Walterbear

....oh and our worst ever European result...

3 poor managers, zero scouting network, rubbish leadership on and off the park, the constant stupid club statements, lack of defending fans and players, low quality recruitment, no footballing philosophy that is matched by playing staff, TOP distractions, not listening to fans (customers) re scum at Broomloan, 26k a week for a Mexican alcoholic, watching opponents spit on and wipe snorters on crests and humiliate our name, etc etc. I could go on and on but all of the above happening at the same time across a club IS the board’s problem and whilst in their defence they have been fire fighting Ashley they have not shown the aptitude and organisation to lead our club overall. The AGMs are non events, the supposed strategy is clouded in mystery, the contribution of AJ is vague, the performance of Robertson is abysmal, the PR is garbage and they can hardly get RTV to stream properly. If a company produces a rubbish product you may you may be able to point to an employee issue or a supplier issue or a production line issue on occasions and fix it but if the problem is constant and widespread it is the Board's problem. If you are constantly humiliated by your biggest competitor and arch enemy it is the Board’s problem. Some steps have been taken re DoF and his role and legacy contracts but it’s simply not enough. They have a scapegoat in Murty and that is another shameful piece of hiding and deflection from them.

And the first number needs to be at least 2.

Think we might need to go back and ask whoever it is to double or treble it. Scum fans must be gutted they never scored 10 today.

None of them can tackle. Wrong side every time. Can’t even foul properly. Garbage.

I’ll hold you to that ?

Amazing how bbc twitters and news jumping on this. Meanwhile little reported or comments by them on child abuse scandal involving former employees and close associates of Celtic football club and it’s directors.

Thought Murty interviewed well there. If we don’t keep him I hope he does well somewhere. Likeable chap.

It’s pretty certain he’s going to comply. Just a debate about readiness. If he proves he is down the road in the process I think that’s the important thing. He might get some other minor punishment for missing the date but I wouldn’t worry about this.

If it goes much beyond the OF game my guess is it’s not going to happen. If we have offered him the job (and it’s only the BBC at PQ who are implying this) then he should have made his mind up by Monday I would have thought. Mind you BBC Scotland areva shoddy outfit so wouldn’t be surprised if he’s just one of several bring interviewed.

Best solution is to fly over there with bag of money and offer a termination deal. We will have budgeted his full wages less what we were expecting Cruz to pay so try and make some savings for the next manager. I’m sure he would be happy to stay there rather than be forced to come back here. Whoever signed this deal for Pena off (and it must have been at senior board level) is a clueless idiot.

Doesn’t make any sense for either party. It’s exciting but the risks for Rangers and Gerard seem very high. He doesn’t fit the criteria of knowing Scottish football and someone with a track record of management success. I pray for a transformational moment and it would be fascinating but can’t see it happening. Unless there is a large injection of cash I dont see him coming and in our current financial position where is that cash coming from? If we did find it should we give it to a rookie! None of this adds up unless there are massive sponsorship benefits or other cash opportunities. I have a big two fingers to our detractors feeling which makes me hope it would happen but my head tells me it is too risky. Hope Im wrong but this story smacks of an attempt at good news pre ST, deflection from TOP and from the 4-0. Pragmatism and sensible investment may be more likely. If we appoint Gerard it’s either a stroke of genius or a desperate gamble. The track record of the board in football decision making isn’t good.

I’m oddly optimistic about this one. We know we only have one choice of tactics which was proved in the surrender at Hampden and that is to take the game to them and that is where we are strongest and they are weakest.

The puzzling aspect is he does not fit the criteria previously set by the board of bringing in someone with a track record of management success. Exciting gamble but not sure we need that level of risk right now. It maybe points to the lack of achievable managerial targets we have.

Sober up.

I heard Dave lives in Acapulco.

Then chooses from Allen list

He decides the type of player he wants.

A good example of need for a DoF.

But he does decide the list based on requirements from manager. Manager doesn’t scour the market as per current model is how I think it works. In other words he doesn’t go and sign anyone he wants. He justifies his requirements and probably makes suggestions but the DoF finds players for the list taking account of budget. No way can manager sign any clown he wants.

That’s more or less how I read it and perhaps Rangers could offer more clarity. The final decision is the managers but the list of players is drawn up by the DoF based on the managers statement of requirements and he aligns the list to the available budget Reality is they are going to be in constant dialogue. If of course there is no manager in place then the club presumably can adjust its procedures but we are in a pretty unusual position where we have had an interim manager for 6 months. Even then I would imagine Murty has the responsibilities of a permanent manager (as most interims would). It might be that DoF has put Arfield on a list because he fits the overall philosophy and Murty is still involved in recruitment because he’s the manager. The next manager then lives with that because every time you change manager you inherit previous assets. I think we might be overcooking the discussion.

I imagine the new manager will make his views known at the interview and can ask questions , look at training and match data. I think there are generic principles and each club tweaks according to how they want to operate but the overall position as I understand it is that budgetary control of all things football lies with DoF therefore he is ultimately accountable for signings but the manager is accountable for the day to day use of the assets. They can debate with each other whether the asset is a pile of junk or whether the manager doesn’t use it properly. The manager of course can ask for things. It makes sense for DoF to be able to strongly recommend a purchase. He then becomes more accountable for failure eg if he buys a Barton. That is just my interpretation, I don’t think anything is cast in stone across the industry

Makes sense. The DoF is also going to interview the new manager so hardly likely to support someone who he cannot work with and who has a different idea about football. The manager will also have all the training data and positional tactical data about players who are not performing and will be able to discuss the requirement for someone who can run faster, longer, do cruyff turns, play wide, head balls or whatever with the DoF. The key think it does is to ensure there is a division of responsibility and the manager doesn’t mismanage the budget (reference Pedro, Advovaat). It is better financial and operational governance. The free reign the manager has is in team selection, coaching (presumably within a preferred overall model), tactics.

I think he presents a list of affordable targets. If that list doesn’t fit the bill then the manager will be able to discuss. I suspect both of them are pretty assertive but they have earned the right to be and no doubt a healthy dialogue ensues. But that’s what you want , unlike previous boom and bust model we have had which ultimately led to a disaster.

Agree with this but remember Allen said the manager determines selection and tactics. He also has a say in signings. I guess that means that overall he needs to fit within a style of play but can adjust if necessary but he cannot go out and spend £12m on Tore Andre Flo for example if that style of player cannot play within the overall philosophy. It makes sense and also suggests Allen / DoF has a firm hand on the purse strings. Bearing all that in mind and given the DoF has a big say in the next manager perhaps our future criticism / plaudits will be as much towards the DoF. For example if he presents a bunch of diddies to the manager then the managers job becomes more difficult. But if his players are of good calibre and understand the playing style and philosophy and by extension the tactical requirements then it is very much the manager who takes the flack. All in all I like the model and if it had been in place would have prevented the PC mistakes. Allen would know the market of players who could be recruited for the kind of money we have wasted on Pena. You also have to consider Murty and the fact that he has not fully operated within this model for Rangers as it is probably in development (we haven’t worked like this before). Thats my positive spin on the sutuation anyway. I am pretty sure we don’t need to clear an entire squad out.