Martin Bain - Incompetent, Unreliable and Untenabl

[Frankie 505]

First of all I think it?s quite important that we keep an element of perspective in this article. Not many Rangers fans like Bain in a personal way and that can often cloud judgement when it comes to the job he does.

Martin Bain first joined Rangers in 1996 serving under former commercial manager Bob Reilly. At that time football was in the midst of a commercial explosion; TV money was high even in Scottish football and other opportunities were there to be grasped because of that huge media exposure. As a result, Bain ? like other members of the commercial team ? can say he was partly responsible for bringing in the large amounts of money to the club in those heady days.

Because of his relatively young age in those days ? he was 29 when he joined the club ? Bain?s potential was spotted early by the senior staff. Although not having a background in football his good work in the commercial arm helped him secure the (rather vague and general) post of ?Director of Football Business? in late 2002 ? a year after being appointed to the Rangers board.

Of course that season really saw the Rangers financial downsizing begin in earnest. Although Mikel Arteta joined the club for a near ?6million, Rangers fans started to see the influx of below average Bosman players such as Kevin Muscat ?compliment? the squad. Alex McLeish was the manager and it was soon obvious that he, and Bain to be fair, would have a difficult job on their hands delivering success to the restraints of a club trying to ship excess baggage to attain an even financial keel.

To that end, they were reasonably successful. McLeish delivered 7 trophies and Martin Bain made some difficult decisions to ensure Rangers (as of their 2005/06 accounts) were back almost into the black. Of course both still suffered for their thankless work. McLeish couldn?t achieve real consistency, and, as the Ibrox Scrooge, Bain was the ultimate supporters? scapegoat of an unimaginative board and a chairman who had disappeared for a few years and lacked the ambition of his initial spell.

In February 2005, nine years after his first arrival at Ibrox, Bain was appointed Rangers? 4th Chief Executive. David Holmes was the first such employee and no-one can forget the club-changing work he did under the Marlborough administration. Since then, the club has had another 2 such CEO?s - Alan Montgomery and Bob Brannan (now the chairman of Dundee). Both perhaps had it easier than Bain working in less stressful times.

Unfortunately, it was around this time that Bain was starting to make mistakes that this high-profile job couldn?t afford. Dragan Mladenovic, Jose Pierre-Fanfan and Olivier Bernard were just 3 examples of players that had to be paid off their lucrative contracts. Meanwhile rumours of staff fall-outs were rife. Retail director Nick Peel, long time club secretary Campbell Ogilvie and Youth manager George Adams were all moved on in quick succession amid rumours of disagreements with Bain.

In more recent times, Bain has also been seen as incompetent in other areas. On holiday in the Alps while Paul le Guen and Barry Ferguson had their much publicised fall out and failing to get any sort of fee for players on the transfer list.

Bain?s biggest detractors point to the success of Celtic and specifically their CEO ? Peter Lawwel ? as the main evidence for his failure. Continuing and unacceptable media problems, continued transfer market underperformance and continued poor relationships with his staff and our fans are all a marked contrast to Lawwel ? who has to operate under the same financial restrictions and in the same market as Bain.

In the last year we have seen 2 managers sacked from Rangers. The last 2 seasons have also delivered no trophies to our club. That is wholly unacceptable and that underperformance can be attributed to the mistakes and incompetence of Martin Bain.

Sure, could be argued that, in the same way as the departing managers, he has suffered from a lack of backing from a chairman who seems to lack the fight and ambition for the challenges we face. However, our now infecund owner can?t be sacked which leaves the right hand man he groomed for the job. Mistakes have been rife and success has disappeared.

Martin Bain should no longer be the Rangers Chief Executive. Now, is the time to make that change.

[bearwhocares 0]

Youn may be right but its SDM who employs the man.

[Frankie 505]

Youn may be right but its SDM who employs the man.

Of course - but as I wrote above - DM can't be removed or sacked in the same way bain can.

