Miller and Wallace Suspended

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

2 hours ago, theiconicman said:

Sounds like your experience is limited to mid-level management or government bodies.

Main board Director of one of the largest multinationals on the planet. MBA Strathclyde Graduate Business School, class of 2002. BENg (Hons) Herriot Watt, class of 1992. Chartered Engineer and Chartered Director, Fellow and Diplomate of the IoD. Glad you challenged. 

As I said, a dysfunctional organisation, with uneducated managers or Directors.

Try googling for the processes of conflict management, high performing boards (IoD), executive coaching and so on. It's all out there. Board meetings as they go, should always try to avoid conflict. Matters arising are always issued in advance and any items for voting with potential for conflict, you resolve it before the meeting. The meeting should be one of concensus and cordiality and never dissent and never with aggression. Be ill mannered and unprofessional you are toast. Unless you are indeed the millionaire/billionaire owner, board members of major institutions are very carefully hand picked and screened as to fit with an organisation's culture, which is again about avoiding conflict and not rocking the boat and upsetting every cunt in it.

Where things can heat up, is in meetings with middle and senior managers, particularly on matters of change, as this group are the biggest obstacles to change in any organisation, as they feel threatend in their comfort zone. Well honed executives soon take the heat out of any conflict and control any vociferous dissenters at this level. All meetings are to be on the positive, energising individuals to buy in to the program andto  engender high performing teams. All basic first principle stuff from business school.

Abusive and aggresive behaviour is a negative force  in any walk of life, far less business, where motivating your single biggest and costliest asset in human resource to deliver high performance, thus maximising profit is paramount. It only makes sense.

The company set the standards through good leadership of the board. Any manager of mine who showed any agressive or abusive behaviour would be immediately dismissed as a few have done. Manners cost nothing and no one in the work place is there to take shite or be abused by anyone. That is why there is employment and health and safety law. Some need sacked to protect them from themselves. End of.

You my friend have never been near a board room of any credible or sizeable organisation, nor educated in board room etiquette, but most haven't and is no crime. I also doubt you have been in higher post grad education, but that's no crime either, but don't profess to be something you are clearly not. Yes their are many rogue and unprofessional organisations out there, but that does not equate to the norm nor make bad practice acceptable. 

[piperpete 3,186]

19 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

The ones who were on the list given to the board 3 days after PC left.

Yes but Pep and Jurgen were not available so the list was more a wish list.

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, piperpete said:

Cheers and here was me thinking we had put all our eggs into the McInnes basket, as they say everyday is a school day 

That's why I'm reluctant to go for Clarke too. I know Inigo is gonna disagree, but he said at KIlmarnock's AGM he wouldn't be joining us, fuck putting all our eggs in one basket with him, going public and getting a knock-back ... the rest of Scotland would fucking love that.

If the question is going to be asked it needs to be done a certain way .. get a message to someone close to him and if it's a positive do things right by the book when dealing with Kilmarnock.

[Captain Hilts 12,819]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

That's why I'm reluctant to go for Clarke too. I know Inigo is gonna disagree, but he said at KIlmarnock's AGM he wouldn't be joining us, fuck putting all our eggs in one basket with him, going public and getting a knock-back ... the rest of Scotland would fucking love that.

If the question is going to be asked it needs to be done a certain way .. get a message to someone close to him and if it's a positive do things right by the book when dealing with Kilmarnock.

Kilmarnock couldn't wait to bitch to the media when we put an offer in for Jones. They even went to papers right after they beat us a few weeks ago to say Clarke wouldn't be joining us despite us presumably not even approaching him. I'd avoid dealing with them altogether. 

[KWBear 1,640]

9 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

Main board Director of one of the largest multinationals on the planet. MBA Strathclyde Graduate Business School, class of 2002. BENg (Hons) Herriot Watt, class of 1992. Chartered Engineer and Chartered Director, Fellow and Diplomate of the IoD. Glad you challenged. 

As I said, a dysfunctional organisation, with uneducated managers or Directors.

Try googling for the processes of conflict management, high performing boards (IoD), executive coaching and so on. It's all out there. Board meetings as they go, should always try to avoid conflict. Matters arising are always issued in advance and any items for voting with potential for conflict, you resolve it before the meeting. The meeting should be one of concensus and cordiality and never dissent and never with aggression. Be ill mannered and unprofessional you are toast. Unless you are indeed the millionaire/billionaire owner, board members of major institutions are very carefully hand picked and screened as to fit with an organisation's culture, which is again about avoiding conflict and not rocking the boat and upsetting every cunt in it.

