Reformation Bear

I hope they get a lift. But its a whole lot more than a lift they need. He will have to quickly start to establish which of them are capable of rising to the sorts of performances needed to turn the side into a proper Rangers title-challenging side and then provide the sort of leadership, direction, motivation and tactical nous to get their game lifted to much higher levels and more consistently. A tall order. We'll see over the next few months whether he has the sort of leadership and coaching qualities needed to bring about a much improved side for next season........assuming also that he's being given a transfer budget he needs to bring in better players. It's next season we need to look to and as much of what can be done during next season depends not just on Pedro's management and coaching abilities but on what money King makes available for new and much better players. Without sufficient transfer funds Pedro is bound to be hampered.......and the buck with stop with King on this.

Cashing-in-on-yah

I doubt if anyone would disagree we need to see a whole lot more investment into the club and into the transfer pot to get better title-winning players. So all McCoist has to do is use whatever influence he has, as a substantial shareholder and as a Supporter, to go and round up some wealthy folks and persuade them to invest in the Club. Or maybe go a bit further and form a consortium to buy out King, buy the Club and generate enough surplus investment after buy out to pump into the transfer budget. He like all of us can point out the blindingly obvious - that a lot more investment is needed in order to obtain a far better quality of player which, when combined with an effective manager, creates the means by which a proper title-challenging Rangers side takes to the pitch and delivers the results needed to win 55. Unlike the vast majority of us he is in a better position to use his contacts - Souness, Smith, Kennedy, and maybe others he knows - to forge a consortium to buy King out and do what he claims is needed which is provide more investment. What's stopping him from practising what he preaches by going out and solving the investment problem. King and the Board don't look like they are either willing or capable of generating materially more investment. They don't seem to me to be at all active in looking to raise big funding. They seem to be treading water, Happily at that and gambling that a new foreign manager is somehow going to transform the squad into a proper title-challenging side in the couple of seasons he will be here before he shifts on (or is shifted on). Instead of commenting on the problem and observing what we all know anyway McCoist would better serve the Club he supports by getting off his pundit chair and getting out there to raise some investment money for the Club, or front up a consortium to buy King out. He might regain a lot more respect if he acted to be part of a solution rather than continue to harp on about Res 11 voting actions and stating the blindingly obvious,

The solution for McCoist is quite simple. He mentions it in his interview. Money, Investment money. Lots and lots of investment money. All he needs to do is use his influence, his contacts, his belief in the Club to round up like minded wealthy folks and persuade them to invest in Rangers. Maybe even launch a takeover bid if enough dosh can be mustered to buy out King and with plenty left over for investment in players, Maybe he should go chat with Souness and Kennedy and Sarver and whoever else was fishing in the potential investment waters a while back, or maybe there are some new potential investors around that could be encouraged to join a takeover bandwagon. Why not? What stops Ally McCoist from being a commentator from the outside looking in, from stating the blindingly obvious that more investment in the team is needed, and becoming a agent for the solution. The thing is King and his Board of Directors have had bags of time now to sus out ways to generate more investment in order to make more money available to acquire better players. Bags of time. But yet nothing of any material note seems to be happening to produce enough money to buy better players. Nothing. Its like we are barely even treading water. No momentum. No 'zip' in the efforts to generate more investment. Which increasingly leads to conclusions that King and his Board are not able or not willing to provide more investment or to work hard enough to generate more investment. The door is always open for others to make a bid for the Club. Maybe McCoist should be responding to his own observation that more investment is needed by forming a group of investors who are able to do just that. Now that sort of work would roust him out of the cosy world of punditry where talk is cheap and put him in a position to actually do something positive for the future of the Club.

Thoroughly deserved. He's 20 years of age and setting a fine example for the rest of the squad. Hope he has a great game on Sunday and wouldn't it be fitting if he scored the winning goal.

