Smith ‘overruled by SFA board’ when he wanted Rangers idol Souness as Scotland boss

[ian1964 10,724]

SOU BAD

Smith ‘overruled by SFA board’ when he wanted Rangers idol Souness as Scotland boss

The former SFA chief executive claims his plans were scuppered when Hampden blazers vetoed the move for Graeme Souness and opted for George Burley instead.

 

GORDON SMITH has revealed he was overruled by the SFA board when he tried to appoint Graeme Souness - with George Burley ending up in the hot seat.

The organisation’s former chief executive wanted the Rangers and Liverpool legend to lead the national team after Alex McLeish left for Birmingham.

But his plans were scuppered when Hampden blazers vetoed the move for Souness and instead backed a swoop for Burley, who was with Southampton at the time.

The ex-Hearts gaffer had a disastrous spell as Scotland boss and the infamous Boozegate scandal happened on his watch.

Smith told Open Goal’s Si Ferry: “I thought I was able to choose the manager being the chief executive but I wasn’t.

“George Burley was one of my candidates but not my first choice.

“It would’ve been Graeme Souness. He came along for an interview.

“But it went to the board…it was basically that he didn’t conform to what they were wanting.

“So George Burley became the strong candidate. He’d done well at Hearts and he was now with Southampton.”

But the other contenders for the post were left furious when it was leaked to the media that Burley was to become Scotland manager.

Smith said: “I hadn’t even informed the others because if I couldn’t agree a fee for George Burley [with Southampton], that was ruling him out.

“Unfortunately what happened was the press got word, it was leaked out and the other candidates were annoyed by the fact they hadn’t been told they weren’t getting it.”

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4143832/graeme-souness-gordon-smith-rangers-sfa-scotland-open-goal/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1555690867

[compo 7,048]

Remind me who were the board members back then 

[stewarty 2,027]

Probably similar reasons why the knives were out for Mcleish before his team had kicked a ball.

The story I heard was, and I've no way of proving, was that there has been a split of agendas on the SFA Board and one faction was given responsibility for appointing the Chief Executive (Ian Maxwell) and the other the manager (Eck).

If true, what that says about the two factions is clear in terms of the pro ABR agenda (Anyone But Rangers).

[compo 7,048]

Only one man for the job super Ally can't be any worse at management than he is a radio presenter .

[buster. 5,199]

3 hours ago, stewarty said:

Probably similar reasons why the knives were out for Mcleish before his team had kicked a ball.

The story I heard was, and I've no way of proving, was that there has been a split of agendas on the SFA Board and one faction was given responsibility for appointing the Chief Executive (Ian Maxwell) and the other the manager (Eck).

If true, what that says about the two factions is clear in terms of the pro ABR agenda (Anyone But Rangers).

When McLeish was being mentioned in connection with the Rangers job last year, my own thoughts about this were please ABR (Anyone But Rangers).

I didn't think he was up to it and when he did some punditry work at that time, he visibly didn't come accross as the same Eck  as before. 

 

In other words, whilst such factions may well exist, I could well understand objections to him getting the job that had nothing to do with factions, more than someone seeing him the man for the job.

 

 

 

[stewarty 2,027]

31 minutes ago, buster. said:

When McLeish was being mentioned in connection with the Rangers job last year, my own thoughts about this were please ABR (Anyone But Rangers).

I didn't think he was up to it and when he did some punditry work at that time, he visibly didn't come accross as the same Eck  as before. 

 

In other words, whilst such factions may well exist, I could well understand objections to him getting the job that had nothing to do with factions, more than someone seeing him the man for the job.

 

 

 

Fair enough.  I wasn't hugely convinced but I did find the immediate fall out from a section of pundits and fans to be quite odd.

 

They had made up their mind already - and it didn't matter whether those frailties existed or otherwise.

 

It points to an old boys network prevalant in the SFA - how many would disagree with that?

 

And it also points to a deep rooted prejudice against anyone with a potential Rangers bias.  

 

Bottom line though is that Eck is a decent man and hasn't deserved any of this.

 

[buster. 5,199]

Scottish fitbaw is generally a low quality environment that is best at hating itself into insignificance and worse.

 

The SFA made a bad appointment that had car crash written all over it. To compound it, their own past incompetence had forced them into a money-making end of season trip to Central and South America that no-one (including many of the players) was interested in. It put Eck on the general defensive from the off and squad harmony was at least partly torpeded before a competitive game. In terms of complete f**k-up, they couldn't have done it better had it been their actual aim.

 

What it did do was give the unashamed Rangers haters like Cosgrove and Stewart something to opportunistically get their teeth into but IMO the biggest culprits in all of this are the SFA.

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by buster.

[MacK1950 2,378]

58 minutes ago, buster. said:

To compound it, their own past incompetence had forced them into a money-making end of season trip to Central and South America that no-one (including many of the players) was interested in.

Similar to next game being in early June when players should be on holiday.