[Guest Manticore]

Agreed Frankie, excellent post.

But we all know the malaise stems from minty himself and we'll only get sticking plasters till he goes.

Well no we don't all know that what am I talking about

[THEFISH 0]

One of Murrays yes men who consistently licks his erse in order to keep his job and milk RFC (beer)

[stevenage bear 5]

Frankie, undoubtley this will get a lot of support.

But I fear it is a little simplistic to blame Bain for all our current woes.(dont get me wrong I'm not a huge fan)

We dont really know how good Bain is or isnt because as you point out he is working under the shackles of Murray.

I think Le Guen lost his preferred targets because Bain and more over Murray would pay the marketvalue for those players. But the players who we paid of were bought by the managers and we would have given Bain and Murray even more pekters if thye managers were not allowed to buy their targets- hindsight is 20/20 vision.

His alleged salary is obsene thou.

Rangers are a ?80m business that delivers a profit between ?4m-?10m if very lucky- NO WAY should the chief exec of that sort of business be on ?500k- unless he was the best in the industry-which I think we all agree he isnt.

I agree with you itsd time for him to go but thought a bit of perspevtive is required as well.

[Frankie 505]

SB:

Like you say, because of Murray and the club's demands, perspective has to be taken and I tried hard in the article to give it.

However, it's the mistakes and problems outwith our budget that damn him. Look at Papac - cup tied - look at Webster - I hear SFA won't allow him to play this season either.

Then you have the disgraceful situations of pay offs to players he gave far too much wages to.

The evidence is there and the best way to attribute his success is to compare him to Lawwel. No contest is the phrase I'd use.

[stevenage bear 5]

SB:

Like you say, because of Murray and the club's demands, perspective has to be taken and I tried hard in the article to give it.

However, it's the mistakes and problems outwith our budget that damn him. Look at Papac - cup tied - look at Webster - I hear SFA won't allow him to play this season either.

Then you have the disgraceful situations of pay offs to players he gave far too much wages to.

The evidence is there and the best way to attribute his success is to compare him to Lawwel. No contest is the phrase I'd use.

Fair point mate.

The SFA surely cant stop Webster playing, FIFA rules say you can only play for two clubs in a season, he has only played for Wigan to my Knowledge( in competeitive games) so the SFA cant stop him playing.

On the SFA thou my fear is that Rangers wont get any "fair" hearings when our players/club are in front of the beek

[Airdriebear 0]

i feel that having a buisnessman of this type dealing with players is not a good idea, he is always trying to cut down the price of the players, which would be good if he got them at that price but he makes us look foolish by ending up paying full price for the player.

i believe a football minded person should be going to discuss things with signing targets, a man who has the club at heart and can sell the club to these guys we are trying to buy.

imagine you were a signing target of rangers and ally mccoist or a player of his calibre turned up and spoke to you about the club and its ambition he would be full of enthusiasm and exitement, it would be enough to get most players to commit, however if martin bain a hard nose buisnessman turns up and constantly tries to get you for a knock down price and knows nothing about the footballing side of the club, he is less likely to sign with this type of approach.

[blueben_d 40]

i feel that having a buisnessman of this type dealing with players is not a good idea, he is always trying to cut down the price of the players, which would be good if he got them at that price but he makes us look foolish by ending up paying full price for the player.

i believe a football minded person should be going to discuss things with signing targets, a man who has the club at heart and can sell the club to these guys we are trying to buy.

imagine you were a signing target of rangers and ally mccoist or a player of his calibre turned up and spoke to you about the club and its ambition he would be full of enthusiasm and exitment, it would be enough to get most players to commit, however if martin bain a hard nose buisnessman turns up and constantly tries to get you for a knock down price and knows nothing about the footballing side of the club, he is less likely to sign with this type of approach.