Aha! McCoist surfaces, speaks, launches a defence of his right to vote or not vote, makes his excuses etc etc. And when he speaks inevitably it sparks of a reprise of past acts and track record and so on. So why not comment and speculate a bit on part of what he said? Quote.....".........I just hope the board can find the investment to help the next manager." Who can disagree with the sentiment - reality even - that more investment is needed to build a much much better team, a proper Rangers team? Was he having a pop at King and the Board for not doing enough to generate more investment? Or a milder 'encouragement' to go find more money? Or a warning of sorts that if investment is not found then its a very different Rangers team we'll have to get used to supporting, one which joins the ranks of the other clubs in Scotland who are just strivers but not really expected to be winners? I don't disagree that more investment is needed. A lot more investment. I think its probably safe to say that every Supporter would agree. Perhaps McCoist, as a substantial shareholder and Supporter, might care to spend less effort on defending his actions on voting on Res 11 and use his influence (if he has any) to work with other shareholders or potential investors to generate the investment he talks about. Actions to generate additional much needed investment would speak a damn sight louder than words about voting intentions and be a damn sight more useful for the Club at this time. The problem of assembling a side to win 55 and then build from there depends on a lot of things, including of course a capable manager, a leader who has a passion to win. But underpinning it all is sufficient money to obtain enough better quality players who can transform the team into title winners. Can King deliver the much needed investment? I can't see him having either the capability to do so or the willingness to do so. He gets yet another chance to sort out investment when a new manager arrives and I assume that he's arriving with some sort of firm commitment from King that sufficient funds will be made available to do a proper job of rebuilding the side. I ain't holding my breath that King will make the sort of investment that McCoist may have in mind though. I doubt if he does, but I wonder if McCoist is prepared to put his belief in the Club into action by working to attract the level of investment he thinks is needed to support the new manager.

Seems we can add to the list a culture of leaks...........McCoist's claim to the Press today that his not voting for Res 11 was leaked with the aim of turning fans against him.......and he claims to have a fair idea who leaked the details. I hope Murty is taken out of the line of fire after Sunday. I don't ascribe any blame to Murty - he was asked to do a job that was not within is experience bank to do and its lasted longer than I thought it should last. If the new manager does not arrive next week then imo it raises more and more questions about the competence of the Board. Warburton left in Feb. But by King's own admission he knew, and the Board knew, that Warburton and the other 2 were digging their escape routes before the so-called resignations were tendered. Preparations for finding a replacement should have been underway as soon as that was known, and in fact contingency plans activated for sudden resignations or removals. I don't know if a month is average, better than average or worse than average for a big club to replace a manager. If an experienced interim had been appointed instead of inviting Murty then I'd be less concerned. But the longer it goes on the more it looks to me like Murty being a panic move made worse by wilful incompetence by the Board in moving sufficiently quickly to either find a suitable interim or appoint a longer term manager. Presumably with Mitchell somebody at Rangers had done some homework about the prospects of landing him early out of Spurs and about the potential constraints if he was selected. Why hunt for somebody if they are not likely to be available when you need him. It just feels like a bit of a try on which, when it fails, risks making the Club look silly. From what little we know about the approach to appointing a DOF (which is not much) it does not seem to me that Robertson, Dickson and Park went into this well prepared with a list of candidates that were realistic and with a gameplan / sales pitch strong enough to attract people to join up.

The way Robertson, Dickson, King and the Board seem to be operating risks skating on thin ice with hot blades. Take for example the following: The opportunistic way they chose to claim resignations had taken been tendered by Warburton, Weir and McP.......but still not resolved with the 3 referring the case to lawyers. The scathing public statement from King about Warburton (King's statement 2). The way Barton was ousted from the Club via the blunt force of the disciplinary handbook The sudden snatched-at policy lurch of going for a DOF. The shoe-horning in of Murty as caretaker. Someone with no relevant experience or credentials to manage a football club never mind a club of the stature of Rangers The delay in recruiting a replacement manager......and still not landed a replacement. The retreat - it seems - from recruiting a DOF having found out that what they offered to candidates was not enough to attract them to Rangers These sorts of events may (or may not) risk making their mark on other staff at the Rangers Training Centre with the additional risk of causing them to start to look at how the future at Ibrox is shaping up under this quality of Direction and senior exec leadership. Point being.....this is not the performance of a top-functioning, confident, efficient Board. This sort of performance by the top of the shop can risk causing staff to think about whether its the best place to be pursuing their careers. IMO some really good quality leadership is needed at Ibrox The new manager - whoever he is - will hopefully bring that to the first team squad. But as for the Directors.........well imo they are far from covering themselves in any sort of leadership glory.

