Sir Davie McFly and Short-termism

[Frankie 505]

Who?d have thought it? Walter Smith and Ally McCoist to be the new dream team! Is this a master-stroke by McFly or more short-term appeasement followed by heartbreak?

Smith is obviously a man with Rangers in his heart. During his earlier stint we had some great times and his contribution to the 92/93 CL run and 9iar cannot be underestimated. However, at the same time, he had millions upon millions to spend; was up against a faltering Celtic and despite that one great CL season our European record was very poor. How will he cope with no financial backing and a Celtic who are now well in front of our mismanaged outfit?

In some ways I can understand why we would bring both of them back. Smith is proven at SPL level and McCoist will fix the dressing room disharmony. Thus, as a short-term solution until a new man could be brought on board I'd be quite happy but as a long term solution I'm not so sure.

It had been rumoured that Billy Davis was the long term candidate to succeed PLG, but given that era ended so prematurely, I don't think we were ever going to be able to tempt him away from Derby at short notice - especially given the compensation we'd need to pay. If Smith is part-time and McCoist the only full-timer poached from the SFA, then that's cost effective which as well all know takes precedence nowadays. More so if, as rumoured, McCoist, Gary McAllister or maybe still Davies is to be groomed to take over eventually.

Of course, that would require long term planning and ambition and unfortunately the current administration don't have that quality. Bloody hell, our chairman and his CEO couldn?t even arrange for their holidays to be different times to keep maximum order in one of their absence! No, short-term appeasement is what Murray is always about. This appointment will deliver that but it won't appease the ever-increasing number of us who expect that little bit more vision.

Just last November Murray was telling us that PLG would be here for the long term and his managerial position reviewed at the end of this season. What changed his mind so quickly? Was it Ferguson and the playing staff? Was it the unacceptable results and inconsistency? One can only assume it was the former as he didn?t sack Alex McLeish so eagerly last season when he should have.

One thing is for sure Smith should bring stability. Smith was also never Barry Ferguson?s biggest fan in his early years so that might ensure our ex-captain won?t rule the roost as he might expect. We certainly need dominance in the changing room and leadership throughout the club. I don?t think PLG gave us that but I?m not so sure Barry Ferguson or Sir Davie McFly do either.

Papering over the cracks just about sums it up. Can one obtain an honour for that?

[dummiesoot 16,278]

I think we need to see if this is short-termism Frankie, FFS folk are judging before they even take over. We don't know what sort of money will be made available either.

[Frankie 505]

Mate, the last 18 years have been based upon it.

Don't get me wrong - appointing Smith may be a reasonable enough idea - but only if it's with the prospect of grooming a new man capable of taking the team onwards.

As for money, that will again be minimal.

[Albahighlander 0]

I am someone who has backed Sir David throughout his tenure but this whole episode has leftr me seriously disenchanted with what is happening.

I was convinced that Mister McLeish was an excellent appointment. A manager capable of taking us through a period when the belts were tightened financially, who would wheel and deal at the lower end of the market, who would motivate the players to work hjard and keep the team in decent shape whilst getting the club back on an even keel financially

At the end of the transitional period the club would then be readsy for a bright n ew dawn with a different managerial approach and some serious re-investment in the team.

I thought that Sir david had matched our expectations with the appointment of Paul Le Guen an the restructuring of the youth programme.

Le Guen would need a period of time to assess the club properly and then present a re-structuring plan for the future direction of our team in terms of both preparation and playing style. |Having had a chance to work with what he inherited he would be able to keep what was useful and get rid of those players who could not adapt.

I was seriously underwhelmed by his progress this season, but then I was delighted by his action on Monday. It suggested that the time for assessment was over and the radical surgery was now about to take place. Ferguson , without doubt our most talented and best performer would be the turning point for the club. He would present a focal point for a new way of working. It was not to be so.

What was the outcome of this. A measured and studied rsponse fro Sir david ?

The very opposite. I cannot believe the speed with which events seem to be unfolding. Perhaps indeed plans have been laid for a while on this one, if so then there has not just been undermining taking place fromk players but also from the chairman. How can you be having discussions with walter and ally on a 'just for a second imagine if PLG left basis' unless you are wavering in your determinaqtion to carry out radical reform ?

On the other hand if this is simply an immediate response to the news that PLG then I am staggered by both it's simplicity and it's short term approach.

Give the fans what they want - guys who know the club, who were there for NIAR, who are popular with the fans.

All is well, never mind the vision, the reform, these guys will kick butt ande players will fight for the jersey again.

All too simplistic for me. What I want to see is a studied approach to how we geneuinely change our whole approach to what we do at the club. How we zset targets and goals for our playing staff, how we develop a playing philosophy, how we groom young players for the future.

In my opinion, drinking together to win together and cheeky chappies with an occasional boot up the backside are ok for the short term buit in the longer term we simply perpetuate what has held back scottish sport for years.

Unless this change in the management is accompanied with serious re-investment in the team it will only be as you say papering over the cracks

I have always felt that Sir david acted in the intersts of the club, this week I feel there is a lot of deflection going on and an awful lot of playing up to the crowd.

I hope walter and ally do well, because they are eroes of mine, it will be interesting to see however what we define as 'well'.

[Frankie 505]

alba:

I ttied to keep my thoughts concise but if I had wrote more I reckon it would have been very similar to your own post.

Do you now agree that it's arguably better for the club if Murray himself moves on in the medium term? That's a big step from the criticism (it was, wasn't it?) you posted above but IMO, we urgently need leadership and Murray now appears incapable, unwilling or both to that end.

[Albahighlander 0]

alba:

I ttied to keep my thoughts concise but if I had wrote more I reckon it would have been very similar to your own post.

Do you now agree that it's arguably better for the club if Murray himself moves on in the medium term? That's a big step from the criticism (it was, wasn't it?) you posted above but IMO, we urgently need leadership and Murray now appears incapable, unwilling or both to that end.

I am certainly coming more to that way of thinking this week.

Sir David for me had two things which were important for the future health of the club

Vision and financial resources

We can argue about the vision as to whether it was right or wrong, indeed whether he had a genuine vision or not. But IMO there was a vision there about the longer term

Today, I don't see a vision, I see a retrograde decision that smarks of 'I can't be bothered so I'll take the easy way out'. walter and Ally are the easy option, they present the blood and snotters approach, they don't require investment, they don't require thought.

So if there is no longer a vision - what is the point of Sir David ?

On the financial front, I obviously don't want us to be dependant upon cash handouts from Sir David. We need to stimulate growth in all areas of the club to establish a stability. But in the absence of a clear strategy on that front, Sir david needs to make a personal injectgion of cash - why should he, why should Sir David be any different to any of the rest of us just because he has more money ?

Well the reason he is different , and the reason he should make that donation is that hye has the priviledge of being chairman of our club. Whilst he had a vision, I did not have any expectation that heshould have to invest his own money, but in thye absence of that vision, as above, he gives up the immunity to invest his own cash.

Unless I see considerable investment of money in this window, and in the summer, then there is no vision, no forward thinking, no progress, no prospect of long term success.

Under those circumstances, there is then no point to Sir david and as you suggest, for the good of the club he needs to move aqside for someone else who will bring either a vision or new cash, or better still, both.

My long term backing of the chairman is seriously in doubt this week.

[Guest Manticore]

Some very good posts there.

It seems to me that assuming the rumours are true Walter will effectively be our caretaker manager till minty moves on, goodness knows when.

I think younger bears are going to have to learn patience.