Its ok we'll send James Bond with a Jet.... signed

[Airdriebear 0]

i feel that having a buisnessman of this type dealing with players is not a good idea, he is always trying to cut down the price of the players, which would be good if he got them at that price but he makes us look foolish by ending up paying full price for the player.

i believe a football minded person should be going to discuss things with signing targets, a man who has the club at heart and can sell the club to these guys we are trying to buy.

imagine you were a signing target of rangers and ally mccoist or a player of his calibre turned up and spoke to you about the club and its ambition he would be full of enthusiasm and exitment, it would be enough to get most players to commit, however if martin bain a hard nose buisnessman turns up and constantly tries to get you for a knock down price and knows nothing about the footballing side of the club, he is less likely to sign with this type of approach.

Its ok we'll send James Bond with a Jet.... signed

do you remember the days when DM would send his private jet for signing targets, he made them feel like superstars and got them in the corect frame of mind for disscussing contracts.

[Guest marvsbeliever]

I find it surprising that Bain is still there for two reasons

1. I don't think he is particularly effective and has rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way - people who had demonstrated an ability to at least do their jobs effectively. Nick Peel being the prime example. I can only conclude that personality conflicts were in some way involved. Whilst this is not unusual for CEOs, it is unusual for a board of directors and a chairman not to eventually call these decisions into question.

2. In the world of professional company directors (CEO, COO, etc.) I woud say it is unusual for both the company and the person involved to stay together for a greatly extended period of time. Usually these are career men who are looking to do a job and move on for a new challenge/better package. Bain is a downsizer, in doing that he has probably been effective from a business perspective (on field results aside) and has the remit as I see it Murray must have told him there will be no more investment from him so we have to spend what we make. I don't think we are in need of that kind of leadership any more, the debt is gone and we have very few outside interests left (another argument). Companies look to bring in new people with new ideas and motivation to move forward not sit back.

It suggests to me that Bain is not really a driven career man (that's ok by me as I'm a lazy sod!) but I don't think that is a good personality trait in a CEO. It also suggests to me that his salary and benefits are such that he would struggle to find another employer who could match it and the profile and status that goes with it. Therefore he is in a comfort zone at the moment and it's not doing us any favours.

TBH he signs the players. The manager, whether that be eck/PLG/wattie should be identifying them. If that is the case I don't hold him resposible for signing duds.

Sorry for the long post supposed to be studying and this wastes time, LOL

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Frankie absolutely 150% agree...!!

[THEFISH 0]

Frankie absolutely 150% agree...!!

Just to refresh the memories of you Murray men.

Your wonderful Mr Murray publicly backed him 3 yrs ago when his position was questioned from some quarters.

His very words were the same as the crap he has told us again today about himself...

Murray said "Martin Bain has the clubs best interests at heart and is doing a wonderful job for me and RFC''

One more issue with Murrays mis-management

Its up tae yerselves !!!

[Guest orangpendek]

fish is correct here.

murray's quote about bain above is sheer sophistry.

nevertheless, to agree that murray has made mistakes is quite different from ending every post with a demand that he leave.

he'l be gone soon enough, anyway.

[J_RFC87 761]

Bain wont leave, SDM likes him too much.

[Guest marvsbeliever]

Frankie absolutely 150% agree...!!

Just to refresh the memories of you Murray men.

Your wonderful Mr Murray publicly backed him 3 yrs ago when his position was questioned from some quarters.

His very words were the same as the crap he has told us again today about himself...

Murray said "Martin Bain has the clubs best interests at hear and is doing a wonderful job for me and RFC''

One more issue with Murrays mis-management

Its up tae yerselves !!!

I thought that this thread would be kept to sensible replies and look to the current situation and what needs to be done to take us forward. I have a lot of gripes with the way things have been handled in the past but I'm adult enough to move on and look to the future with or without the present incumbents at the club. Really it has become tedious for me listening to you FISH and I find that disappointing as I like to listen to what most gers have to say whether I agree or not.

You have the privelege of being the first person on my block list, congratulations.

[THEFISH 0]

Bain wont leave, SDM likes him too much.

