The Perfect Storm Engulfs Ibrox

[Frankie 8,570]

[tweet]935066353576312832[/tweet]

 

 

When well-intentioned, battle weary Rangers supporters at last managed to wrestle away executive control of Rangers after years of plundering ****dom that used Rangers for their own interests, it was a happy day. However the situation, legacy issues and in part, the scorched earth that King and the 'Three Bears' took over was a very difficult challenge.

 

A strategy, good recruitment and finance was required for various areas of the club. Countless expensive legal cases would bring distraction and uncertainty for amongst other things, revenue streams we were trying to recover. The latter seemed to be what Dave King took on, whilst others back in Glasgow got on with running the club. In an RTV interview in April 2015, Paul Murray mapped out a vision going forwards and in my opinion it made good sense. Once the disappointment of a play-off defeat to Motherwell wore off, the way ahead began to take shape.

 

For 2015/16, Mark Warburton proved to be an excellent appointment, he very quickly got his excellent recruitment done and had the team playing some wonderful football in front of very happy full houses at Ibrox. We achieved promotion as Championship winners, won the Challenge Cup, which had eluded our grasp in previous years, and got to the Scottish Cup Final.

 

However, as we approached that Cup Final, 'storm clouds' approached Ibrox for the first time in nearly a year. In hindsight, they seemed to be so high that to most they were hardly visible. Ironically, they started to gather after a notable victory over Celtic in the Scottish Cup semi-final and took the form of poor on-field results that culminated in a Cup Final defeat to Hibs. More importantly, there appeared to be problems brewing between Warburton and at least part of the board. This seemed to be material in the change from a broadly progressive and successful strategy to a more reactionary style with a cumulative negative effect, later on developing into something akin to an omnishambles.

 

The banner headlines of this omnishambles has been two awful summer transfer windows and a dubious managerial appointment.

 

After Pedro Caixinha was sacked, Alastair Johnson publicly cited "institutional failure" and "systemic failure" to have been part of the problem. He was referring to the managerial issues but I think it goes further and all the way back to April 2016, when Warburton's relationship with the board seemed to sour.

 

2016/17 was our first season back in the top flight and our summer recruitment didn't seem to be consistent with what appeared to have been our short-lived 'strategy', nor Warburton's way of operating. It was high risk and brought in expensive dodgy temperament players, injury-prone youngsters and way out of condition veterans. We went big on the 'Going for 55' line and heaped what was unreasonable expectation on what had quickly become a dysfunctional first team, managed by a man who I think, already knew that it was a matter of time and was essentially going through the motions.

 

If that wasn't bad enough, when we started on the downhill slope in the springtime of 2016, our main rivals had prompted a mini-revolution and appointed Brendan Rodgers. This energised their club, their support and saw the beginning of an almost absolute domestic dominance.

 

This was very much the background when Warburton was eventually sacked under an acrimonious cloud. The board seemed to want to get back to a progressive strategy and reduce risk in terms of football management/recruitment, when they declared they were looking for a Director of Football, as well as a first team manager/head coach.

 

After Ross Wilson turned down an offer to become our DoF, we then appointed Pedro Caixinha as manager. The main rationale being that the vacuum had to be filled and with an eye on giving him time to get his feet under the table, so as to be prepared for early European competition.

 

Meanwhile, the search for a DoF continued and Mark Allen was eventually appointed in mid-June. Between March and June, on top of match preparation, Caixinha was organising his squad with an eye on the following season. He seemed to quickly have problems with several players, have a less than fully motivated squad for some football matches and then have to deal with early pressure on the back of predictable but significant defeats. All this at the same time as targeting new signings to replace those who would be leaving.

Does 'institutional failure' play it's part?

We wanted to go down the DoF route and eventually did, however the circumstances and pressure meant the manager was recruited first and he also took charge of a relatively large summer recruitment spree. We then repeated the mistake of the previous summer and spent too much on high-risk signings. Not forgetting the managerial selection process that brought us Pedro, which by most accounts wasn't the most professional.

 

Thus, it wasn't to take long into the 2017/18 campaign before a red flag started waving above Pedro. It also had a whiff of 'groundhog year' about it; we had recruited poorly and had a manager who knew in his heart that it was only a matter of time. Expectation exceeded what was actually possible with this group of players. Eventually/Inevitably, Caixinha was sacked, so the board were under pressure not only to get the next appointment right but they had to be seen to be doing it right. The former being obvious, the latter was made clear by Alastair Johnson when he talked of "systemic problem" and "institutional failure".

