Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

RoryMac

Rangers now desperately searching for managers available on loan

lubo_moravcik

It's all going pear shaped down £1brox way again, yet more hilarity. Suck it up bears

bobbysands81

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

It's all going pear shaped down £1brox way again, yet more hilarity. Suck it up bears

Rumours of administration on some Rangers message boards.

If true then Rang3rs are on the way.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Rumours of administration on some Rangers message boards.

If true then Rang3rs are on the way.

Oh pish the only Rangers message board that sort of crap comes from us Rangers media. I believe them as mush as I believe three names The bigot Phil or the screwball that is just James

gitzy16v

What a shambles for a newly created club,The Rangers look as badly run as Rangers did back in the day

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Oh pish the only Rangers message board that sort of crap comes from us Rangers media. I believe them as mush as I believe three names The bigot Phil or the screwball that is just James

Dave King hasnt brought much financial stability. Not as toxic as previous owners but certainly nowhere near the level he promised when he rode in on his chariot.

The PR at the club has left alot to be desired for a long time now. Someone should be sacked after tonight, one way or the other.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Dave King hasnt brought much financial stability. Not as toxic as previous owners but certainly nowhere near the level he promised when he rode in on his chariot.

The PR at the club has left alot to be desired for a long time now. Someone should be sacked after tonight, one way or the other.

Dave King has actually put plenty on but him and the board are hampered by the contacts that were put in place by MA's lackeys this ilhas lead to a situation not favourable to anyone. I do think King has not been hands on enough I will give you that. As for tonight as it stands I will stand by the board on it Warburton McParland and Weirs agent is the one that cocked it up. I also find it funny they sent him to tender their resignations but then when it didn't go their way they wanted to reverse it.

Coillte_Bhoy

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Dave King has actually put plenty on but him and the board are hampered by the contacts that were put in place by MA's lackeys this ilhas lead to a situation not favourable to anyone. I do think King has not been hands on enough I will give you that. As for tonight as it stands I will stand by the board on it Warburton McParland and Weirs agent is the one that cocked it up. I also find it funny they sent him to tender their resignations but then when it didn't go their way they wanted to reverse it.

i must admit that for all the shenanigans tonight, the board were right to tell magic hat where to go, talk about a soap opera.

Coillte_Bhoy

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Yes

Berserker wrote: »

Yeah, appears to be the case alright. Ridiculous carry on. Panic over. Roll on Sunday.

ffs lads, after 5years will ye not at least take yer heads out of the sand now and again?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

ffs lads, after 5years will ye not at least take yer heads out of the sand now and again?

Aw come on at that point no one knew what was going on everything was conjecture and the suggestion of hacking was as good as anything else. The statement had been taken down before being put up again

I don't have my head in the sand but hey ho

bobbysands81

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Aw come on at that point no one knew what was going on everything was conjecture and the suggestion of hacking was as good as anything else. The statement had been taken down before being put up again

I don't have my head in the sand but hey ho

Yes you do. You're saying King has put loads of money in, you believed the website was hacked and that, yet again, the club has done nothing wrong here.

It's a circus, a complete circus... and it's a circus because of actions of your club.

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Dave King has actually put plenty on but him and the board are hampered by the contacts that were put in place by MA's lackeys this ilhas lead to a situation not favourable to anyone. I do think King has not been hands on enough I will give you that. As for tonight as it stands I will stand by the board on it Warburton McParland and Weirs agent is the one that cocked it up. I also find it funny they sent him to tender their resignations but then when it didn't go their way they wanted to reverse it.

You can go back to Duff & Phelps flogging the Rangers assets to Charles Green. They will be up in court for criminal damages soon enough. The duty of care has been every director/vulture for themselves and I see very little to suggest that wont continue regardless of those contracts. Its just a different back pocket the profits will be going.

If their agent issued an ultimatum from a clear position of weakness, then maybe these lads wanted to go or didnt care enough about their jobs at this stage of the season but are just putting spin on it now for the media/fans. I find it hard to believe that an agent was willing to play russian roulette with 3 jobs and any board wont be bullied and certainly not by lads in their position.