And he also loves you guys for backing him.

The sly barsteward !

[dummiesoot 16,057]

Add to that, when Bain is the man that deals with contracts, transfer negotiations, on January 1st, start of the transfer window, he is out of the country on holiday. Let's hope he delegates better than he hands out 2 year contracts to diddies on transfer deadline day.

[The World Is Yours 0]

Add to that, when Bain is the man that deals with contracts, transfer negotiations, on January 1st, start of the transfer window, he is out of the country on holiday. Let's hope he delegates better than he hands out 2 year contracts to diddies on transfer deadline day.

Add to that signing ineligeble players on loan for 6 months.

[Danny 9]

In more recent times, Bain has also been seen as incompetent in other areas. On holiday in the Alps while Paul le Guen and Barry Ferguson had their much publicised fall out and failing to get any sort of fee for players on the transfer list.

I don't f*ckin' believe it.

How on EARTH can you blame Bain for going on holiday around the time of the falling out.

Surely you're also then blaming Murray for being in France at the time too?

That is possibly the most baffling case of attributing blame I think I have ever seen.

Unless, of course, I have wildly misunderstood?

[stevenage bear 5]

In more recent times, Bain has also been seen as incompetent in other areas. On holiday in the Alps while Paul le Guen and Barry Ferguson had their much publicised fall out and failing to get any sort of fee for players on the transfer list.

I don't f*ckin' believe it.

How on EARTH can you blame Bain for going on holiday around the time of the falling out.

Surely you're also then blaming Murray for being in France at the time too?

That is possibly the most baffling case of attributing blame I think I have ever seen.

Unless, of course, I have wildly misunderstood?

Danny I think you may have misunderstood.

The "fall out" happened Jan 2nd- thats 2 days into the most cruical transfer period we are likely to face -given the state of our club- and he's on Fuc.ing holiday.

At best that is very bad planning at worst it is inept, couple that to signing ineligible player and its hard to see his start to 2007 as anything other than a farse

[nvager 498]

You are all forgetting one fact.

PLG had informed DM and Bain he was NOT CHANGING the squad in January. DM has said this publically.

Otherwise I agree, but with PLG sticking his head in the sand - it gives `Bain an out!

Whole thing is farcical.

[Frankie 505]

Danny:

Bain (and Murray to be fair) chose to be on holiday when we need at least one of them to be around at one of the most important times of the season.

I don't think anyone can disagree that it's imperative that we needed a defender immediately. That was never going to happen with Bain on holiday.

Even today we get even more examples of his poor work. We sign Webster who can't even play - while transferring out an experienced French player who costs us ?1.1million and ?17K per week for nothing.

As for Murray saying PLG wasn't going to 'spend', well, who bought Webster and it wouldn't have been the first time Murray lies to make himself look good.

Any comment on the several other examples of his imcompentence in the piece as even I'll agree the holiday thing is minor in the grand scheme of things.

[Guest marvsbeliever]

Danny:

Bain (and Murray to be fair) chose to be on holiday when we need at least one of them to be around at one of the most important times of the season.

I don't think anyone can disagree that it's imperative that we needed a defender immediately. That was never going to happen with Bain on holiday.

Even today we get even more examples of his poor work. We sign Webster who can't even play - while transferring out an experienced French player who costs us ?1.1million and ?17K per week for nothing.

As for Murray saying PLG wasn't going to 'spend', well, who bought Webster and it wouldn't have been the first time Murray lies to make himself look good.

Any comment on the several other examples of his imcompentence in the piece as even I'll agree the holiday thing is minor in the grand scheme of things.

I wouldn't get too worked up about the whole Webster thing unless he isn't really injured. If he is injured, he's out for 6 weeks. FIFA will have this sorted about before then (there was no real time pressure before). If he can play for us fine, we sit out his recovery. If he can't/couldn't sign for us then Wigan would I guess be liable to pay us back the wages we're paying him on loan.