The sudden lurch to DOF-world made me wonder if it was really trying to mask a Board and Robertson failing of allowing the time elapsed since King took control to have resulted in either no scouting network being set up or insufficient work being done to set it up.......despite the recruitment of McParland. By pushing a new-fangled DOF line on us, and by setting off down the recruitment pathways, I wonder if its simply been an attempt to try to mask how poorly Robertson and King have performed in organising things at Rangers to get a scouting and recruitment network up and running before now. By pushing the focus on to the recruitment of a DOF it seeks to paper over the bare reality that the DOF would inherit. Imagine a question from a DOF candidate that goes something like this...........please describe for me what scouting and recruitment network you already operate at Rangers.......what do the Directors see as its strengths and weaknesses? If the answer from the 3 recruiting amigos of Robertson, Dickson and Park was something like............errr we've not got a network or not much of a network.........then its not hard to see why the job may not be too attractive. Add to that a question from DOF candidates along the lines of..........ok so we're building from scratch or near scratch, what budget do I get to accomplish the objectives you are setting? End of interview. Rangers Directors retreat to the bar suffering from a dose of the vapours. The candidates go off to a different bar doing the Cadbury's Smash laugh. A bit harsh I know but right now that's how this appears as this recruitment process takes on the appearance of shambles.

IMO they've applied the wisdom of inexperience and arrogance and the DOF market seems to be telling them which way is up. Result...... a dose of the vapours and retreating for the cover of it being a 'tomorrow' project. While its right to draw stumps if they can't recruit someone suitable, the bigger issue by far is how realistic, credible and well thought through was the plan to go for a DOF in the first case. Too much ivory tower thinking perhaps, and then laced with a dose of panic when Warburton resigned which forced them to take premature decisions and act when they weren't ready to do so. That's how it seems to me as news of a delay emerges.

So it now seems to be being reported that a DOF is now relegated to become a horizon project. If correct then it looks like a classic case of a company setting out to recruit for a new important position to be filled. But has not got enough of a clue about how to do it, who to target that might be within reach of the limited budget they have, and how to sell the job to sceptical candidates who've seen all too recently just how opportunistic the Directors can be in removing managers when they've had enough of custard cream football management that's not hitting all the right boxes. The reputation as Directors and as an MD is damaged by recent events and even more damaged if the sales pitch rested on only having a small transfer budget to play with to bring about a transformational change in fortunes. Put shortly - they seem to have overreached in their ambition and the DOF candidate market is bringing them to heel. It risks shaping up to be another fine King-inspired mess.

The question should be asked of King and Robertson as to why a scouting network does not already exist. The subject was identified as a problem before the King Board took control. McParland was recruited and has now left - did he leave having done insufficient work to create a scouting network? If we really still do not have a fully functioning, or nearly fully functioning scouting network after all the time this Board has had, and after all the time Robertson has had, then I suggest this is a significant failing. The Board, and the MD, should have set specific targets to be accomplished for building a scouting network. If they have not done so or if they have rested on the work of a single McParland flying solo and with no legacy to leave behind of a network in place or part-built then it really should be Robertson and King that are called to account. Whatever the budget to be made available to a new DOF for scouting and recruitment purposes if he is starting from scratch then imo it is act of mismanagement and rank poor direction by Robertson and King for allowing it to happen.

