The confidence in Michael Beale

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,511]

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Meanwhile, in the real world…

First of all, I’ve not said failure to win the title in his first full season would see him sacked, repeated failure to win the title would. 

Doing a ‘very good job’ as Rangers manager doesn’t include finishing behind Celtic year after year. If that’s the bar for doing a ‘very good job’ as Rangers boss we’re as well chucking it.
 

If he’s failed, repeatedly, to win anything why would he be given more chances? Should we have given Pedro more time? What about Murty? We were in a better position when he was binned than we were when he took charge. 

Of course it would be 'doing a very good job' to consistently achieve close to maximum points every year as manager, getting a better points total than any of our managers in history.

Couple this with him overachieving in Europe and having the team playing entertaining football, then of course we wouldn't sack him.

[The Dude 20,027]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Sorry, that should read either dropping 6 points or 8 points in an unbeaten season.

Highest points total in a losing season would actually require 2 losses I think.

Otherwise, would have to be 4 draws. Which would be less points.

Dropping eight points would STILL draw level with the record points tally (106). 

 

[The Specky Forum Organiser 69,519]

8 hours ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Not really, as being competitive with them and consistently beating the rest will almost always see us right in the hunt for the title.

I think that allot of us will be willing to accept that, as long as they see progress and not that signs of decline that we seen with GVB for instance.

Rogers is obviously a good manager, I dont buy into the folk writing him off. I would rather they had ended up with just about any of the other names they were linked with.

Give a good manager a head start with an established squad and also if the rumours are true, a far bigger transfer budget, then we are always likely to be underdogs.

If both teams play very well over the course of the season, but they edge it, I think allot of folk will be willing to give Beale more time.

Im just firmly against the idea of 'lose the title, and automatically sack him' of which there are already folk holding that view.

You have to take more into it than that.

Sure, if things go to absolute shit, we fail to make the CL, get a doing in the Europa, drop points all over the place and go out of the cups with a whimper, then ill be out calling for Beales head.

If however we are playing well but go out fighting in the comps and lose to a team also on form, then you have to balance things out and the decision is a bit more nuanced.

Not reading that.

[The Dude 20,027]

3 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Of course it would be 'doing a very good job' to consistently achieve close to maximum points every year as manager, getting a better points total than any of our managers in history.

Couple this with him overachieving in Europe and having the team playing entertaining football, then of course we wouldn't sack him.

Nobody gives a fuck about entertaining football if the season ends with the cunt in green and white hoops lifting all the trophies.

[STEPPS BOY 77,528]

Doesn’t matter if they have 88 or 108 league points, if we finish one point behind them in league then it’s deemed a failure for Beale or any Rangers manager. Always has been like that and always will be.

 

The next signings, strikers and centre half, will determine how we do this season.

The first OF at Ibrox is huge, Beale and his team need to show they can beat them when it really matters.

[ger4life_1872 30,499]

13 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Of course it would be 'doing a very good job' to consistently achieve close to maximum points every year as manager, getting a better points total than any of our managers in history.

Couple this with him overachieving in Europe and having the team playing entertaining football, then of course we wouldn't sack him.

You know whats really entertaining,  winning shit 

[esquire8 45,167]

16 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Of course it would be 'doing a very good job' to consistently achieve close to maximum points every year as manager, getting a better points total than any of our managers in history.

Couple this with him overachieving in Europe and having the team playing entertaining football, then of course we wouldn't sack him.

Winning leagues and cups is everything this club is about. 

If you can't win them then we get someone in who can win them.

Who gives a single fuck about points or over achieving in Europe if it doesn't equal titles?

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,511]

17 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

Winning leagues and cups is everything this club is about. 

If you can't win them then we get someone in who can win them.

Who gives a single fuck about points or over achieving in Europe if it doesn't equal titles?

Your best chance of winning them is sticking with the manager who is getting record breaking results.

Sacking a guy who has dropped 6 points all season and replacing him with someone who will very likely get far less points over the course of a season is hardly more likely to win you the league.

