[Official] Rangers announce departure of CEO James Bisgrove

[Uilleam 5,929]

....Struth;

Symon;

Waddell;

Wallace;

Greig;

Sounness;

Smith;

Advocaat.....

 

...And for the life of me the names of the men who were MDs, or CEOs,when these men managed the Club quite escape me. 

[RANGERRAB 3,654]

7 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

....Struth;

Symon;

Waddell;

Wallace;

Greig;

Sounness;

Smith;

Advocaat.....

 

...And for the life of me the names of the men who were MDs, or CEOs,when these men managed the Club quite escape me. 

Changed days nowadays though. 

[Uilleam 5,929]

4 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Changed days nowadays though. 

Yes,  that seems to be so. 

I should like success on the pitch to overshadow everything else, including, perhaps particularly, who does what in the Boardroom. 

An unlikely scenario, I suspect. Not because success on the field is impossible -it isn't - but because off field issues, since, and including, SDM, have been, well, difficult, and newsworthy. 

[JohnMc 2,750]

17 hours ago, Uilleam said:

....Struth;

Symon;

Waddell;

Wallace;

Greig;

Sounness;

Smith;

Advocaat.....

 

...And for the life of me the names of the men who were MDs, or CEOs,when these men managed the Club quite escape me. 

That's not strictly true. Willie Waddell famously 'went upstairs' in 72, appointing Wallace as manager while he became General Manager, effectively the MD of the day. He was largely responsible for the redevelopment of Ibrox Stadium and the eventual title win in 74/75. As one of our greatest ever players, a high profile journalist, a title winning manager with a provincial club and a European trophy winner with Rangers, Waddell was as high profile an 'MD' as we could have at that time. 

 

David Holmes was appointed 'MD' by Lawrence Malborourgh after Lawrence group bought out Jack Gillespie and took control of the club. Holmes transformed Rangers, and Scottish football. While not someone who sought the limelight his profile was very high, and rightly so.

 

He was of course replaced by David Murray, who purchased the club from Lawrence Group. Murray was acting 'MD' of all his companies. He enjoyed the limelight, courted it in fact, and had a profile as high as anyone in business in Scotland for a couple of decades. Even today, despite everything, he's more closely associated with Rangers than anything else. 

 

When Murray chose to step back from the day to day running of the club he appointed John McClelland as 'MD'. McClelland's main role was to take any flack that was aimed at Murray. Indeed that was the main role for everyone SDM appointed to that position. 

 

Campbell Ogilvie, who was never Rangers 'MD', has some illuminating insights into Rangers between Waddell and Holmes. We didn't have a single owner at the time, we'd a number of shareholders who each had influence but no overall control. According to Ogilvie the board was fractured, they rarely agreed on major decisions. The board were split on firing John Greig as manager for example, long after it was apparent it wasn't working out. Greig eventually did them a favour and resigned. 

Ogilvie tells of board meetings that regularly lasted 12 hours, where every single thing was discussed and debated and often no agreement was reached. Director's had their own agendas, cliques and alliances were formed, while the club slipped into a period of stasis, allowing Celtic, Aberdeen, Hearts and even Dundee Utd to push ahead of us. The lack of leadership and direction was part of the reason we were unable to attract Alex Ferguson or Jim McLean as manager, despite both being very much open to it, despite what might have been spun since.

 

Leadership begins at the very top. That's the case with every successful business. While supporters are much more concerned with the football related appointments, the replacement for Bisgrove might well be the most important bit of business we do this summer. History tells us what happens if we get that wrong.  

[Bluedell 5,624]

On 01/06/2024 at 09:52, RANGERRAB said:

We need a high profile, big hitter for the CEO role at Rangers. One who is prepared to confront the SFA and the SPFL. 

The response from the club to the corrupt refereeing last Saturday was abysmal 

The CEO will take his instructions from the PLC board as to the level of confrontation.

 

Also we may not know the level of confrontation. It may be that they think that doing it privately may be more effective, even if it doesn't assuage parts of our support. 

[Uilleam 5,929]

19 hours ago, Uilleam said:

And for the life of me the names of the men who were MDs, or CEOs, when these men managed the Club quite escape me. 

