Gersnet Editorial The clock is ticking...

[JohnMc 2,750]

14 hours ago, 26th of foot said:

John Bennet's problem is communication - say what you mean, mean what you say.

 

His dedication is not in question. I suspect he knows he has an issue with communication because we did not hear from him for a period just in excess of 18 months. When he did speak, he exhibited a lack of confidence. There was a halting insecurity, interrupted by recoveries littered with repetition and, a loss of foresight to consequences. Saying Rangers have been in difficulties before but did not fold was every Sub-Editors dream, he wrote their desired headlines.

 

He recognises his communication problem, why has he not engaged with someone to do his presentation? I worked with a number of General officers who knew what they wanted but could not articulate their desires clearly. They knew it and brought in a Chief of Staff who could present the plan.

If John Bennett hadn't done the interview personally, and instead had left it to a more polished presenter, there would be a 10 page thread on here, and Lord knows what elsewhere, criticising him for hiding from the support and not speaking directly to us. He was damned if did and damned if he didn't. With respect the Forces is a very different animal to a football club director. I accept the point you make, but I think it would have been a mistake if Bennett hadn't fronted up.

 

I don't know John Bennett, I've never met or even spoken to him so I don't what he's like. I agree he seems uncomfortable in front of a camera, however, most people are like that. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing. In my working life I've seen a number of highly capable, successful people, great communicators in their working day, turn to wood the moment a camera was put in front of them. It's not a skill that everyone possesses. It can be coached and improved, but if someone simply doesn't enjoy that it rarely comes across naturally. 

 

Sir David Murray loved a camera, he was a natural, he could ad-lib, change topic and sound like he was in complete control. We all know how that worked out. 

 

It's ironic but we increasingly live in a time where presentation matters more than substance. Where communication skills are valued over actual ability, where soundbites seem to be all that matters. 

 

The substance of what John Bennett said is worth analysis. Clearly all is not well at the club, that's very clear. That lies at the feet of the directors, no one else is responsible for that. To me the most important things he said was 'no matter what happens on the pitch, Clement is here for the season'. That'a bold statement for a Chairman to make. We've had three seasons in a row where our manager has changed in the Autumn. That's a failing of the Directors, I suspect if our form isn't what we all hope for there will be a lot of people shouting for change, it's a brave board that don't give the supporter's what they want. 

[JohnMc 2,750]

15 hours ago, buster. said:

It goes beyond communication. 

 

Whilst he has a handle on what is wrong and what needs doing. He is simply not the man to take charge and get things done. He hasn't got it in him.

 

It is an extremely challenging situation and no-one will find it straight forward.

 

 

How do you know he's not the man to get things done? I don't know John Bennett, but I can see he has a pretty impressive business record. He's a guy from Knightswood who rose to the top of his chosen profession. He must have something about him to have achieved that. Finance, particularly in the City Of London, is dominated by people who went to very expensive schools and had every advantage in life. To scale the heights he has against his background at least suggests he has significant drive and ability. 

[Devil's advocaat 1,540]

Be off with you and your actual reasoned, informed opinion John.

[Gonzo79 15,292]

12 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

How do you know he's not the man to get things done?

Although some posters go over the top with continual and repetitive negativity, what has Bennett done at Rangers that you (or anyone?) has been impressed by?

 

We have to judge him on what he does at Rangers. 

[ranger_syntax 4,314]

14 hours ago, buster. said:

A young David Holmes could be the man.

[Rousseau 10,600]

One thing I thought I picked up on in the interview what the 'alignment' of manager to the plan. I got the sense that Beale was sacked because he didn't align with the plan, rather than results per se. I think if Beale had got on board with the plan he would have been given more time. 

 

I might be wrong, but I got that impression.  

[Frankie 8,562]

I think there are aspects of recent years that are quite positive. It wasn't for everyone but I like NEH and the improvements across the commercial side; driven by the board and their appointment of Bisgrove. I think their rolling programme of stadium improvements alongside maintaining a successful team is a good one even if the direct success (indirectly we've had some) isn't enough in terms of titles.

 

Ultimately though, we're judged on performance on the park and that's where the board have struggled under both Douglas Park and John Bennett. Inconsistent messages about Sporting Directors (hired, fired, not replaced) and player trading models (JB interviewed confirming this was now in place in 2002 then saying it was 'fabled' this week) doesn't help along with either poor selection of managers or not enough backing.

 

John Bennett isn't daft and is very capable. However, he's now responsible for all this and must deliver improvement. I don't doubt he's trying his very best (and investing millions of his own money can't be sniffed at) but that doesn't make him the right man for the job. As a somewhat symbolic chairman at a distance, perhaps that's fine. But that means a proper board of experienced directors working day-to-day for the club's benefit, headed by a CEO with a proven record. We're well, well short on that front and I'd suggest the latter is as important as signing player A or B this week.

[buster. 5,183]

42 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

How do you know he's not the man to get things done? I don't know John Bennett, but I can see he has a pretty impressive business record. He's a guy from Knightswood who rose to the top of his chosen profession. He must have something about him to have achieved that. Finance, particularly in the City Of London, is dominated by people who went to very expensive schools and had every advantage in life. To scale the heights he has against his background at least suggests he has significant drive and ability. 

This isn't a job interview, I don't care what school he went to. 

 

He has been chairman since April of last year and he has made a horlicks of it.

 

I recognise what he has achieved in his business career, that he chose to invest in Rangers at a time of need and that he has extended credit facilities to the club at lower than market rate. Great !!

 

It is obvious that he is dedicated to what he is doing and he is giving everything towards the cause.

 

All that said, he isn't the type of leader that the club need at this moment. 

The board need to bring in a particular type of CEO to do that job. 

Bennett has a good idea of what is needed but along with the board, he has to give this remit to a man who, with a fair wind and sufficient finance, is capable of delivering.

 

Easy to say, but very difficult to find the right man and for that man to go to a gun fight with only a knife. I mentioned  "a young David Holmes" earlier. He was given an automatic machine gun.

 

 

 

Edited August 1 by buster.

[compo 7,030]

If we are in the market for someone who can run a football club we should also be looking for someone who can maximize our earnings from shirts etc a man like the chap we had years ago Freddie Fletcher 

[Rousseau 10,600]

I'm pleased there are some good points being made above, as usually I get the sense there's a lot of projection involved: the team lost so the whole club's an 'omnishambles', which is just silly.