Sticking with the guy who lost the league on goal difference, with the best win rate in our history would be more likely to see us win the league the next season.

Anyone who believes we would actually sack a manager who was performing like that is genuinely mad.

[The Dude 20,027]

17 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Your best chance of winning them is sticking with the manager who is getting record breaking results.

Sacking a guy who has dropped 6 points all season and replacing him with someone who will very likely get far less points over the course of a season is hardly more likely to win you the league.

Sticking with the guy who lost the league on goal difference, with the best win rate in our history would be more likely to see us win the league the next season.

Anyone who believes we would actually sack a manager who was performing like that is genuinely mad.

If he only drops six points in a season he will have won more than any other side in the history of the league.

I'd be happier if we dropped 20 points and won the title than dropped six and finished second - and you would too.

Unless he won every game, he wouldn't have the best win rate in our history. We've completed a season with 18 wins from 18 games.

 

[theiconicman 3,124]

Folk playing into the scum's hand - Beale has them rattled, much like when Delia got beat in the Scottish Cup. They've gone out and paid huge sums for Rodgers (again) and given him (reportedly) £30m to spend. Why? Because they know with Beale back in charge and change at Rangers we're building something good and hoping knee jerks will call for Beale to be sacked and for us to start all over again.

 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,511]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

If he only drops six points in a season he will have won more than any other side in the history of the league.

I'd be happier if we dropped 20 points and won the title than dropped six and finished second - and you would too.

Unless he won every game, he wouldn't have the best win rate in our history. We've completed a season with 18 wins from 18 games.

 

Of course I would be happier if we win the league, but sacking a manager who dropped 6 points all season would make it less likely we win the league, not more likely.

The premise that the manager is underperforming enough to be sacked whilst posting a points total never bettered in the league is just madness.

Are you honestly telling me that you would genuinely sack a manager who posted these number of wins? Do you think it would be likely we would be able to bring in a manager who could do better? I don't.

You hold your course with your manager and wait for the opposition to drop off. If your manager declined before they do, then this is when you replace him.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,511]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

If he only drops six points in a season he will have won more than any other side in the history of the league.

I'd be happier if we dropped 20 points and won the title than dropped six and finished second - and you would too.

Unless he won every game, he wouldn't have the best win rate in our history. We've completed a season with 18 wins from 18 games.

 

Also, I'm not sure who the manager was in the 18 game season, but I think over his tenure, he would have a worse record than our fictional version of Beale by the end of an unbeaten season next year.

[AGM_72 4,063]

5 minutes ago, theiconicman said:

Folk playing into the scum's hand - Beale has them rattled, much like when Delia got beat in the Scottish Cup. They've gone out and paid huge sums for Rodgers (again) and given him (reportedly) £30m to spend. Why? Because they know with Beale back in charge and change at Rangers we're building something good and hoping knee jerks will call for Beale to be sacked and for us to start all over again.

 

I'm hopeful about our direction but let's not get silly, they just won a treble - Beale doesn't have them rattled. 

[The Dude 20,027]

3 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Of course I would be happier if we win the league, but sacking a manager who dropped 6 points all season would make it less likely we win the league, not more likely.

The premise that the manager is underperforming enough to be sacked whilst posting a points total never bettered in the league is just madness.

Are you honestly telling me that you would genuinely sack a manager who posted these number of wins? Do you think it would be likely we would be able to bring in a manager who could do better? I don't.

You hold your course with your manager and wait for the opposition to drop off. If your manager declined before they do, then this is when you replace him.

Given historic point totals, dropping six points all season would mean we are champions.

The premise that a Rangers manager is sacked after repeatedly failing to win anything is 'just madness'? Nonsense.

Yes. If a Rangers manager failed to win a single trophy over several years, I'd want him sacked. Point totals mean absolutely fuck all if you don't actually win the title.

If this fictionalised version of Beale isn't going to see his points total drop off, why would their points total drop off?

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,511]

Just now, The Dude said:

Given historic point totals, dropping six points all season would mean we are champions.

The premise that a Rangers manager is sacked after repeatedly failing to win anything is 'just madness'? Nonsense.