Where things can heat up, is in meetings with middle and senior managers, particularly on matters of change, as this group are the biggest obstacles to change in any organisation, as they feel threatend in their comfort zone. Well honed executives soon take the heat out of any conflict and control any vociferous dissenters at this level. All meetings are to be on the positive, energising individuals to buy in to the program andto  engender high performing teams. All basic first principle stuff from business school.

Abusive and aggresive behaviour is a negative force  in any walk of life, far less business, where motivating your single biggest and costliest asset in human resource to deliver high performance, thus maximising profit is paramount. It only makes sense.

The company set the standards through good leadership of the board. Any manager of mine who showed any agressive or abusive behaviour would be immediately dismissed as a few have done. Manners cost nothing and no one in the work place is there to take shite or be abused by anyone. That is why there is employment and health and safety. Some need sacked to be protected from themselves. End of.

You my friend have never been near a board room of any credible or sizeable organisation, nor educated in board room etiquette, but most haven't and is no crime. I also doubt you have been in higher post grad education, but that's no crime either, but don't profess to be something you are clearly not. Yes their are many rogue and unprofessional organisations out there, but that does not equate to the norm nor make bad practice acceptable. 

Bit of a jump from being on the board of one of the largest multinationals on the planet to working in Asda 

What happened 

[KWBear 1,640]

double posted like a cunt

[Orange Persson 548]

 

Quote

Abusive and aggresive behaviour is a negative force  in any walk of life,

   Lesson for the day really.

[BlueKnight87 17,316]

1 hour ago, K.A.I said:

That's why I'm reluctant to go for Clarke too. I know Inigo is gonna disagree, but he said at KIlmarnock's AGM he wouldn't be joining us, fuck putting all our eggs in one basket with him, going public and getting a knock-back ... the rest of Scotland would fucking love that.

If the question is going to be asked it needs to be done a certain way .. get a message to someone close to him and if it's a positive do things right by the book when dealing with Kilmarnock.

We can't put too much faith in his AGM comments. Easily could be lip service for killie. 

Agree but we can approach a certain way. We don't have to make it another public episode like Mcinnes.

The easiest approach is to go to his agent first and gauge interest.  If there is make an official approach. If not move onto alternative targets. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

2 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said:

We can't put too much faith in his AGM comments. Easily could be lip service for killie. 

Agree but we can approach a certain way. We don't have to make it another public sage like Mcinnes.

The easiest approach is to go to his agent first and gauge interst. If there is make an official approach. If not move onto alternative targets. 

Just a gut feeling but Clarke seems a serious wee guy. He doesn't need money, nothing to prove, Kilmarnock were his second team growing up by all accounts I really think we need him more than he needs us. I can easily see another McInnes is we go near him. 

[BlueKnight87 17,316]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

Just a gut feeling but Clarke seems a serious wee guy. He doesn't need money, nothing to prove, Kilmarnock were his second team growing up by all accounts I really think we need him more than he needs us. I can easily see another McInnes is we go near him. 

Without actually making the approach mate we won't know for sure. Of course there's a risk he might do a Mciness. At this point a lot of managers will look at the current problems and say no thanks.

But we can't let fear of rejection stop us making approaches if we feel Clarke or any other managers are the right man. 

[72barca 1,788]

If they don't want to be here then they are not right for the job. We need a leader with steel and passion.

[Oaktreeloyal 1,422]

2 hours ago, K.A.I said:

That's why I'm reluctant to go for Clarke too. I know Inigo is gonna disagree, but he said at KIlmarnock's AGM he wouldn't be joining us, fuck putting all our eggs in one basket with him, going public and getting a knock-back ... the rest of Scotland would fucking love that.

If the question is going to be asked it needs to be done a certain way .. get a message to someone close to him and if it's a positive do things right by the book when dealing with Kilmarnock.

Just my point of view that we require a proven manager of success and reputation from out-with the Scottish pond. Either an English manager of repute or similar successful Continental stock is required. David Wagner of Huddersfield appears to be an interesting prospect. There's bound to be a number of potential candidates who would love to come to Rangers and reinstate the taigs back into obscurity where they belong.

[K.A.I 36,183]

29 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said:

Without actually making the approach mate we won't know for sure. Of course there's a risk he might do a Mciness. At this point a lot of managers will look at the current problems and say no thanks.

But we can't let fear of rejection stop us making approaches if we feel Clarke or any other managers are the right man. 

I just think we need to tred very carefully with him as I am pretty certain I know what his answer would be - and we won't like it.

That said, I appreciate the Rangers board can't think that way. Even though I wouldn't ask the question, it's one thing I wouldn't blame the Rangers board for doing. Their responsibility to the club, shareholders and fans is to get the right man for the job. End of. They are in no position to be mortified if he says no after some of the embarrasments they've feasted upon us. 

