Uilleam

Nor, perhaps, the Household Cavalry. Everyone, anyone, of course, goes without saying, but, em....horses for courses....

It would be unlike a wily old dog, such as Captain Nathan Brittles, to reveal all of his cards this early in the campaign.

These people have a track record of running sports businesses. They may take an interest, a controlling interest, or the whole damned shooting match. One thing is clear, the support will have little or no say. What is also clear, clear for some time, is that that change is needed, and I see only one division of cavalry coming over the hill.

Ungentlemanly, and conduct unbecoming. On a par with giving the old Harvey Smith to the press and photographers. I wonder who criticised Ferguson and McGregor for that?

Doomed, then. Or, perhaps you have a scenario for the next act, sketched out, and just waiting for the green light. I'd love to read your treatment. I posted this earlier. You should have read it. It's interesting, particularly in relation to 'fans in the boardroom'. Speaking on the Sports Geek Replay podcast earlier this month, Marathe explained how teams in his stable no longer operate as 'lemonade stands' and are run to maximise return on investment. He said: "The fundamental thing that's changed with professional sports teams on and off the pitch is professional sports teams are no longer run as lemonade stands. They are no longer just about the football team, or the baseball team, or the soccer team, or whatever it is, it's now run as a business, right, as a big Fortune 50, Fortune 500 type of business. "That means you need to get as much value as you can and minimising risk as much as you can, both on the field of the players and also in the business." "At that time, we hired most of our C-level executives who are here today, as well as most of our EVPs or VPs. And what we did is we just, it was just, we just flipped, flipped a fundamental hiring practice kind of upside down for the beginning, since the beginning of time in the sports industry, people hired other sports people, maybe had a little bit of business experience. But the primary trait was, hey, you worked in that sport or this sport and like success or failure didn't matter, but you just had sports experience. "We took the other approach as we were hiring. We said, hold on, let's go get really good sound business people. And by the way, if they happen to have sports experience, then great, but not a prerequisite. In the end, we ended up hiring, as we grew from, I think, 70 people to 300 people, we ended up hiring a lot of talented, talented individuals of all colours and genders as well, because we were, we tried to do it as much of a meritocracy as we could. And that's what enabled us to transition and actually be able to do all these other things that we still do today." 

There was no alternative, for them. The took the leap, and fled to Bolivia. Their problem was that they continued to rob and steal. Thus, the Third Act became the Final Act, and ended badly. What the story needs is a reboot of that Third Act, with new scriptwriters, who will not be interested in ringing the curtain down, and will ensure that the lead characters do not repeat the mistakes of the past. There is no alternative, it seems clear. Will this happen? I don't know, but I do know that the audience has no control over this..... Doncha just love suspense? Actually, what the club needs now, short term, in fact, immediately, is not Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but some True Grit.

Impossible task. Even to nominate a 'least bad' player defeats me. It's equally difficult to suggest the worst performer. Send them all a dildo. Yellow, if possible.

We might well need trebles all round.

Probably the wrong third....

Do you spend a large part of your life muttering, "Well, who would have thought that would have happened?"

A vegetarian? Ffs!! When the players, clearly, have to be fed on raw meat, that's all we need.

I don't see why not, particularly if the Yanqi have been, at least, consulted. The reason that a temporary answer (not, note, solution) is required is because there was no plan B - that is, presumably, beyond selling up. Most concerning, in any event, is what happens when/if the deal bites the dust? A 'temporary' coaching team in situ, none of whom has had a successful management career, and none of whom have worked together in a coaching capacity, does not inspire confidence. 'Fans' in the Boardroom, ffs!!

I'll see your Haliday and Novo, and raise you Scott Nisbett, and Ian Durrant.

Ferguson, Dodds, McCann, and McGregor. Lee McCulloch would give the Parks a Full House.

Train wreck interesting

I think that you need a few 'hopefullys' in there, my friend.

A somewhat bold conjecture.....this is Rangers, after all.

I think, from the LUFC example, that the takeover may proceed by a process of accretion, rather than by a clean sweep up of all the shares. I could be wrong. The initial appointment of Charai was a trifle odd, and under a longish contract, unless it was intended to make him Manager, when PC, inevitably left.

My point is that something should have been in place. Unless, of course, there was, and the Dollar Boys put the steever in. Recruiting an Assistant Manager, some few weeks ago, on a longish contract (i I r c), did seem a little strange, when it was pretty bleeding obvious that PC was on borrowed time. Unless, of course that was an appointment, before anointment.......... (I think I mentioned this, somewhat tongue in cheek, a few days ago.) Overall, I think that Ibrox decision making is almost wholly reactive. That may be due to having nobody actually in charge, beyond the nominal.

Sacking him now gives everybody -you, me, the coaches, the manager, interim or not, everybody in the football department- a chance to assess the players, rather than focus on the failing Manager's failings. I think QP and St Mirren, both a home, rendered his position untenable. A hunted, and haunted, man in the dugout is not what I should wish to see. And, of course, you have to take into consideration the effect on the man himself. Dismissal, if such it was, may have done him a favour -in all likelihood it did.

By the time all that is through, the Club might be in a worse state than China. The point is that we face months of improvisation and ad hockery, again. If you think that the way forward, fine. To me it is symptomatic of a lack of foresight, or of even the foresight to see that foresight is required.

The Board has had weeks -if not months, actually- to consider PC's future as Manager. If he had 'turned things around', significantly, the Board would have breathed a collective sigh of relief, at having no decision to make, and he would have continued in his role. Clearly he hasn't done so. It also looked increasingly unlikely that he would be able do so. The Board could have elected to muddle through, evading decisive action, or to have sacked him. The results and performances v QP, and St Mirren were so poor as to force a decision on his tenure and Rangers, again, is now sans Manager. Surely, the board had a Plan in place, for replacement of management and coaching staff: it is not as though this situation occurred overnight. PCs position has looked increasingly untenable for some time. The only reasons for not having an alternative available, in short order, are that the Board would perhaps have had to circumvent the Director of Football, who is close to the Manager, and/or Boardroom politics and factionalism; and let's not forget the mooted purchase of at least a significant %age of shares by an outside consortium. Hence we have some temporary, ad hoc, arrangement, while somebody 'searches' for the right fellow. Truly, a camel is a horse designed by committee.

Barry Ferguson until the end of the season....per the Daily Record.

Luca Chianti! Italian for - 'Look a chantie'!