stewarty

Yep, that seems to be what he is trying to do in order to get Kent more involved. Early days but there are signs it is starting to work

Before this the only thing a Hawick man’s accurately predicted is that it’s “aye been”. Well done @Gonzo79!

Abersheep 1-3 Rangers FGS Morelos

Sadly he was a manager that lost out at crucial moments. And latterly he was plagued by bad luck with injuries. A less technical but better man-manager may have been able to bridge the gap but that’s merely speculation. I have a better feeling about MB though. He’s Uber technical but able to relate much more to his players.

Yep. The manager said himself it was down to the players and he only provides the template. However, I’d wager we would not have seen that response if the game was 5-6 weeks ago.

Croatia 1-2 Morocco Argentina 1-0 France (joker)

You could see when they were moving the ball the way Beale has been drilling that we were able to cut through Hibs and looked dangerous. Dominant second half but defensive lapses first half were a concern. Let’s hope Goldson is ready to play soon.

Rangers 4 - 2 Hibs FGS Kent

@CammyF I love the passion and you make a lot of really good points, but you're in danger of being blinkered and ignoring valid counter-arguments to the point where you end with an angry list of grievances, some of which are valid but alot can be argued against... Time for some devil's advocate replies... They are communicating, just not as well as they could. We are customers, just a particular breed of really passionate ones that pore over the minutiae of every single decision whether good or bad. They are attempting to fix issues over customer service (they've hired a new Customer Service Manager)and are planning a new solution for ticketing - Bisgrove himself has done the rounds with fan media (communicating no less!) where they explained in rough terms what the plan is, but from memory he also explained that this is just one of several other costs they are balancing. It comes down to priorities. This was a mis-step at worst. Its been massively overplayed. They have had the AGM a few weeks later where they've discussed the accounts in detail and offered themselves up for engagement on any topic. Its not their fault that some of the issues we want to know more about didn't come up in the Q&A. And some of the stuff that we want to know about, they will be restricted in what they can say if its commercially sensitive or legally priviliged. The UCL packages sold out. MyGers is nothing less than the majority of big clubs do themselves. There are aspects of it that I don't like about it either, but if we don't do it, we are putting ourselves further behind competitors in terms of being able to generate revenue. I remember having discussions on message boards and with friends about the complete lack of commercialisation of the fans and how we were missing out on lots of opportunities to generate revenue. We now have fan zones, a new venue next to the ground about to open up, a museum, bigger club shop. We are finally getting to the point where we are just about caught up. We were way behind for a number of years. I get that commoditising supporters feels wrong, and I think they'll need to re-think the UCL packages slightly, but overall I think the club are on the right track commercially. This one is tricky as we are limited by what other clubs are doing on this. We also need to balance the MyGers offering by making sure this is a route that supporters have to getting to away games. I'm not close enough to these issues though as I'm not an RSC member. Thats just not true. There have been many discussions over the years, its just that the club has other priorities. Are the Board to blame for inflation? Personally I didn't have a major issue with the game if it helped generate much needed revenue. But there was a groundswell of opinion against it and they played funny buggers with regards to various aspects that we are counter-suing over... I suspect that had we won the league or the EL, we would have been baws oot in Sydney and Celtic would have been the ones to withdraw. Getting into some hyperbole here. https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/150th-anniversary-celebrations/38GTGEBz2s5Buct4GraBAW#:~:text=March 2022 is a focal,well as the Blue Sky There was no secrecy regarding senior people leaving - we had press releases for David Graham and Barry Scott, and the latter was announced to LSE and recorded on Companies House. Ambassadors? I'll give you that one but we have lots of club legends who do that kind of work from time to time... its neither a secret nor something I'm overly worried.

Croatia 1-1 Argentina (JOKER) France 2-0 Morocco

Good to hear a manager open to playing two up front. Was like sorcery compared to Gio. Also interesting comments about the fitness required to press with the intensity he wants.

Early days but clear signs of improvement and a team playing to a system they are buying into. Promising start

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

Exactly...and who has the whip hand on and off the pitch? Hence why issues are being amplified.

I'd need to go back and check. But like I say, there are clearly issues that need to be addressed. I've seen enough that the board know what they are (there's plenty of evidence), it's now over to th to continue to work and improve things. And of course, some results and performances would help massively.

It's always mostly about on the pitch. To torture an analogy, and reversing Boycott's principle of adding 2 wickets to a batting team's score to get a true idea of how good it looks...I reckon if you take two wickets off the board's run tally, it wouldn't look too bad.

