Beaujolais

When the DOF role was described by the wee bridge building weakling we call an MD, all I heard was we need continuity when we blame the next manager for not turning our underfunding into a solid second place thus taking the heat of our custodians again.  I view the fact our club has had only 13 managers (jock Wallace and Walter counted as one despite two stints each and the temp mob mcdowell, Durrant, McCall omitted etc) since our formation to this date as a mark of our quality but I suspect this might diminish with the way this is looking. Hope not, another reason why we differ from any other club imo.

For a number of candidates the win situation is having their name merely mentioned in the context of the job at Rangers- suddenly they are subject to worldwide scrutiny and CV exposure which does them no harm at all with potential future employers or even their current employers.
The win win is getting the job and making a success of it. But the making a success of it largely depends on the amount of cash/ time they are going to be actually backed with. 

as it should be. 

Warburton and Weir also failed to compete with Aberdeen, Hearts, and various other teams on less than half the budget they had available. Warburton and Weir also failed to look at their opponents weaknesses or strengths or have anything other than a Plan A. They may have achieved promotion at a canter however most peoples recollection is that even that was gruesome, grinding, sluggish, and much harder than it needed to be in some parts of the season. The signs have always been there. Alarm bells should have been ringing long before they went on to signing Rossiter, Senderos, Barton, and Nico. Anyone who knows anything about football could have seen those were just desperate gambles. Seriously, we all wanted Warburton to succeed: so much we tried to ignore just how average he really was for far too long.

Crikey - if this is for real, and he is genuinely on 2 million... I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There must be some serious funds lurking somewhere. We are in a loss making cycle of ever increasing debt, yet are allegedly just about to slash out serious cash on this guy, plus get a DoF, we may need to pay off Warbs and Co, and that's before we have looked at creating a "transfer war chest"- We are living in interesting times. If King and Co have put aside these sort of funds then they will deserve serious credit.

The majority of this squad hopefully won't be here next season.

Ref Tommy Wright:
If I were a St Johnstone Fan or Director-  right now I would be questioning his integrity and commitment to St Johnstone. If I was one of his players I would be feeling uncertain and maybe even a little betrayed.
I do question his judgement in making such a comment publicly. Yes he may well be a better interim prospect than Murty- but he is not what we need.
i am rapidly becoming of the opinion that McLeish is the only realistic viable option right now. At least he knows how to defend.

Exactly mate, not exactly a man of integrity with a statement like that. 
McLeish would an excellent appointment in my opinion, the only realistic one that I have confidence will do a job for us 

Ref Tommy Wright:
If I were a St Johnstone Fan or Director-  right now I would be questioning his integrity and commitment to St Johnstone. If I was one of his players I would be feeling uncertain and maybe even a little betrayed.
I do question his judgement in making such a comment publicly. Yes he may well be a better interim prospect than Murty- but he is not what we need.
i am rapidly becoming of the opinion that McLeish is the only realistic viable option right now. At least he knows how to defend.

Yes it is undeniable he has Rangers interests at heart.
i am now convinced that our only realistic and viable option is McLeish.

Exactly. It's a strange thing to come out and say .. well not strange, maybe surprising or a little surreal because he's whoring himself there for the job while in a perfectly good job.
I'm not going to slate the man for that. He's a Rangers man. He's not the worst name branded about and I welcome his comments but only in an interim context. In fact that would be a major coup for 3-months but for permanent no way.
I found his comments interesting more than anything and also interested that he was at the game tonight.
 

He's a tidy player. Likes to get forward and seems to be really highly thought of.

The players largely we have purchased are just not good enough, they have showed a severe lack of application and desire at times. 
Anyways, back the game today - would love to see a slight reshuffle 

I agree on your first point.
I disagree with your second point- because it is an employment matter and as such the employer owes a duty of care to its employees and in this case it is uncertain as to when there employment actually stopped. Matters of employment contract tend to be confidential- it was the Club that made the specifics public.
I disagree with your last point- on the basis that the  MW and co statement does not personally discredit, but merely states their position in response to the initial statement from the Club. Matters
 

I get your point, but there is transparency and there is professionalism.
The Board may welll have a good case, but to come out as they have with the statement discrediting MW and Co, is in danger of undermining the case they have and possibly leaving the Club wide open to an expensive damages claim- which bizarrely leaves less in the pot for new players and management. Any money put into the Club these days is in the form of loans or shares (which is effectively secured against the Clubs assets- well to a degree) so actually the real people who will pay is the support through ticket purchases.
Thie Club is still loss making, has a huge amount of loan debt, we cannot afford and stupid own goals.