Patience is running thin. There comes a point where benefit of doubt over the time being taken starts to be suspended and a belief starts to grow that they simply cannot attract any of their target candidates to take the jobs. And they wonder starts to turn to why that might be the case. I'm sure King, Robertson, Dickson and Park would say it was never going to be easy. Well they would wouldn't they. The need to 'get it right' and to take as much time as it needs to take is probably the main defence against criticism of why its taking so long to appoint a DOF and a new manager. Or is it a case of making speculative recruitment gestures for targets that were predictably beyond their reach or who are not attracted to what the Board can offer in terms of resources to do a proper DOF and manager job? With the result that they keep having to backtrack and continue the search / negotiations with other candidates. A DOF and head coach recruitment drive dressed up as strategy and innovation to lead the way back to winning title 55 and beyond. Aim high(ish) but not too high (no FDB for instance), make the approaches and see what happens. Out of the mix of candidates maybe a couple at the lower end of the target spectrum might be persuaded to join the bandwagon. I suspect a bit of the decision making process for the candidates will have been how much of a transfer budget is being assured and what the objectives are to be. Are they signing up to produce a side next season that is clearly seen by results to be a credible title challenging side with the capability of winning a title the following season. Or are they signing up to some fuzzier targets and with low transfer budgets. Are we in for more of the 'highly competitive' stuff or more of the 2nd will do stuff? The reputation of King and the Board for their handling of the last management trio, and maybe even Barton, may also be a factor in candidates reaching decisions on coming to Ibrox. If they thought the Board would get opportunistic again in order to get rid of them if things were not going well then maybe they'd rightly think long and hard about whether this was the right move to make. To be clear here, the reputation of an employer and the way they work can be, and is, an important consideration in deciding to take a high profile job where results, issues, opinions ......and leaks.......are plastered all over national newspapers on a near daily basis. These must surely be important factors in deciding whether to join Rangers. Because right from day 1 the pressure will be on from the Support in general and from the media about title challenges so there is no point in their joining if they have not been crystal clear on the objectives and transfer budget constraints More to the point if the objectives are more of the fuzzy stuff we saw from King and Warburton then King will have quite a selling job to do on the Support to explain where he expects Rangers to be when Pedro jumps ship in a couple of seasons time (assuming he maintains his track record trend). BTW if he steers us to 55 in that timescale before jumping ship he will most definitely have been a success. But if not........... The time to be taken to land a couple of appointments may not have seemed all that important when the Warburton resignation button was pressed. But it sure does not seem to have taken on any essence of importance now that weeks have elapsed during which the preferred DOF candidate has said thanks but no thanks and the manager candidate is stuck in the sand with no immediate sign of release. Before too much longer the charge against Robertson, Dickson and Park (and King) will be that they are engaged in a process that is producing no end product and that they are really just walking backwards slowly.

".............Caixinha isn’t afraid to speak his mind........." So when King and the Board get round to asking him for some improvement its light the blue touch paper time. And as we've seen recently there's only one winner there. Question is though, how long before the blue touch paper gets lit and the verbal fireworks begin. I hope, I really do hope, he has a very clear cast iron understanding and undertaking from King about how much money he will be able to spend in the transfer market, and when. If there is any fuzziness in that understanding, and whatever funds they talked about in the interview process do not appear then any objectives they agreed on might run straight into trouble from Summer onwards. Almost regardless of whoever is appointed as manager there are 2 key things that go with it. One is the adequacy of the transfer budget to get the job done properly. The other is the objectives the manager will have agreed in taking the appointment. For instance, are we to have more of the vague 'highly competitive' nonsense and 2nd best will do stuff. Or is King appointing a manager to win a title within 2 seasons.

The objective, is it not, is to restore Rangers back to the very top of Scottish football asap. So if Pedro is appointed its not about winning a title very quickly ie within a season or 2 is it. Why? Because nothing in his track record of time with clubs suggests he is anything other than a short-burn manager who shifts himself on every couple of years or so. So unless King and the Board are giving him a pretty decent transfer budget to create the core of a title challenging / title winning side, its not going to happen under Pedro's reign. Because even for a fast learner and fast operator there is no way in this world - as far as I can see anyway - that he could turn the substance of the current squad into a title-challenging / title-winning squad in 2 seasons before he takes himself off to another club unless he is given a big licence to get far better quality players this summer. If the Board buy into him knowing his track record of shifting on after a couple of years but don't give him anything other than a small transfer budget, it seems to me his role would then be build a strong squad with development players breaking into the first team, doing well and the process starting to happen of players being sold on for good fees. But title 55? Well that may fall to his successor to fight for because under that model Pedro would need to have been a stellar manager to turn the substance or the current squad plus some low cost additions and some development players breaking through, into a title challenging / title winning side inside a couple of years before he hikes it. And King would need to do quite a selling job to the support to adjust expectations of quick success in the form of title 55. Point is, this would not be a manager for the longer term which is what I thought the Board said they wanted to appoint. I wouldn't regard somebody whose track record is one of moving on after around a couple of seasons as a appointing a manager for the longer term. It feels more like a bet by King and the Board who have become alarmed that under Warburton this was all going to take too long so they look to Pedro to somehow do what Warburton was not able to do and transform the substance of the current squad into credible title challengers in double quick time with a few low cost additions and loans in Summer. What it doesn't feel like to me is bringing in a manager for the longer term where success once achieved is then the platform for the manager to build even more success.