And the way that the club issued a statement before 3 guys were informed that they were sacked is more incompetence by the club. Even if they deserved to be sacked, you inform them directly before a press release.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Yes you do. You're saying King has put loads of money in, you believed the website was hacked and that, yet again, the club has done nothing wrong here.

It's a circus, a complete circus... and it's a circus because of actions of your club.

I said it was possible the website had been hacked at the time I had no other information neither did you who said it couldn't happen. King has put money whether you like it or not or believe it it'll not its immaterial to me. And if the three in question think they could get ther agent to rename in the deal to accept their resiganstion no I don't think the board has done anything wrong

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

You can go back to Duff & Phelps flogging the Rangers assets to Charles Green. They will be up in court for criminal damages soon enough. The duty of care has been every director/vulture for themselves and I see very little to suggest that wont continue regardless of those contracts. Its just a different back pocket the profits will be going.

If their agent issued an ultimatum from a clear position of weakness, then maybe these lads wanted to go or didnt care enough about their jobs at this stage of the season but are just putting spin on it now for the media/fans. I find it hard to believe that an agent was willing to play russian roulette with 3 jobs and any board wont be bullied and certainly not by lads in their position.

And the way that the club issued a statement before 3 guys were informed that they were sacked is more incompetence by the club. Even if they deserved to be sacked, you inform them directly before a press release.

The three guys didn't need to be informed they had already tendered their resignations. The board had every right to accept the. The agent as far as I can see was acting n their instructions

CantGetNoSleep

If Warburton hadn't resigned and Brendan Rodgers had resigned then Warburton would still be Rangers manager and Rodgers wouldn;t be Celtic manager - that is probably the way he sees it

lubo_moravcik

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Dempsey wrote: »

Dave King hasnt brought much financial stability. Not as toxic as previous owners but certainly nowhere near the level he promised when he rode in on his chariot.

The PR at the club has left alot to be desired for a long time now. Someone should be sacked after tonight, one way or the other.

Dave King has actually put plenty on but him and the board are hampered by the contacts that were put in place by MA's lackeys this ilhas lead to a situation not favourable to anyone. I do think King has not been hands on enough I will give you that. As for tonight as it stands I will stand by the board on it Warburton McParland and Weirs agent is the one that cocked it up. I also find it funny they sent him to tender their resignations but then when it didn't go their way they wanted to reverse it.

That contract put in place by his lackeys, why do you think the club agreed to it? Surely if it wasn't in the best interest of the club AT THAT TIME (these 3 words are important, then why do it? The only plausible reason is that they had no other option. No one else was going to give the money that was needed, you had to take it.

As for Dempsey and the PR comment, I never thought I'd actually agree with him after all these years. Level 5 and Jim Traynor are a disgrace, and yet another cluster**** by them is exposing all the cracks.

I genuinely hope it continues, 5 years of hilarity and if just keeps going on and on and on

bobbysands81

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I said it was possible the website had been hacked at the time I had no other information neither did you who said it couldn't happen. King has put money whether you like it or not or believe it it'll not its immaterial to me. And if the three in question think they could get ther agent to rename in the deal to accept their resiganstion no I don't think the board has done anything wrong

Ah come on, the Board have done nothing wrong??? Warburton's resignation was tendered during the week yet they announce it on a Friday night???

At the very least it's a massive PR shambles, at the most it's sacking Warburton (cos he's ****e) on the pretence that he handed in his resignation.

If you can't admit something is broken then you can never fix it.

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

The three guys didn't need to be informed they had already tendered their resignations. The board had every right to accept the. The agent as far as I can see was acting n their instructions

No, they offered their resignation as part of an ultimatum and the club accepted. A big difference. The club failed to inform them that they accepted their offer. Why did you think that it was news to Warburton when the media contacted him? Or is he lying about knowing the boards decision??