[theiconicman 2,992]

[EDIT] I can't  be arsed arguing.

[pcbear 10,924]

7 hours ago, K.A.I said:

I just think we need to tred very carefully with him as I am pretty certain I know what his answer would be - and we won't like it.

That said, I appreciate the Rangers board can't think that way. Even though I wouldn't ask the question, it's one thing I wouldn't blame the Rangers board for doing. Their responsibility to the club, shareholders and fans is to get the right man for the job. End of. They are in no position to be mortified if he says no after some of the embarrasments they've feasted upon us. 

Alex Ferguson and Jim McLean while at Aberdeen and Dundee Utd both knocked us back.

[GeeSS 512]

8 hours ago, K.A.I said:

Just a gut feeling but Clarke seems a serious wee guy. He doesn't need money, nothing to prove, Kilmarnock were his second team growing up by all accounts I really think we need him more than he needs us. I can easily see another McInnes is we go near him. 

How many times must I say this Stephen Clarke was 100% a Kilmarnock fan  I grew up 3 doors away from him in fact he is now back staying in the same house with his father while his family are in London yes he is a Tim but this myth he was a supporter of them is not correct. For what it’s worth I don’t think he would take our job because of the situation regarding his family his kids and grandkids are well settled in London and that’s where he sees his future 

[backup 4,724]

Stranger and stranger.

"A large group of Graeme Murty’s players are already itching for the chance to clear the names of Wallace and Miller as part of an internal disciplinary probe into the stormy aftermath of the Hampden thrashing.

It’s understood there were around 30 eyewitnesses to the highly-charged scenes which broke out inside the Rangers dressing room following the 4-0 defeat.

And a significant number of players are now willing to give testimony, adamant that there was no ‘bust-up’ between manager Murty and the two accused.

It’s understood Wallace and Miller were given no verbal reason for their suspensions after being banished from the stadium and training ground by managing director Stewart Robertson during a brief meeting on Tuesday.

It’s also been reported that Miller stressed to Robertson he was not involved in any bust-up with the manager and both players have laid out their version of events to the players’ union".

[Sweetheart 8,458]

35 minutes ago, backup said:

Stranger and stranger.

"A large group of Graeme Murty’s players are already itching for the chance to clear the names of Wallace and Miller as part of an internal disciplinary probe into the stormy aftermath of the Hampden thrashing.

It’s understood there were around 30 eyewitnesses to the highly-charged scenes which broke out inside the Rangers dressing room following the 4-0 defeat.

And a significant number of players are now willing to give testimony, adamant that there was no ‘bust-up’ between manager Murty and the two accused.

It’s understood Wallace and Miller were given no verbal reason for their suspensions after being banished from the stadium and training ground by managing director Stewart Robertson during a brief meeting on Tuesday.

It’s also been reported that Miller stressed to Robertson he was not involved in any bust-up with the manager and both players have laid out their version of events to the players’ union".

Why were there 30 inside the Rangers dressing room, we only have 11 players and the management team?

[BlueKnight87 17,316]

10 hours ago, K.A.I said:

I just think we need to tred very carefully with him as I am pretty certain I know what his answer would be - and we won't like it.

That said, I appreciate the Rangers board can't think that way. Even though I wouldn't ask the question, it's one thing I wouldn't blame the Rangers board for doing. Their responsibility to the club, shareholders and fans is to get the right man for the job. End of. They are in no position to be mortified if he says no after some of the embarrasments they've feasted upon us. 

If we do approach him and he says no , let's hope the board don't do another statement like the one issued when mcinnes knocked it back.

That was cringe worthy and total lacking class. 

[backup 4,724]

5 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

Why were there 30 inside the Rangers dressing room, we only have 11 players and the management team?

groupies and hanger-ons 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,054]

7 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

Why were there 30 inside the Rangers dressing room, we only have 11 players and the management team?

Jesus fuck man

[Sweetheart 8,458]

7 minutes ago, backup said:

groupies and hanger-ons 

I was thinking stewards were call in to calm the  situation down. 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 65,054]

1 minute ago, Sweetheart said:

I was thinking stewards were call in to calm the  situation down. 

Lunatic man

20+ players, management team, coaches, analysts, PR people, physio's, kitman etc not stewards ffs

[BlueSuedeSambas 53,892]

3 minutes ago, Goosetav said:

Lunatic man

20+ players, management team, coaches, analysts, PR people, physio's, kitman etc not stewards ffs

Hardly rocket science to work out is it?

[Sweetheart 8,458]

5 minutes ago, Goosetav said:

Lunatic man

20+ players, management team, coaches, analysts, PR people, physio's, kitman etc not stewards ffs

I didn't realise they were all based in the dressing room. My bad