Yes. If a Rangers manager failed to win a single trophy over several years, I'd want him sacked. Point totals mean absolutely fuck all if you don't actually win the title.

If this fictionalised version of Beale isn't going to see his points total drop off, why would their points total drop off?

Their manager would likely get snapped up by a bigger club if he was performing to those levels.

I would want Beale to take on the next manager who would likely not post such good results.

[The Dude 20,027]

Just now, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Their manager would likely get snapped up by a bigger club if he was performing to those levels.

I would want Beale to take on the next manager who would likely not post such good results.

Why wouldn't Beale then also get snapped up by a bigger club?

[ForeverAndEver 73,877]

14 minutes ago, theiconicman said:

Folk playing into the scum's hand - Beale has them rattled, much like when Delia got beat in the Scottish Cup. They've gone out and paid huge sums for Rodgers (again) and given him (reportedly) £30m to spend. Why? Because they know with Beale back in charge and change at Rangers we're building something good and hoping knee jerks will call for Beale to be sacked and for us to start all over again.

 

Got them rattled that much they beat him when it really mattered, and cantered their way to a treble.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,511]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Why wouldn't Beale then also get snapped up by a bigger club?

He probably would be which is why I said it earlier.

If he is in position to be sacked though by us, he would have obviously decided to stay.

[The Dude 20,027]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

He probably would be which is why I said it earlier.

If he is in position to be sacked though by us, he would have obviously decided to stay.

So he'd probably have been snapped up by someone else but you'd want him to stay at Ibrox and take on the next Celtic manager despite having already been snapped up by someone else?

 

[OrangeRab 3,384]

“Winning is all that matters” is a very one dimensional statement. Lennon won the league because he inherited a good squad and we were shite.

They adopted the “he won the title” approach so everything is fine. And it fucked them. Because he is a shite manager. And it could/should have cost them more than just one title.

Of course winning is the end goal. But it’s about maximising our chance of winning. And not just over a single season.

One of the things I hated most about Wilson+ Gio. Was not just because of the two leagues lost. But they built a squad that would go on to lose two more cups and need so much work that we’re underdogs for next year as well.

[beararse 6,885]

17 hours ago, bluenoz said:

A pretty pessimistic outlook before we kick a ball in anger.

We can only judge Beale on the team he assembles. Let's address this in November.

In the end, he has to win the league. 

The standards and expectations of a Rangers manager are extremely high. He knew what he was signing up for and I believe he thrives on it.

End of May for me, he can only be judged on a full season (unless it goes spectacularly tits up).

[The Dude 20,027]

3 minutes ago, OrangeRab said:

“Winning is all that matters” is a very one dimensional statement. Lennon won the league because he inherited a good squad and we were shite.

They adopted the “he won the title” approach so everything is fine. And it fucked them. Because he is a shite manager. And it could/should have cost them more than just one title.

Of course winning is the end goal. But it’s about maximising our chance of winning. And not just over a single season.

One of the things I hated most about Wilson+ Gio. Was not just because of the two leagues lost. But they built a squad that would go on to lose two more cups and need so much work that we’re underdogs for next year as well.

Winning IS all that matters. Especially at Rangers and Celtic where we are so far ahead of everyone else, repeated failure to win can have huge financial implications.

[The Dude 20,027]

How many Celtic fans do you think were sitting after Helicopter Sunday thinking 'we done really well only losing the title by a point on the last day'? @mitre_mouldmaster

[graeme_4 37,500]

Sad to see some of our fans have been conditioned to accepting mediocrity.

I don’t want us acting like them, but they were rioting in car parks when they were a handful of points behind.

We’ve got folk who are happy to see us simply put up a good fight, and have a wee run in Europe, but end up trophyless again. 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,511]

26 minutes ago, The Dude said:

So he'd probably have been snapped up by someone else but you'd want him to stay at Ibrox and take on the next Celtic manager despite having already been snapped up by someone else?

 

I just said that he would have decided to stay and still be with us...

Like if we are able to sack him, he would have to be employed by us. It's not the boys club.