 

It's with that in mind that I feel this pressure of doing it right has lead to the long drawn out selection process (SP) we are currently in. It obviously incorporated the DoF within a SP that seemingly waited until the World Cup qualifiers were finished until it completed its application deadline. Thereafter it will have completed its short-list and started interviewing candidates as per what I read into the statement of November the 10th. Personally, I'd have gone for McInnes straight after sacking Pedro but it's easy behind the keyboard.

 

If we think back to the vacuum prior to Pedro being appointed, the board might have been better to keep Murty in the job until a DoF was appointed but the pressure/outcry to fill the vacuum was too great. Perhaps, now that we've come this far, we'd be better to let the SP run it's course and see what comes of it.

 

That being said, I can understand if there is less than full confidence that the club will start getting things right after 18 months of omnishambles. Especially when there are significant financial and structural issues that run parallel to the football matters. We can only hope that the board use this week's AGM to brief the shareholders and supporters as to the current situation. That they actually recognise failings, 'complications' and 'barriers' whilst proposing significant changes to get back on track.

 

Conclusion

 

- We need clear leadership from the board and that may mean changes and/or additions in such roles.

- We need a joined-up strategy for the club as a whole (including finance), not the reactionary management which has been all over the place.

- We need a hard-nosed and competent CEO to implement strategy on a day to day basis. (Stewart Robertson doesn't seem to cut it and lacks the confidence of the fans).

- We need better communications/PR (Traynor has been a negative). That said, the support also need to understand that to have any control over the 'narrative' we can't keep on making enemies out of everyone.

- We need an excellent first team manager.

- We need to get value out of every pound spent, rather than having the habit to simply look for someone else to throw a large wedge our way.

 

It's also worth noting the support have been brilliant but (and many won't want to hear it) still need to show further patience and realism because we aren't going to get to where we want to go any time soon. The important thing is to steadily improve and be ready to scupper our rivals bid for their tenth title in a row.

 

We also must remember that there are no guarantees for future success - but for the board to not make significant and positive change to the way we have done business in the last 18 months would guarantee something much more unpleasant.

[MacK1950 2,378]

A reasoned view and well written but paints a gloomy picture.

Hopefully backsides will be kicked at AGM to force action and stop inaction.

[chilledbear 16]

The Board members put their money in and want a say, going to be difficult to change the mindset.

[Darthter 542]

The Board members put their money in and want a say, going to be difficult to change the mindset.

 

I have no issue with the current Board staying in place (the C1872 poll seems to support them), however I think they do need to clarify EXACTLY what they have been doing to date & their expectations moving forward. They need to convince the fans that they are indeed the people to take the club back to the very top of Scottish football.

[der Berliner 3,747]

The lack of info coming from the board turn them into a sitting duck for all detractors of Rangers in general, and the board as it is. While one can usually ignore the babble that comes from certain sections of the media and its various freelancers, they have and do create an atmosphere of negativity about anything Rangers that grow arms and legs and has eventually everyone questioning what is going on. Results have added another dimension to this as well, so the legions too have become somewhat hypersensitive to the issues at hand. For let this turn it on its head and look at the Yahoos (for lack of other reasonable examples). They are running like the smooth engine that they were last season, if not with the same quality-performances on the park, they do it resultswise. The CL disasters are forgiven because of the hypocritical look at the finances of their opponents. So does the media or the support question their Board for not commenting on each proverbial fart that goes against them? Or wants weekly updates on their financial structure, possible investment and whatnot? I think not. That's the comfort zone that is given due to their success, a comfort zone that drowned out questions when SDM were financing us with risky EBTs et al. The question would still be: do company directors give - by their point of view - sensible data to the public (for rest assured, anything said to this or that fan in private will be spread via social networks and boards in no-time)? Would any company do that? Thus, how reasonable is it to ask questions and demand answers outside the usual information channels, i.e. the AGMs? Which does not mean that "the club" should not pro-actively or actively go against media lies or blackmailing of the club via statements. And I for one do not care whether we antagonize media folk or not, for in fact the dross that is served by them on a daily basis needs much more attention by the club. And any further libelous or false reporting can likewise be challenged. The media has a lot of freedoms, but they also have responsibilities. And if you look at them, how many actually deliver impartial, unbiased and correct information? For THAT would all we'll be asking for, and are in fact asking for.

Edited November 27, 2017 by der Berliner

[compo 7,048]

The present board have invested their money they have helped save the club and keep it going at the end of the day their loans will be converted to shares strengthening their grip of the club .

But they might be successful in flogging cars and whatever else they do to earn a crust but do they know how to run a football club ,do they know what's needed ,it might have beenembarrassing better all round if they invested their money and able people appointed to run the club ,bring in investment both on and off the park we will probably asking the same questions this time next year because they think they can do the job ,best stick to their day jobs and let others run the club .

