Reformation Bear

I've not finished writing it yet.

Its looks like a very convincing performance though. I've still got a bit of a feeling that the Board may have over-interpreted and grabbed the opportunity to badge it as resignation and tough it out from there, on the assumption that they wanted the 3 out anyway and exploratory conversations about release from contract terms gave them the way in to seize the opportunity. What happens next will be interesting. If the band of 3 dispute the claim that they resigned then it either goes away Barton-style with compensation or we're in for yet more court stuff. If they just accept that they did in fact resign and that's that then we'll hear very little more of the matter.

I see. If so then nothing quite like keeping a remote and impersonal distance for dealing with stuff that's difficult to deal with. What happened, I wonder, to visible, accountable leadership where personal responsibility is seen to be taken for dealing with serious things that happen.

Maybe the timing of the statement depends on the timing of flight arrivals from SA and then connecting flights to Glasgow. But that assumes some leadership is about to be shown by the Chairman.

I've listened again to the pre-match press conferences given by Warburton and Wallace. Listening to Waburton's responses and looking at his body language it seems to me the interview was a business as usual session. There is no hint that I can see of someone who thought that only hours later conversations that had taken place earlier in the week would lead to an announcement that he, and Weir and McParland, has been considered by the Board to have resigned. I may be missing the signs and signals in the interview but its either a stellar acting performance where he knew full well there was trouble brewing to the boil in the background, or he honestly just thinks its just a bau week and is then utterly caught blindsided when notice of his apparent resignation is then posted on the Rangers website. As for the Wallace interview, in my view its one of the best he's done.

Many retirements these days are dubious (for good reasons). I've retired 3 times and then been tempted back to work some more. I'm now, and have been for some time, fully, completely, finally retired........unless some company came along and asked for some help for a short while and the work was interesting and the rewards were decent enough. Point is, it'd be his choice to offer to come out of retirement but presumably only if the Club itself indicated to him that it would welcome his return and his return was demonstrably vital to Club in the short term. Whether he would want to come out of retirement to lead the side through to the end of the season on an interim basis would, I'm guessing, depend on his being convinced that his returning was the best credible option for the Club. But bear in mind that eventually in retirement you get to a point where even if the job looks appealing, or even vital, you find you've personally moved beyond being able to take the job on and do the job as well as you might have done 10 years ago.

Purely speculation and with absolutely zero knowledge of what is going on at Ibrox or with the gang of 3.........but could the delay be because the Board and the gang of 3 are in talks to have them reinstated and blame the whole thing on a big misunderstanding or misinterpretation of conversations. Just joking of course.

Possible (perhaps) that the way the conversations / exchanges of information went that the Board chose to interpret the band of 3 and their agent statements as being of a nature that they were deemed to have resigned. Used the grey area of what was actually being said to fit a 'you've resigned' stance which puts the band of 3 into a corner of just accepting this interpretation or lawyering up for a compensation battle. Any way you look at it though, it seems clear enough so far that the Board did not want to fight to keep the band of 3 and in fact eagerly grabbed a 'resignation' pathway. Could be a way to run on this latest event. Might even out-Barton the Barton episode. And in all of it blame cast about by each side, and by the Support, like confetti.