 

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

That's not strictly true.

Actually it is. 

 

And, actually, I find it almost, well, depressing that we have to hear about, consider, and debate, boardroom appointments, at all. 

 

What I will say is that if one wished to start and run a "professional sports business", then one might well consider recruiting people who know how to do such things, and have experience which demonstrates such knowledge. It doesn't seem to me that expertise in one field, must of necessity transfer to another. 

The problem at Ibrox might be that we have, and have had, a set of successful business people, who are, perhaps, struggling a little, because football is an industry in which they have little experience, and which does not easily bend into comfortable shape. 

Consider the erstwhile SNP panjandrum, and big name big businessman, McColl, who took over Fergusson's shipyard in Port Glasgow, and how quickly that whole shebang turned belly up. 

 

[JohnMc 2,750]

1 hour ago, Uilleam said:

 

Actually it is. 

 

And, actually, I find it almost, well, depressing that we have to hear about, consider, and debate, boardroom appointments, at all. 

 

What I will say is that if one wished to start and run a "professional sports business", then one might well consider recruiting people who know how to do such things, and have experience which demonstrates such knowledge. It doesn't seem to me that expertise in one field, must of necessity transfer to another. 

The problem at Ibrox might be that we have, and have had, a set of successful business people, who are, perhaps, struggling a little, because football is an industry in which they have little experience, and which does not easily bend into comfortable shape. 

Consider the erstwhile SNP panjandrum, and big name big businessman, McColl, who took over Fergusson's shipyard in Port Glasgow, and how quickly that whole shebang turned belly up. 

 

I don't know, Uilleam, I think the names of Waddell, Holmes and Murray are hard to forget and are closely associated with the managers they appointed, or removed. However, I'll concede it seems unlikely we'll be speaking about Bisgrove's time at Rangers 30 years from now. I agree that for most of us who is in the boardroom or executive level is of far less interest than who is starting at left back or picking the team. However, particularly with our recent history, debating and keeping a watchful eye on who is making decisions in Edmiston Drive is beholden on all of us. 

 

I would agree entirely that having success in one field is no guarantee that success will inevitably follow in a different one. Football in particular is strewn with the carcasses of men (almost always men) who were successful in business and then failed spectacularly in the business of football. I read yesterday's press release from Everton about the probable collapse of the sale of the club, I'm reminded that Moshri had a stellar senior management record and Bill Kenwright was an impresario of rare success. Yet both presided over a long period of decline despite a huge latent support and access to Sky's millions for decades. 

[RANGERRAB 3,654]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

The CEO will take his instructions from the PLC board as to the level of confrontation.

 

Also we may not know the level of confrontation. It may be that they think that doing it privately may be more effective, even if it doesn't assuage parts of our support. 

That maybe true but in my view too often Rangers are seen as an easy target by the usual suspects who seek to damage the club & its reputation. 
Too often there seems to be little or no response from within the club & it must never be left to the manager or players to fill that role. 
Charles Green’s tenure now lies in the gutter but I’d argue he was the type of figure we need prepared to go after our enemies. In the 5 OF games this season we’ve witnessed horrendous refereeing which cost us and there was little or no response from the club. 

[Scott7 6,002]

13 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Too often there seems to be little or no response from within the club

It does seem that way but the media are under the control of the spalpeens. Complaints by Rangers are ridiculed. Complaints by celtic are elevated to matters of national importance and something must be done.

 

On reflection, I might have got that wrong. The media aren’t controlled by the spalpeens. The media are spalpeens almost to a man or woman.

[RANGERRAB 3,654]

17 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

It does seem that way but the media are under the control of the spalpeens. Complaints by Rangers are ridiculed. Complaints by celtic are elevated to matters of national importance and something must be done.

 

On reflection, I might have got that wrong. The media aren’t controlled by the spalpeens. The media are spalpeens almost to a man or woman.

Celtic have almost all of the media in their back pocket. More worryingly they now seem to have referees also under their control too with Collum’s recent appointment 

Edited June 2 by RANGERRAB