[der Berliner 3,747]

Going by recent murmurs, the Hongkong-based chap who bought half of Ashley's shares seems to have found some "business heavyweights" willing to invest? At least he seems to be the most likely candidate to do so. Then we have AJ on the board, who was said to have rather good contacts in the US of A. The point is, we know nothing and are left speculating. And since we are all fishing in the same info pond, it is hard to swallow just the negatives and dismiss most of the positives that we actually have thus far.

[Gaffer 1,665]

I really enjoyed reading this article. There's much of it I agree with, but I don't agree this is the perfect storm. In fact, I don't think it's a storm at all. It's raining and there's some headwind, but that's it. What's causing the suffering is our mismanagement of the conditions.

 

Firstly, the managerial situation is something that has been handled poorly. MW was appointed to get us out of the championship, which he did. We then appoint PC to advance the club and give us an identity. The way in which the board/CEO has managed this is amateurish, and these so-called businessmen should be ashamed. Why sack him when they did? I appreciate many fans didn't want him in the first place, but he was put in place and the board had committed to giving him sufficient time to make progress. To be perceived as backing a player (Miller) ahead of the manager is utterly bizarre and destructive. Any leader should know that, even those in small businesses such as our football club. Even if they decided PC had to go, they should have managed the perception better. To then hand the reigns over to Murty and to allow him to bring Miller back in immediately was always going to be a disaster. It was only a matter of how long it would take. So much for the Ibrox discipline that's been at the core of our success. I was disgusted and embarrassed by this, and I hope the board is too.

 

The second element of this so-called storm is the 'management' of the media. We know the environment we operate in, and yet we don't seem to do much about it. The club has to create an operating rhythm for the 21st century. That means it needs to continue to feed the fans with as much information as it can, even if it means repeating statements to confirm that nothing has changed. Instead, we leave ourselves open to the rumour mill and scaremongerers, who quite frankly have a field day with us. Do we have a media strategy? Again, I appreciate football clubs aren't big businesses, but the media (especially social media) is such an important aspect of the environment that I'd expect we'd spend a proportionate amount of time on this. Who is taking the lead on this? I don't see anyone. When I hear DK speak to the media, I take comfort from him being a fan who just wants the best for his club. I get no comfort from anyone else, somwhere are the executive members of the board? Why are they silent? Why are the not standing up to the critics? I don't expect them to criticise others, or to ban them, but I do expect someone to take responsibility for holding them to account for their false claims and made up stories.

 

What our club lacks is a leader. If DK was on the executive team, he has the attributes to take that role. He has however made it clear that he's not interested in moving back and that's understandable. But in his absence, we need someone but I can't see who that might be.

 

Our history is filled with leaders on and off the pitch. One of the reasons I liked PC was that he had strong leadership characteristics. He had many flaws too, but for a while we had someone who was strong, committed and disciplined. Strong teams (not just in football) have strong leaders. Our boardroom team does not appear to have any leaders (other than DK who can't commit the time to it), and our on the field team lacks those qualities too. So, to manage this bit of bad weather, all we need is at least one strong leader. The success will then follow follow.

[MacK1950 2,378]

The way I see things is that Pedro was becoming more and more belligerent with his comments,some making no sense at all,and personally at the end was happy to see him go.

Murty was again appointed interim manager and as such had to be given rein to pick his team.

The common denominator to most on here is Miller,who I used to think was what we needed,either being used or not by both.

As the board do not pick the team it was left to both to pick the side as they saw fit and really neither have been proved right.

To me now the best thing Miller could do is step down from playing.

[Darthter 542]

The present board have invested their money they have helped save the club and keep it going at the end of the day their loans will be converted to shares strengthening their grip of the club .

But they might be successful in flogging cars and whatever else they do to earn a crust but do they know how to run a football club ,do they know what's needed ,it might have beenembarrassing better all round if they invested their money and able people appointed to run the club ,bring in investment both on and off the park we will probably asking the same questions this time next year because they think they can do the job ,best stick to their day jobs and let others run the club .

 

One problem is that there appears to be an awful lot of folk/fans who think they can run the club better. As you say, the current board is made up of some very successful business men, who know how to run a business & make money.

 

Going by recent murmurs, the Hongkong-based chap who bought half of Ashley's shares seems to have found some "business heavyweights" willing to invest? At least he seems to be the most likely candidate to do so. Then we have AJ on the board, who was said to have rather good contacts in the US of A. The point is, we know nothing and are left speculating. And since we are all fishing in the same info pond, it is hard to swallow just the negatives and dismiss most of the positives that we actually have thus far.

 

AJ was on the board of Oldco.....brought in because of his contacts, with a remit to help SDM sell the club - that didn't work out too well.....