IMHO they (King, the Directors and the MD) really do need to get their corporate act together on this pronto. Rangers is not some company who, when it loses its top layer of management, just makes a comment to whatever trade press reports on the business of the company, or even it were a biggish publicly listed company might earn a short column of reporting in the serious financial papers. Rangers is way more than that. It is an institution which - when anything of significance happens - makes for front page news in national (in Scotland that is) papers and TV. For that reason alone - aside from better reasons of good quality communication to Supporters - the messaging needs to be a lot clearer, more transparent, better presented and given out by someone in person who is recognisably a person in authority at the Club. Preferably the Chairman. Its his job imo. So far the messaging has, imo, been sparse and tawdry at best. If this sort of approach was taken to informing shareholders in companies then I'd expect shareholders and investors to be up in arms about the lack of personal leadership on this and about the lack of quality. You can't just suddenly and controversially lose the top layer of management - which is key to driving the football business - and sit behind a shoddy message posted on the company website. A far better and clearer statement is needed. And soon. In other worlds the sort of amateurish approach taken by the Board and the MD so far would risk sending share prices sharply downward and require much more senior and experienced intervention to stabalise and provide clear future direction. Seems we are to wait a bit longer for more clarity. Not really good enough from the Board imo. Another reason why the next messaging needs to be far better and with much clearer visibility that someone in authority at Ibrox clearly has the reigns of leadership to deal with this is that if the Club had intended to raise more money by way of issuing more shares in late Spring / early Summer then it needs a good story to tell to prospective buyers. Having a credible management team is one aspect - and this will now need to be addressed pronto. Having prospects to earn more revenue is another - so if Europe is vital to that sales pitch then whips need to be cracked a bit to get the level of football results into territory where European football is achieved. Also Board credibility. They need so show they are competent persons to be running the Club. If this resignation thing becomes a fiasco because they mishandled it then, added to the Barton saga, it would not make for a convincing story that the Board is operating at a good enough level. Messaging - and the quality of it - is therefore important if they plan to raise money for next season. Apart from that they still have to sell STs for next season and they'd do well to avoid coming over too much as taking the Support for granted. This season risks heading towards write-off territory and if that turns out to be the case over the next few months then putting in place building blocks to enable a much better team to be competing next season is also important.

I don't think we get Barton back. I hope its been a clear case that resign meant resign and not the Board jumping the gun a bit on 'we deem you to have resigned' with its risk of fouling the whole thing up with compensation then being paid. With the Board - and even with an expensively paid MD - the way this has gone has not been as clear cut as a simple resignation should be.

The key here is watertight. If the conversations between the band of 3 or their agent and the Board reps / MD were couched in terms of thinking of resigning rather then a firm 'we resign', or if the 3 did not hand in written resignations then maybe the question of watertightness might yet come into play. Because if the Board has simply chosen to deem them to have resigned because they were sounding out the possibility of working elsewhere then a proverbial can of worms might be opened up and hey ho it becomes a field day for employment lawyers. If they resigned - really resigned and not simply created the impression that they intended to resign - then as you rightly say the Board wins a watch. I guess more will be revealed today - especially if the 3 turn up for work at the Training Centre or at Ibrox.

In my view its a very poor display of leadership and communication from the Club. When a Club loses the top layer of its football management it is such a big event that a senior Director, probably even the Chairman, should provide a statement in person to the Support via the media. When the football management layer goes so quickly and under such confusing circumstances the need for a senior Director or the Chairman to surface and explain becomes, imo, even more important. The Club saw fit to rest behind a poorly crafted, clumsily worded note published on the website. Even then for hours we had speculation over whether the band of 3 had or had not actually resigned. With no active response or move to clarify from any senior person at Ibrox. Not even from the very well paid MD if no Director or Chairman was available. Also, we are paying decent bucks for Roberstson as MD. If that note on the website had been drafted by him, or proof read and approved for release by him then its a poor quality performance imo.

Wonder if the Club got the offers of resignation in writing either from the 3 persons themselves or from their agent. If so then presumably the Directors are on watertight territory in electing to accept the resignations and equally watertight territory in refusing to reinstate the 3. But if it was an informal discussion along the lines of 'the 3 would be minded to leave as they see an opportunity elsewhere but only if certain contract terms were adjusted)' and the Board has seized on this discussion as being tantamount to a binding offer to resign, then we might yet have a battle about whether or not the resignations are validly submitted. I hope - I really really do hope - that we don't find ourselves enmeshed in a legal wrangle over whether they have resigned or whether they have been - in effect - dismissed. Either way though, their days at Ibrox are finished.