Who would be the best candidate to manage after MW, a Gers old boy or a foreign boss, depending on budgets of course?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/statement-dave-king/




I have issued a select number of statements to give supporters a reliable update on the progression that your board committed to almost two years ago.

Some of the content relates to a subject matter that the Club would normally only deal with at our AGM or results announcements. However, under the circumstances, I feel that inclusion is appropriate to ensure that supporters are properly informed and don’t have to rely on uninformed media speculation.

For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat the key elements;

We would invest sufficient resources to ensure immediate promotion to the SPFL.
In season two we would further invest to be competitive in the SPFL and qualify for Europe at the end of the season. Our realistic expectation was to come second. This was to be achieved by signing five or six players of a quality that improved the squad that won the Championship.
In season three we would again invest in five or six players that further improved the squad to compete for the title and progress in Europe.
I personally estimated that we would require an investment of ?30 million over that period to achieve our stated objectives.
I now comment on each of these elements;

We hired, at short notice, a relatively untested management team that recruited a number of players and introduced a style of play that was pleasing to our supporters. Significant investment was made on and off the park and the Championship was ultimately won in some style. The season was an unqualified success and the management team was rewarded with a vastly improved contract.
This season we did not stick to our plan of signing five or six players because the manager appealed to the Board for additional signings. Despite the concern about departing from our plan of prudent phased investment, the Board backed the manager’s request for accelerated investment. This placed us significantly above the football resources available to our competitors (other than Celtic) and was expected to ensure that we finished a strong second in the league and had a squad that could be added to, close season, to make a strong impact in the Europa League qualifiers. While I still believe that we can finish a strong second, I am stating the obvious to admit that we are not where we anticipated we would be at this stage of the season and we have not repeated the success that we had with our signings from the previous season.
Following from the above it is clear that we are behind our target for next season but, given that we recognise this, it is the duty of the Board to take steps to get things back on track. That is what our supporters trust us to do and rightly demand that we do. We remain 100% committed to the plan we commenced with and that the supporters continue to endorse resoundingly.
?18 million of the originally estimated ?30 million investment has already been made. Ultimately, the overall investment in any football team is driven by the net player spend and, given that we are behind target with our squad, there may be a further need to accelerate investment at the end of this season. It is my present personal view that we will, in all likelihood, invest more than ?30 million before we are where we want to be but this will be revisited once we have a new permanent management team in place.
The vagaries of running a football club are not new to your Board. It is our job to react to and manage these as they arise during any season – and from season to season. Despite the relative disappointment of this season so far, the bigger project remains firmly on track and we will take whatever corrective measures are necessary. On this point, I want to deal with one issue that has recently received wide coverage in the media.

It is a vital obligation and fiduciary responsibility for any Board to continually monitor the progress of the company’s financial and operating performance against its budgets and plans. This is done at regular Board meetings where all aspects of the company’s business is reviewed and evaluated. What is stated and dealt with during those meetings is confidential and governed by a number of rules, regulations, laws and ethics. Put simply, what is said in Board meetings stays in Board meetings.

Ahead of the Board meeting at the end of January, I advised the manager that the Board wished to review our recruitment plan and performance over the previous two windows. This was a routine request and was timely given the concerns that everyone at the Club has with regard to the high level of wages we were paying relative to the performance on the pitch. In particular, a large portion of our wage bill was not even seeing regular playing time.

Under normal circumstances such a review would remain confidential. However, in this instance, your Board’s routine questioning of management was leaked to the media and conveyed as being a negative reflection of the Board’s attitude to the manager and the recruitment department. It was confirmed to me that the leak did not come from a board member.

Irrespective of who leaked confidential information, it is clear from subsequent media comments that the manager did not respond well to the Board reviewing his recruitment activity. This is a strange position to adopt and, in my personal experience, is not a position that a more experienced manager would adopt. No manager in the world can reasonably expect to be beyond scrutiny.