I agree on your first point.
I disagree with your second point- because it is an employment matter and as such the employer owes a duty of care to its employees and in this case it is uncertain as to when there employment actually stopped. Matters of employment contract tend to be confidential- it was the Club that made the specifics public.
I disagree with your last point- on the basis that the  MW and co statement does not personally discredit, but merely states their position in response to the initial statement from the Club. Matters
 

I get your point, but there is transparency and there is professionalism.
The Board may welll have a good case, but to come out as they have with the statement discrediting MW and Co, is in danger of undermining the case they have and possibly leaving the Club wide open to an expensive damages claim- which bizarrely leaves less in the pot for new players and management. Any money put into the Club these days is in the form of loans or shares (which is effectively secured against the Clubs assets- well to a degree) so actually the real people who will pay is the support through ticket purchases.
Thie Club is still loss making, has a huge amount of loan debt, we cannot afford and stupid own goals.

I get your point, but there is transparency and there is professionalism.
The Board may welll have a good case, but to come out as they have with the statement discrediting MW and Co, is in danger of undermining the case they have and possibly leaving the Club wide open to an expensive damages claim- which bizarrely leaves less in the pot for new players and management. Any money put into the Club these days is in the form of loans or shares (which is effectively secured against the Clubs assets- well to a degree) so actually the real people who will pay is the support through ticket purchases.
Thie Club is still loss making, has a huge amount of loan debt, we cannot afford and stupid own goals.

I agree on your first point.
I disagree with your second point- because it is an employment matter and as such the employer owes a duty of care to its employees and in this case it is uncertain as to when there employment actually stopped. Matters of employment contract tend to be confidential- it was the Club that made the specifics public.
I disagree with your last point- on the basis that the  MW and co statement does not personally discredit, but merely states their position in response to the initial statement from the Club. Matters
 

Don't know about you but over the course of a long career dealing in commercial, financial and even some HR matters there were plenty of times where meetings were minuted and one side is happy that the minutes record what they said (or meant to say!) only for the other parties to the same meeting to dispute some points - especially if they were controversial points.    I don't know what written reports of the meeting the Board and King were relying on, but if the agent and his clients were not given the opportunity to agree that the minutes / notes of the outcome of the meeting were full, complete and accurate in all material respects then it seems to be things boil to interpretations of 'he said' and 'no I didn't' types of argument.
What is inescapable, imo, is that an offer to resign is a pretty fundamental act.    3 offers to resign even more so.   3 offers by the top 3 people in the management team make it even more potentially controversial.   And adds to the need to be on absolutely solid, no mistaking the meaning, grounds of understanding that what is on the table are 3 actual resignations (not 'we might resign' but actual resignation offers) .......and they verify that understanding with the agent (and personally I'd want that validated by the 3 individuals themselves to be doubly sure) and then confirm the same in writing with the agent. 
I'm still pretty far from convinced that this has been handled well by the Club.   And not for the first time in recent times.