It would be interesting to know what issues were causing the gap. Clearly enough for him to say 'no' last week but not so big that it ended discussions. The fact that talks continued implies the issues may be capable of being bridged. Although encouraging it doesn't necessarily mean he'll be arriving at Rangers if the gaps cannot be closed. Its probably a good thing that care is being taken by both parties to explore and resolve as best they can the issues that need to be fixed. Not in a football context, but I've seen quite a few commercial negotiations which take time to bring to maturity, then one or both parties want to step back and consider the deal on the table, the risks, opportunities, constraints and so on before deciding. And in a fair few cases - despite all the best efforts - no deal is concluded because the gaps just cannot be closed to a level where everyone can live with the outcome. And then a different solution is sought. That they are still in discussion is good. Will be interested to see if he joins. What I will say (and in full acknowledgement that I've no idea what sort of person he is) is I believe it will take some very strong leadership qualities to get the job done at Ibrox and to come out the other end with an enhanced reputation. If he prefers to shelter behind the leadership of others or prefers a life which is less in the spotlight then maybe that's also a factor alongside the package on the table in making a decision.

The whole process seems to me to have reached a stage where the next statements should simply be to announce who is being appointed to the jobs. The Club must surely be nearly there in concluding negotiations with their preferred front runners for each post, and if more than one candidate is in the mx for each of the jobs then that would maybe extend the time needed to conclude discussions and for all parties to make decisions. Its not as if we are at the beginning of the process, it must surely be winding its way to a conclusion sometime pretty soon. They can't go on talking endlessly though. Maybe those involved (and I include the candidates in this if they are taking some additional time to mull things over) will pick up the pace and reach glacial speed next week. For Rangers in deciding to go for a very different structure of DOF and Head Coach there will be no cookbook approach to doing this. Its untried territory for the Club. That in itself might be part of the delay as the Club seeks to be a sure as it can that it has attracted the best affordable 2 people on the best terms that are possible with the same applying to the preferred candidates as they will know they are stepping into a situation where a big recovery is needed and with a Board that operates with controversy as an ever close companion. I doubt if any statements will be made by the Club until they are ready to unveil their choice of DOF and Head Coach (whichever is appointed first).

He's 20 years old. And he's turning into a very good player. Arguably he's doing more for Rangers since he joined than the vast majority of his team mates, which should be putting the rest of the squad to some shame. They are being out-shone by an on-loan 20 year old. There's a lot of work for a new manager to do to produce a squad with a lot more of the ability and skill that Hyndman has shown. I hope Bournemouth and Hyndman might both be persuaded to let him stay another season, assuming the new manager wanted to keep him a bit longer that is.

By the sound of it we're heading into extra time being needed for both appointments. It starts to take on the appearance of the circus-act performances on the pitch are being rivalled by the hugger-mugger stately courtship dancing by the Board reps off the pitch, In mitigation I guess they can't wish things to a quick conclusion. There may be points to be worked out, and maybe even some more negotiation. I doubt if its a case of a good enough package and good enough set of iron-clad transfer budget assurances being put on the table which was capable of more or less immediate acceptance by the candidates. I reckon there must be quite a bit for the DOF and manager candidates to think about. Not least of which will be what sort of transfer money is going to be available and how much time are they to be given to deliver a proper title-challenging Rangers side. And that's aside from the views they take about the calibre of Chairman and Directors they'd be working to.......where the track record of awkward mishap and controversy in dealing with the last management team and in dealing with an argumentative player were all made into a bit of a feast by the media and bang slap in the public eye. For the candidates the considerations may also be about the sort of image and reputation they might be left with when they want to move and how they might themselves think they'd get on with King, Robertson, Dickson and the other Directors.