Will be interesting to see if Warburton and Weir turn up for work at the Rangers Training Centre or at Ibrox on Saturday morning. I've no idea if they've departed with immediate effect, or if there is a notice period (the Ibrox statement doesn't seem to say if its with immediate effect). Will be a bit surreal if they turn up believing they are still in charge only to be told they are not. I bet there will be a few journos and TV cameras out in force to get the pics. Will be a bit strange for the players too. Here's the new temporary boss - not the same as the boss you had yesterday. I bet the phone lines between Warburton and Weir and their agent have been buzzing tonight.

Ahhh. Now if that article is half way accurate then maybe we get closer to the heart of the matter. Financial greed from the 3 of them. And if that's the case then there's probably not a lot more to say in their favour. Like far too many before them if their primary interest was in filling their saddle bags with dosh then its best they are gone.

The other thing this seems to point to is just how quick the Board seem to have been to grab the opportunity of resignations. From the little said so far they don't seem to have been too concerned to make any effort to keep the 3 of them. Having been handed the gift of resignation opportunity (or interpreted what was being said as de facto resignations) the Board seems to have grabbed the opportunity with eager hands. It feels as though there were quite relieved to have been gifted this opportunity which avoids the potential for a more difficult parting of company at the end of the season it the Board concluded that the 3 of them had not delivered to the objectives set for this season.

In my view any Chairman in any industry who knows how to lead in a time of confusion or difficulty gets out in front of the execs, staff, shareholders, investors and in this case most importantly the Supporters and provides a clear and credible statement of the status and of what actions are being taken. I expect he is on a flight to the UK right now to do just that. If he's not then he should be. Its not something you leave to an MD (Roberstson) to deal with. This is why he gets to be Chairman. Time for him to surface and explain.

A good theory. Might well be what's happened. A variation might be....(purely spectulative) Warburton, Weir and McParland make it known to Roberston informally / off the record so to speak that they may be interested in jobs that have become vacant down South and would be minded to explore the opportunity but only if certain terms in their contracts with Rangers are relaxed. They are just exploring, just looking at options like all employees do. Roberston discusses with King and the Board and they see an opportunity to release the 3 of them without firing them (King's objective was for Rangers to finish a strong second and that is slipping away and someone has to take the blame). So with further discussion with the 3 the interpretation taken by the Board is that they have effectively resigned themselves since they believe their futures lie elsewhere and therefore are demonstrating that they are no longer commited to Rangers. The 3 then hit the panic button when they realise that the conversation is being treated by Rangers' Directors as one where the 3 want out and are resigning themselves and we get attempts at reversing out and denial that resignations have taken place. Result - chaos. Cue for the respective legal teams to enter the fray.

We'll see what happens next. The defence has not defended well, has conceded careless goals - many caused by individual errors. A lot of them track to Kiernan. Claiming to be committed is one thing. Words are important but the greater importance is eliminating the sorts of errors that cause us to lose goals, lose points and lose games. Can he do that? We'll see during the rest of this season.

Got to admit you have a point there.

Perhaps he could put him on the bench but not play him. Just to give him some experience of how the first team prepare for the game and so on. A bit of encouragement maybe?

Winners get to write the history of events. The also-rans just get to write about what might have been, the 'if onlys', the commitment they showed, the effort they put in. And gripe about not having enough good luck ....or dress this up in more elaborate language of failure hiding behind the random nature of things. The 'no lack of commitment' and 'randomness' messages from Warburton after the RC draw, and now this 'look at the effort and how far we ran' message today are the equivalent of offering fools gold to those who seek and expect to receive genuine treasure. In an effort to appease, to salvage some pride in what is being achieved (or more to the point not being achieved) these sorts of messages from Warburton risk adding yet another layer to the '2nd best will do' mentality that seems to now be the way of things at Ibrox. Striving has replaced achieving. Measuring effort has replaced reflection of goals scored and games won and planning for more success. Talking about outcomes of winning and success is replaced by talking about inputs such as commitment and effort. He may or may not mean it but many may see these sorts of statements as further plodding down the road to football mediocrity. If all he is left to talk about is the commitment and effort then its not a strong message imo. Will be very interesting to see if that sort of messaging is going to be effective in selling STs for next season. I assume King and the Board are leaping with joy and happiness with these sorts of messages coming from Warburton. After all, he presumably has their full backing to release these sorts of messages to the Support and to the media. They must be in lock-step with Warburton on this for if they were not then the presumption would be that they'd not allow these sorts of messages to be issued. They must know, or at least suspect, that this sort of 'we're just strivers but not achievers' risks painting the Club into the picture of being just another Club in Scottish football where the most they can hope for is to strive. Achieving is something very different.