Whoever is looking at their case from a compensation (and maybe even including damages) point of view - their lawyers, the LMA, Rangers' execs, Rangers lawyers, independent deciders on a tribunal or in a court) the starting points ares bound to be the basic facts.   Fundamental to that is establishing whether resignations were in fact properly tendered by or on behalf of the 3.    Clearly King, the MD and the Board think they were.  Clearly Warburton, on taking legal advice, does not agree.    If it emerges as an established fact that validly tendered resignations were not tendered then I'd be amazed if claims for compensation for wrongful dismissal were not awarded or a settlement sum agreed. 
Add to that any damages they are successful in claiming on account of King's florid description of Warburton's reaction to being questioned and the conclusion that (in King's experience) a more experienced manager would not have reacted that way.....which punches at Warburton's reputation and could be argued to damage his reputation and his chances of getting another football manager job......and I guess their legal team would look to add a damages claim to wrongful dismissal.   
Clearly the parties are setting out their stalls and preparing to engage in battle.   
The 3 are not going to go away quietly.  Looks like there will be a claim - maybe a very substantial claim - from their legal reps.   Will King want this trailed through the tribunal or court processes?   I can't see it.   The reputational damage to King personally and the Club may - imo - be too high a price for him to pay.     An out or court settlement would be likely to be made to bring the matter to a swift conclusion.   Unless of course King, the MD and the Board took legal advice and heeded it before coming out with the announcement that the 3 had resigned.   If they just used whatever was being said in meetings with the agent as being an opportunity to construe that resignations were actually being tabled and open for immediate acceptance then they may be on very thin ice.   But then maybe King, the MD and the Board were savvy enough to check their ground with their legal team before making an announcement.   I'm not betting on that.
Interestingly King, despite his curious use of legalese 'for avoidance of doubt' bit in his 2nd statement, does not mention the Board had taken all necessary professional (including legal) advice before deciding to accept what they interpreted as resignations.   Seems they clearly saw it as clear cut tendering of resignations - not 'we might resign if terms could be changed' but 'we resign'.  
A lot like the Barton case, the impression I have from the King statement is there is potential for a real mess here, and potential for some biggish compensation fees to be paid to the 3.    There does not seem to be much doubt from the King statement that the Board was dissatisfied with Warburton and the other 2 and its possible they may have been sacked anyway before much longer.   
Just as relevantly if the Board and the MD has made a mess of the removal of the 3 and a big compensation fee is paid to them then King, the Board and the MD may deserve all the criticism they get.    No wonder there may be a delay until Summer before a new manager and DOF is appointed.   The 'circumstances' referred to by Robertson in his interview yesterday were not defined, and the interviewer did not press him on what these circumstances might be.   One of them might well be waiting until any claim for compensation is settled.   Otherwise they won't know what they can afford to budget for in paying for a new manager and DOF.

I've wanted a manager/coaching staff change for a while but everything about how this has been handled is a complete embarrassment.

I love watching Rangers. They are the team I adore, have supported Rangers, man & boy, for over 55 years now. We've been worse than this in my time, when I never missed a game, seventies, and eighties. It was fucking hard watching them at times. The thing I'm trying to point out to everyone is that we'll be back at the top, where we rightfully belong, we just need to be patient. Sometimes you have to hit your lowest low before you pick yourself up, roll up your sleeves, and get stuck in about the bastards. WATP

THat protest on saturday doesn't seem like such a bad idea anymore
 
fucking tragic.

RangersMedia is a forum which is open to all opinions, which in itself brings criticism from some parties because we do not moderate as they feel we should. We have an approach which allows opinions from all sides, which is something we believe in and something every one of us should appreciate. Having said that, even free speech comes with boundaries, and as you all know we remove offensive content on a regular basis. Whilst our team tries to read as many new comments as possible, we largely rely on people reporting offensive content to us via the websites report system.
We are disappointed that 3 of our members recently posted offensive material relating to young Jay Beatty, and we extend our apologies to him and his family. We do not condone mocking the disabled or infirm, in fact members of our not-for-profit site have raised over £50,000 in the past 4 years for donation to charitable causes including disability charities and Erskine Veteran’s Care Home. Our current fundraiser has raised almost £3,000 for a young lad Joshua Adair, who has a rare disease called Jeune’s syndrome, which has left him disabled.
Unfortunately, nobody reported this offensive material to RangersMedia Admin team and we remained unaware of it until today. The content was posted in the aftermath of the Old Firm game, which is always amongst our websites busiest times. Whilst we moderate for offensive content, we are pushed to cope with the volume of traffic in the aftermath of an Old Firm, let alone one taking place on Hogmanay –  recent content is quickly engulfed by new, and the offending material quickly disappears down the pages. Of course, as soon as the content was known to the Admin team it was removed.
We would ask our members to use the reporting system to let us know if any such material is posted in future, so that  we can remove it in a more timely fashion. Non-members who are offended by content on our site can easily contact us through RangersMedia, a member they know, or our Facebook page.