Ferguson Is Not The Manager...

[KDI 0]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

[J_RFC87 762]

Point out you're other post for us

I wont make a decision on either till i find out what PLG and DM say on the matter. Most other thigns from tabloids, rumours, threads, posts, internet sites are speculation.

But i do agree that the manager is more important than any player.

[rangersross 6,690]

My manager doesnt talk, my coach tells me to take control on the pitch if that means shouting at people and changing things he told me to do it - maybe barry is in the same position but on a vastly vastly more important stage

[KDI 0]

The only control a captain should exercise is communicating the tactical heart and wishes of his captain. "Stick to the game plan". Otherwise the manager is totally undermined.

[Canadaready 9,437]

LOL. I wouldn't follow methods that have us behind 17 points to Celtic either.

[nvager 498]

Both points of view need to be heard.

[Canadaready 9,437]

Both points of view need to be heard.

[rfc72 0]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

Where is the facts to backup ur statement?? all the record was sayin to back up wot they were sayin was record sport believes... etc see the only people know wot actually went on are Paul Le Guen, Barry Ferguson and Barry Fergusons family so for sum1 to say that is pretty daft lets just wait n see wot comes out after the game

[rangersross 6,690]

The only control a captain should exercise is communicating the tactical heart and wishes of his captain. "Stick to the game plan". Otherwise the manager is totally undermined.

2 captains eh

[True_Blue_Gal 0]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

Nice post but i reckon i smell a rat because dick advocat made him captain , he then served under mcleish and funny how now our manager has a problem with him , if thats his nature then why has he served so long with a gers jersey , you are entitled to your opinion mate tho

[KDI 0]

Last Night's post - the alarmingly brilliant one!...

It seems to me that there is a communication problem - this is evident in the first meia exchange over the captaincy. LeGuen seems to be saying that the Captain is not responsible for game plans or tactical decisions. In his mind, the captaincy is not as important as the manager's position.

Ferguson seems to have taken this as an insult, saying that "no one will change who I am." Well, no one's asking you to change Barry - just to realize that you aren't in charge.

And that's the issue. I reckon that Ferguson, in his desire to shoulder responsibility for dragging the performances out of the muck, has begun to overstep the boundaries of authority. This may include making tactical calls on the pitch, playing against LeGuen's requested tactics, complaining about tactics in the dressing room, and basically elevating his own position of captain to the same level as the manager. This would obviously stem from his love for the club, but all great captains work under their managers, not shoulder to shoulder. A good captain communicates the heart and will and mind of his manager. It seems Ferguson can't or isn't willing to do this.

I am not a LeGuen lover, and I like Ferguson, but I can't help thinking that this seems like a pig-headed teenager who thinks he knows better. Taking offense because the manager said that the captain isn't the most important person at the club seems a little undignified to me. And, if I was a manager getting constant jip from a rebellious player, then I would drop him too. Ferguson did it with Keane and Beckham... I don't see why LeGuen wouldn't use the same tactics to remind Ferguson who is in charge.

[rangersross 6,690]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

Nice post but i reckon i smell a rat because dick advocat made him captain , he then served under mcleish and funny how now our manager has a problem with him , if thats his nature then why has he served so long with a gers jersey , you are entitled to your opinion mate tho

Thats a good point actually, I cannot see Advocaat standing for that especially when Barry was what ? 20 when he was made skipper under DA and if he tried any of that im sure players like Numan would have told the wee general

[KDI 0]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

Where is the facts to backup ur statement?? all the record was sayin to back up wot they were sayin was record sport believes... etc see the only people know wot actually went on are Paul Le Guen, Barry Ferguson and Barry Fergusons family so for sum1 to say that is pretty daft lets just wait n see wot comes out after the game

I did say that the Record can be unreliable, but isn't it amazing how they often get things right or close? This is called journalism and inside sources. And, if Ferguson is trying to stage a rebellion, media leaks would be forthcoming, as would rebuttals from Rangers people. All "unofficial" of course...

[KDI 0]

How did Advocaat's reign end? Dressing room unrest.

How did McLeish's reign end? Dressing room unrest.

How about LeGuen?

Link, anyone?

[Canadaready 9,437]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

Where is the facts to backup ur statement?? all the record was sayin to back up wot they were sayin was record sport believes... etc see the only people know wot actually went on are Paul Le Guen, Barry Ferguson and Barry Fergusons family so for sum1 to say that is pretty daft lets just wait n see wot comes out after the game

I did say that the Record can be unreliable, but isn't it amazing how they often get things right or close? This is called journalism and inside sources. And, if Ferguson is trying to stage a rebellion, media leaks would be forthcoming, as would rebuttals from Rangers people. All "unofficial" of course...

From what I read, PLGs new signings wouldn't listen to him. Could be the root of it all.

What if PLG created the division?

[rangersross 6,690]

How did Advocaat's reign end? Dressing room unrest.

How did McLeish's reign end? Dressing room unrest.

How about LeGuen?

Link, anyone?

