[Gonzo79 13,764]

6 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

You're saying it's damaging to sack managers, so we should stick with a failing manager? It doesn't make sense to me. 

It's strange, isn't it.  

 

'Let's stick with a dud so we look good.'.  

[CammyF 6,891]

3 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

I've already said it: You're saying it's damaging to sack managers, so we should stick with a failing manager? It doesn't make sense to me. 

 

We're sacking them because they've failed. Surely sticking with a failing manager is much worse than a 'look'. 

 

It's only a poisoned chalice if the whole club is a sh*t-show. We're not. We just need a DoF and a competent manager. We don't need a revolution. 

But there are signs now showing that the whole club is sliding into a sh1tshow. 

 

Why the reluctance to appoint a DoF? Who within the club has the footballing knowledge and understanding to take the footballing decisions required to move us forward? I'd say that is a bigger requirement at this moment than a DoF . 

 

We are fast approaching our 10th manager in 12 years. Doesn't that indicate that there is a deeper and underlying issue? 

 

SG was given significant time to win the league, which he eventually achieved. A majority of Rangers fans wanted him removed and only lock down saved him. 

 

After securing 55 the board stood back and admired the achievement whilst Celtic reacted and we are still paying the price for that. 

 

The rot has set in, it can be fixed but the rot is spreading rapidly through out club.  

[Bluedell 5,356]

3 minutes ago, CammyF said:

After securing 55 the board stood back and admired the achievement whilst Celtic reacted and we are still paying the price for that. 

Rumour has it that it was Gerrard who didn't want to sell any of the players which meant there was limited funds to spend on new players.

 

We spent a lot over this summer but it's been seen that it was funded by player sales.

 

I'm not sure that the board are to blame for the lack of transfer activity after 55.

[CammyF 6,891]

4 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Rumour has it that it was Gerrard who didn't want to sell any of the players which meant there was limited funds to spend on new players.

 

We spent a lot over this summer but it's been seen that it was funded by player sales.

 

I'm not sure that the board are to blame for the lack of transfer activity after 55.

That may be true, but there is another rumour that Gerrard was promised funds. In fact if you watch his interview after we collected the trophy at an empty Ibrox , he says as much in his interview with Emma Dodds on RTV. 

 

I also don't understand why we would have wanted to dismantle a team that had just won the league and had been unbeaten in that league campaign. It would have been better to have added really quality to that squad, not rip it apart. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by CammyF

[Bluedell 5,356]

1 minute ago, CammyF said:

That may be true, but there is another rumour that Gerrard was promised funds. In fact if you watch his interview after we collected the trophy at an empty Ibrox , he says as much in his interview with Emma Dodds on RTV. 

 

I also don't understand why we would have wanted to dismantle a team that had just won the league and had been unbeaten in that league campaign. It would have been better to have added really quality to that squad, not rip it apart. 

I guess we'll never know what was said but perhaps the funds were promised on the basis that we sold players?

 

Adding real quality costs money, and I'm not sure where that would have come from if not from player sales. We'd lost £40m over that season and the prior season.

[Scott7 5,238]

Gerrard would have been given more players if he had managed his team to best Malmö at home from pole position.

[Bluedell 5,356]

5 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I also don't understand why we would have wanted to dismantle a team that had just won the league and had been unbeaten in that league campaign. 

I'd largely agree with that view but many have said that was the ideal time to have sold Kamara, Morelos and Kent.

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,334]

If I were in charge I would have been sounding out managers after Killie loss and OF defeat ready to pull the trigger and make the change at any time.

 

Given the noise that we approached Muscat, Potter and John Eustace (lol) I hope there is no smoke without fire and the board are ready to make the change.