It's a two-way street isn't it. Rangers has to sell the job to the candidate, and the terms have to be acceptable to the candidate. Nowadays its not just about this being Rangers and candidates fall into line with whatever is on offer. The assumption that the Board has put a package on the table that is fully acceptable in all material respects is - imo - probably not likely. There is a lot of baggage at Rangers to contend with. For example the awkward and as yet unresolved removal of the Warburton, Weir and McP trio - and Barton - may understandably leave candidates wondering about the quality of Directors, Chairman and execs they'd be dealing with at Ibrox. Who knows if the transfer budget will be realistic enough for a DOF to work with. Presumably the candidates have asked for assurances. If the assurances are not iron-clad then doubt may exist in the candidates' minds about whether they can do a proper job on a financial shoe-string. The abject state - and lack of confidence - in the current squad may be a factor to mull over if the DOF is being told that a wholesale changeover is not affordable and its about making a lot of he existing players perform better. There may be a lot more factors in the package on offer, and the circumstances that once everything has been put on the table by Rangers, and once the candidate has had a chance to put his questions and receive answers, the right thing might well be to ask for time to weigh up the pros and cons. Days are long, long past where the name and reputation of Rangers alone is all that is needed to sell the job to a candidate.

If its Pedro then I don't think he be in charge for the next OF game. I read in the press that to leave Qatar it takes 3 weeks to deal with visa stuff, cancelling bank accounts and obtaining an exit permit. Whether or not that is factual I don't know, but this is what one press report (The Times) states.

According to The Times today Pedro's current club only appointed him 14 months ago and are expected to offer him a new contract. Seemingly under his current contract the compensation fee if he resigns is 'only' £75k but if he just sees his contract out for the remaining 3 or 4 months of its term, and assuming he still wants to come to Rangers, then clearly there would be no compensation fee to be paid. We'd presumably then stick with the caretaker until Summer. The newspaper claims there is no chance Pedro would be manager in time for the OF game on 12 March. Apparently leaving Qatar can take 3 weeks as visas and some bank accounts must be cancelled and an exit permit secured. If his current club offer a new deal then part of it could be a large signing-on fee which might dampen his enthusiasm for coming to Rangers, which would involve taking a big pay cut. So.....is he really a contender for manager, or is this just a stalking horse ploy either by Rangers itself to deflect attention from the real target, or by Pedro as a means of boosting how much he earns from his current club by threatening to hike it to Rangers only to be tempted by a big pay rise? Besides which he doesn't seem to have a track record of staying with clubs longer term. He looks to be a short-fuse specialist. If he - as Warburton was doing - is using this as a stepping stone to getting an EPL management job the question surely for the Board would be just how long do they realistically expect him to stay before we are bounced into yet another manager hunt. If he is really the right and best option that the Board have in front of them, and the best by some distance then it still feels right now to be a bit risky. I wonder who'd be next in line if Pedro decides to stick with the big bucks in the sand rather than the blue blue sea of Ibrox?

Rightly or wrongly and whether Robertson insists there is no confusion or turmoil inside Ibrox over the process and timing of appointments of a DOF and manager the prolonged dragging out of things risks starting to create the impression that they are scrambling about trying to find someone. I'm sure Robertson, Dickson and Park would want everyone to believe a deliberate, planned, ordered and well structured process is being followed. Each day that passes - actually its becoming each week that passes - and the longer it goes without results being announced the harder it will be to avoid the impression that despite the attempted air of serenity the 3 of them are panic paddling like fuck below the water, and in secrecy, to land someone suitable.

Red or not we've been told a number of times and for a long time now, even back to Warburton days, that individual errors must be stopped. Clearly in Kiernan's case he is not capable of responding to this by cutting out his individual errors. They are evident game after game and they still risk costing us points. That, surely, must be evident to Murty and his several invisible unidentified mentors. And it must surely be visible to whoever is about to be appointed DOF and Manager. He has no-one to blame but himself for not taking heed and for failing to respond by cutting out his errors. If he is a first choice CB for any game for the rest of this season then the ire needs to translate to whoever is the manager selecting him because it will be a reckless choice unless there were no other choices due to injury or suspension. At the end of the season he should be transfer listed and that should be an end to it.

A few older fans might think they'd gone back in time and actually welcome it. It'd confuse the fuck out of the opposition as well, at least for about 5 mins anyway.