Will the RST get a new rep on the Rangers board following Chris Graham's resignation?

[Bluedell 5,679]

SB stated that Gordon Dinnie had turned down the position so perhaps he might be persuaded, as Chair it would be right and proper; but no doubt the Club will have learned lessons from the Graham episode and carry out due diligence before making any new appointments from the RST or elsewhere..

 

It doesn't need to be the chairman but Gordon Dinnie would make a good appointment.

[pete 2,499]

I dont mind Muslims, blacks, Jews, Catholics, Chinese being on our board but no fekin way am i accepting a women on the board. What a suggestion....!!!

 

Yes in retrospect now that we have robot vacuum cleaners and clothes that don't need ironed all we need is a dishwasher that loads and unloads itself and they can make woman obsolete.

 

Oh dear that's me got Blue Mazza on my case again .

 

Just kidding I would have no problem with a woman in the boardroom if she can do the same job as a man.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

Gordon is a good guy but with former RST vice-chair John Gilligan on the board alongside other Bears in King, Murray & Park I didnt think, and still don't, that a fans rep is required at this time. I would prefer the reinstatement of the RFB with new elections for office bearers at the start of next season when more fans will be eligible for election and also to vote for the candidates.

 

That is 3 huge mistakes in their first week for the new board in my book, thanking the Rhebel, firing Graham, and appointing an interim manager. Hope to be proved wrong on the last one and at least it was a good guy like McCall that got the chance and not one of others linked, but I am really disgusted at their capitulation at the slightest pressure over Graham, and I was equally disgusted at thanking the proven Rangers hating Rhebel in public. I don't think I will ever get over that and Murray better up his game, and fast. Pandering to the bheasts was his namesakes legacy, it had better not be his also.

[Hildy 0]

I hope the RST puts someone else forward, and preferably someone who will prioritise the case for full fan ownership.

[Zappa 0]

I hope the RST puts someone else forward, and preferably someone who will prioritise the case for full fan ownership.

 

You don't seem to have been doing the Trust or FO any favours at all the way you've been banging on about how badly you think the new regime are doing after only 7 days.

[Hildy 0]

You don't seem to have been doing the Trust or FO any favours at all the way you've been banging on about how badly you think the new regime are doing after only 7 days.

 

Should I remain silent as the board errs?

 

If the RST board was running the club I'd have hammered it for its limited outlook on appointing a new manager.

 

There is no point in pretending that the board is right when it is clearly so wrong.

[Anchorman 0]

Should I remain silent as the board errs?

 

If the RST board was running the club I'd have hammered it for its limited outlook on appointing a new manager.

 

There is no point in pretending that the board is right when it is clearly so wrong.

 

OK what would you have done if you were the board at this juncture of the season. Kept McDowall? If not who would you have gone for less than a week after taking control?

[Hildy 0]

OK what would you have done if you were the board at this juncture of the season. Kept McDowall? If not who would you have gone for less than a week after taking control?

 

The new board had a pretty good idea that it was going to win. It knew this for several weeks and did not prepare for dealing with the manager who was already working his notice.

 

He remained in position for two games when he should have been removed from post immediately the new board took office.

 

A new full time option should ideally have been identified, but failing that, a part time option should have been ready to go.

 

Instead, the board approached Smith who turned them down. It should have known Smith's view on this matter well ahead of taking charge.

 

The board has behaved like rank amateurs.

[Anchorman 0]

The new board had a pretty good idea that it was going to win. It knew this for several weeks and did not prepare for dealing with the manager who was already working his notice.

 

He remained in position for two games when he should have been removed from post immediately the new board took office.

 

A new full time option should ideally have been identified, but failing that, a part time option should have been ready to go.

 

Instead, the board approached Smith who turned them down. It should have known Smith's view on this matter well ahead of taking charge.

 

The board has behaved like rank amateurs.

 

Nice attempt at a body swerve there, but what about the question I asked. Here goes again - OK what would you have done if you were the board at this juncture of the season. Kept McDowall? If not who would you have gone for less than a week after taking control?

 

On the subject of Smith being offered it first - did I miss that? Where did you see that?

[WATP_Greg 0]

Nice attempt at a body swerve there, but what about the question I asked. Here goes again - OK what would you have done if you were the board at this juncture of the season. Kept McDowall? If not who would you have gone for less than a week after taking control?

 

On the subject of Smith being offered it first - did I miss that? Where did you see that?

 

The Smith thing is speculation - I don't doubt someone probably on our board asked if he was interested but I doubt he was offered the position and turned it down.