I've no idea whether the Sun story is accurate or not. Whether it is or isn't it inevitably sparks speculation about what happens next. McParland is but one individual. What I don't know is the extent to which he has built (or is still trying to build) a scouting network designed to bring the best range of football talent in the UK and across Europe and wider afield to Rangers' attention. Is he just running solo or would his departure (if it happens) leave in place a scouting network and system that Rangers can still access? Put differently, has the Club allowed all of its scouting eggs to be located in a single basket of McParland? If King, the Board and MD Stewart Robertson have allowed that to happen and risk a reset to zero or virtually zero scouting network if McParland left (regardless of what we think of McParlland's track record) then some seriously ineffective management will have taken place. Some serious questions should then be asked about the competence of Execs and Directors running Rangers. Another thing. Warburton seems to have been successful in bringing to Rangers some people he is comfortable working with. McParland is one of them. The thing is, if the Warbiurton card is removed (because he walks or is removed by King) then some of the other cards in the Warburton pack may elect to go too. A domino effect of people in key posts going in quick succession. Wonder if King and Robertson have factored that risk in to his plans for taking the Club forward.

Hope Kranjcar makes a swift recovery. Maybe he'll be fit enough for EL prelim games if we qualify. The most interesting photo for me in the Rangers website gallery is the one of Davie Weir advancing with ball at feet in one of the practice sessions. Making a comeback I wonder? The next most interesting picture is the one with the squad all gathered round Wallace who seems to be doing the speaking. No sign of Warburton or Weir. A team talk from the captain? Hope the subjects of discussion were not randomness or mathematics. Maybe we should have a caption contest on that photo. The third most interesting thing for me about the photos is what's not there. As they always do they understandably show a lot of action, a lot of running around, including running around with the ball. Don't often see many action shots of players practising their goal scoring skills.

I read the Waruburton article and quotes again to see if it reads better having put it aside for a few hours. It doesn't. IMO it does him no credit whatsoever, and even less credit for the Club. Lamely hiding under the skirts of randomness and citing what he claims to have learnt from a mathematician at Brentford is not what I'd expect to hear from a Rangers manager who is trying to explain why the team he puts out concedes too many goals and cannot score enough goals. It reads like an attempt to distract, to deflect, to evade taking any sort of personal responsibility for the inability of the team to deliver more wins and more goals. I'm reminded from the article that Warburton is quoted as saying "Warburton says he can’t put his finger on whether it is luck or confidence which is affecting his side in front of goal." Well he's paid handsomely to not just put his finger on the problem but to fix it. Something he is consistently failing to do. There's nothing random about that failure to fix - imo its got a whole lot more to do with the manager's inability to instil a winning mentality. If he doesn't know what the problem is then he clearly doesn't know what to do to fix it. His statement appears to be tantamount to an admission that he does not know what to do and is out of his depth on this. If he can't provide the leadership to the squad to deal with this, and he is just hoping that randomness eventually turns in his favour, then I'm left asking again why he thinks he is qualified to manage Rangers. More to the point you'd think that King and the Board should be asking the same question, but they seem to have collective Board heads stuck in sand so deep they've become invisible in all useful respects. If he's not setting himself up to be relieved of his duties then I really don't know what he is trying to achieve by hoisting up the excuse of randomness and wrapping himself in the comfort blanket of what he thinks he's learnt about football mathematics at Brentford. He must surely have known that lamely referring to randomness as an excuse and to having learnt some Brentford mathematics is hardly going to be well received by many Rangers Supporters.