Dick stayed on after his reign in a boardroom position if barry had been the cause we would have known about it by now

[J_RFC87 762]

who thinks he knows better.

and the Sir Alex example:

Think of how many super stars Sir Alex has got rid of since he took charge:

Rude Van Nist

David Beckham

Juan Sebastian Veron

Paul McGrath

Forlan

Norman Whiteside

Gordon Strachan

etc

[KDI 0]

They said that the dutch players were the ones who resisted Advocaat.

Of course, Rangers fans have NEVER been known as xenophobic, have they?...

[Canadaready 9,437]

who thinks he knows better.

and the Sir Alex example:

Think of how many super stars Sir Alex has got rid of since he took charge:

Rude Van Nist

David Beckham

Juan Sebastian Veron

Paul McGrath

Forlan

Norman Whiteside

Gordon Strachan

etc

LOL but I mean, he actually has signing talent to go along with it.

[True_Blue_Gal 0]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

Nice post but i reckon i smell a rat because dick advocat made him captain , he then served under mcleish and funny how now our manager has a problem with him , if thats his nature then why has he served so long with a gers jersey , you are entitled to your opinion mate tho

Thats a good point actually, I cannot see Advocaat standing for that especially when Barry was what ? 20 when he was made skipper under DA and if he tried any of that im sure players like Numan would have told the wee general

I could be wrong but i reckon he was first made captain at 22 and i don't think if he was a control freak he would have lasted under so many managers, not saying he is totally innocent in this matter but reckon he has been harshly treated and the report about him apparently walking out in tears(if true)? Is sad. We will know for sure if ferguson was causing probs with the team in time after he goes because le guen will now need to show a big difference in the team to justify doing this to ferguson

[Canadaready 9,437]

Would SAF can ManU's best player with no acceptable cover for him?

I doubt that.

[KDI 0]

The only justification for this is...Ferguson blatantly disobeyed the manager's tactical requests during a real-life SPL game on a day when other clubs in contention were dropping points.

Does he need any more?

[rfc72 0]

I made an alarmingly brilliant post on here last night which no one picked up on. After reading today's Record (never, of course, a great source), it seems much of the suspicions were true. Ferguson is acting like the manager on the pitch, dictating his own tactics and ignoring the wishes of the manager. The last straw was the 2nd half of the St Mirren game when, it appears, Ferguson totally ignored LeGuen's tactical wishes and did his own thing.

The captain is not more important than the manager. This is what LeGuen was trying to communicate a couple of weeks ago. The captain shouldn't be organizing any tactical changes other than the manager's wishes. Of course, Barry pitches a fit and says, "well, ah'm no' playin' anymore then!" It could be in Barry's mind that he thinks he is doing what is best for Rangers, and even by claiming he will never play again, he thinks he will be forcing Rangers to do the right thing (ie keep him and ditch LeGuen).

Anyone who knows anything about government, or even management, knows that any rebellion must be lopped off at the source. You must oust the instigator immediately or the whole government or system can crumble. LeGuen is actually showing good management skills. He is protecting his squad from a well-meaning, but misguided attempt to destroy the whole group in the name of Rangers.

You can see it on here - people wishing disaster on the club so that the "right thing" can finally be done. It's well-meaning but misguided.

Love LeGuen or loathe him, you can hardly blame him for rewarding loyalty and punishing rebellious players. Would Jock Wallace have stood for it? Would Walter Smith (Gazza by the neck anyone)? Think about it for a moment.

Where is the facts to backup ur statement?? all the record was sayin to back up wot they were sayin was record sport believes... etc see the only people know wot actually went on are Paul Le Guen, Barry Ferguson and Barry Fergusons family so for sum1 to say that is pretty daft lets just wait n see wot comes out after the game

I did say that the Record can be unreliable, but isn't it amazing how they often get things right or close? This is called journalism and inside sources. And, if Ferguson is trying to stage a rebellion, media leaks would be forthcoming, as would rebuttals from Rangers people. All "unofficial" of course...

Of course its all unofficial because as i said the press know as much about this as we do they dnt no wot has goin on either they are speculation to accumulate they are doin wot they have to do to sell papers every1 will know wot has went on after the final whistle 2day

[rangersross 6,690]

who thinks he knows better.

and the Sir Alex example:

Think of how many super stars Sir Alex has got rid of since he took charge:

Rude Van Nist

David Beckham

Juan Sebastian Veron

Paul McGrath

Forlan

Norman Whiteside

Gordon Strachan

etc

1) Fergie can easily turn round and sign someone for ?15m the next day who is of equal or greater ability than the player who left, we cant - not as a matter of principle but in terms of practicality with the money we have we cannot sign a better player in barry's position than barry

2) Why would you intorduce SAF as an example there's enough fergie's and fergusons already in this disscussion

[rfc72 0]

The only justification for this is...Ferguson blatantly disobeyed the manager's tactical requests during a real-life SPL game on a day when other clubs in contention were dropping points.

Does he need any more?

well u must know sumthn that we dnt know then because u seem to be pretty set on this being the reason Ferguson was dropped