Arguably having nobody in that role has been an improvement. if you look at the agm as piece of communication, after the mandatory elements were undertaken, they both managed the rest very well (strong financials, plans for upgrades to disabled facilities), and then got lucky that more awkward questions didn’t arise from the q&a… but overall I think it can be viewed as a success. Add to that, neatly bodying c1872 over the share issue resolutions

The stuff on Wilson also feels like its getting over-egged. Yes there are clearly squad management situations that need to be addressed but we also need to remember that we are working within a limited budget, players aren't compelled to simply comply with what we want of them, no matter what we think the appeal of playing for us is or should be. It was said in the Q&A that for Morelos and Kent particularly, that essentially we have done all we can to try and persuade them to sign a new deal. That being the case, if the players run down their contracts there isn't an awful lot we can do other than try and move them on. This has coincided with injuries and down turn in form at key moments. Like with injuries, circumstances have kicked us hard in the last year or so, and Wilson has to accept some criticism, particularly where we have taken some gambles that haven't paid off, I just find the vitriol a bit silly. Unfortunately, with our resource constraints, we are always taking some form of calculated gamble.

I think we are in danger of over-egging the current situation. Things can change quickly and we need steady heads, not reactionary short-termism. The backdrop is poor communication, but that can be fixed. Results need to improve but they recognised it wasn't working with Gio and made the change. Thank god we have a game to watch tomorrow.

Croatia 0-2 Brazil Netherlands 1-1 Argentina (Joker) Morocco 0-1 Portugal England 1-2 France

Yeah I think some humility and bridge building is required on both sides so it was good to see Park address it unprompted. Let’s see what transpires because I see an opportunity for c1872 to begin the healing process with the wider support by getting behind the stadium revamp and potentially using their project resource and cash raising potential.

You may well be right on that front. Either way, I can see why the club were unhappy with the approach. I can also understand why C1872 were interested in this area, not least because of the issues we continue to have legally, but there is a manner in which such matters need to be conducted. Discretion, integrity and gravitas all needed... I just don't see that within the c1872 and they seem more interested in furthering DK's agenda. In an ideal world c1872 could have been a party to the planning around the stadium revamp and disabled facilities. I can't think of a better use of c1872 project funds than to be supporting the club on this... yet they're miles away as it stands.

I checked and it all stemmed from the Rev McQuarrie's revelation when he was expelled from the C1872 Board in relation to an email sent to the Board of Castore asking for details of the contract with Rangers. The email was allegedly sent by Laura Fawkes and Euan Mcfarlane behind the back of McQuarrie and Alan Fraser who were also on the C1872 board. The club took this as a breach of confidence, which seems a perfectly reasonable stance to take. Whilst the current office bearers at C1872 continue to be involved, or are unwilling to make amends in relation to this, I'm not sure whether this is actually going to be resolved any time soon.

That does sound odd. Though I seem to recall this all stemmed from C1872 approaching Castore and trying to find out or check sensitive information behind the club's back, or something along those lines. That would annoy me much as it seems to have done for the club and Castore.

Much as I'm frustrated at the lack of questions on some areas (legal issues, etc), I think the Board played a blinder yesterday. They did a good job at outlining the overall progress made in the last 5 years in terms of investments and decisions. They stuck to their promise on improving disabled facilities and made a strong case for trying to calm some of the concerns over our financials that we have (where has the money gone, etc). For me its now down to Bennett et all following through on their promises of improved communication, though the AGM was a start. Whilst appreciating they have to be conscious of the market rules and price sensitive information, I still believe they can and should do more to explain some of the challenges and priorities they are trying to balance. I recall stating in the summer several times that the support is hyper sensitive to financial matters, but in setting out where we are and where money is being spent on a more regular basis, we could have cut down that noise considerably. Park also seemed to offer an olive branch to C1872 on engagement, albeit it seemed to me that they may now get into a public war of words around the NDA issue, though I hope they don't. C8172 to me seem short-sighted on this as they surely have to realise that being a shareholder can gain considerable access but they have to understand where the line is in terms of price-sensitivity and commercially sensitive information. They could easily navigate an NDA and publish minutes via an agreed protocol with the club, should they so choose. This does not need to compromise their role in representing member interests - it would take someone with gravitas and integrity to perform such a role, but perhaps thats the real issue with C1872. Further, whether it was designed to be this way I don't know, but in revealing the detailed plans to revamp the stadium, and the fact that increasing the capacity will require additional funding, they've outlined a strong case for the share issue resolutions which I think the majority of supporters and shareholders will be in favour of (and indeed are based on the voting results). In turn this has pulled the rug from under King and C1872 who I think now look rather silly. Imagine going into your first meeting with the club as a C1872 rep and trying to reset relations... and thats the position you have to defend. Bonkers. Some of the questions left a lot to be desired but you're always going to get that at AGMs. Even at my own company's AGM we prep for all sorts of off-the-wall questions that may arise so that the Board are ready to answer, but we regularly get something utterly innocuous or mad being asked that we couldn't possibly have predicted. Thats the chance you take and by extending the time available I think they showed a willingness to engage. A platform to build on, strong financials, improving (but plenty to work on) communication and cleverly flanking C8172... pretty sure the Board will have enjoyed yesterday all things considered.