Things moved quickly from that point. There were rumours that the management team (presumably their agent) was negotiating with English clubs and, in one instance, I was informally approached to ask if the Club would waive compensation if the management team was to leave. While this was unsubstantiated by direct confirmation from the Club in question, I was alert to a conversation that Mark Warburton had with me after joining the Club in which he advised me that his long-term ambition was to manage in the EPL and he viewed Rangers as a stepping-stone to achieve this. His comments to the media simultaneously reinforced his present unhappiness at the Club.

I was therefore not surprised when the management team’s agent approached the Club’s Managing Director Stewart Robertson to request a meeting which was held in Glasgow on Monday this week. The outcome of this meeting was that the agent subsequently offered that Mark, David and Frank would resign with immediate effect without compensation as long as the Club, in turn, agreed to waive compensation from any new Club that they signed for. After discussion the Board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated. In order for us to achieve our ambitions we need employees that, like your Board members, will always put Rangers first.

While we were dealing with the admin and press releases relating to the resignation the agent again contacted us and asked to defer the resignation until the management had secured a new club. I assume that the new deal had somehow collapsed at the last minute. The Board met to consider this request but resolved to hold them to the original agreement.

We are now in the process of reviewing the best interim and long-term solution for ensuring that a modern and robust footballing structure is put in place that will continue with and entrench the footballing philosophy that we have in place. We also must protect and support the marvellous work that has been achieved by the Academy over the last two years.

Dave King
11 February 2017

bobbysands81

Why is Dave King coming out and making a statement? Why isn't the board coming out and making a unified statement?

Dave King Statement:

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/statement-dave-king/

I have issued a select number of statements to give supporters a reliable update on the progression that your board committed to almost two years ago.

Some of the content relates to a subject matter that the Club would normally only deal with at our AGM or results announcements. However, under the circumstances, I feel that inclusion is appropriate to ensure that supporters are properly informed and don’t have to rely on uninformed media speculation.

For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat the key elements;

We would invest sufficient resources to ensure immediate promotion to the SPFL.
In season two we would further invest to be competitive in the SPFL and qualify for Europe at the end of the season. Our realistic expectation was to come second. This was to be achieved by signing five or six players of a quality that improved the squad that won the Championship.
In season three we would again invest in five or six players that further improved the squad to compete for the title and progress in Europe.
I personally estimated that we would require an investment of £30 million over that period to achieve our stated objectives.
I now comment on each of these elements;

We hired, at short notice, a relatively untested management team that recruited a number of players and introduced a style of play that was pleasing to our supporters. Significant investment was made on and off the park and the Championship was ultimately won in some style. The season was an unqualified success and the management team was rewarded with a vastly improved contract.
This season we did not stick to our plan of signing five or six players because the manager appealed to the Board for additional signings. Despite the concern about departing from our plan of prudent phased investment, the Board backed the manager’s request for accelerated investment. This placed us significantly above the football resources available to our competitors (other than Celtic) and was expected to ensure that we finished a strong second in the league and had a squad that could be added to, close season, to make a strong impact in the Europa League qualifiers. While I still believe that we can finish a strong second, I am stating the obvious to admit that we are not where we anticipated we would be at this stage of the season and we have not repeated the success that we had with our signings from the previous season.
Following from the above it is clear that we are behind our target for next season but, given that we recognise this, it is the duty of the Board to take steps to get things back on track. That is what our supporters trust us to do and rightly demand that we do. We remain 100% committed to the plan we commenced with and that the supporters continue to endorse resoundingly.
£18 million of the originally estimated £30 million investment has already been made. Ultimately, the overall investment in any football team is driven by the net player spend and, given that we are behind target with our squad, there may be a further need to accelerate investment at the end of this season. It is my present personal view that we will, in all likelihood, invest more than £30 million before we are where we want to be but this will be revisited once we have a new permanent management team in place.
The vagaries of running a football club are not new to your Board. It is our job to react to and manage these as they arise during any season – and from season to season. Despite the relative disappointment of this season so far, the bigger project remains firmly on track and we will take whatever corrective measures are necessary. On this point, I want to deal with one issue that has recently received wide coverage in the media.

It is a vital obligation and fiduciary responsibility for any Board to continually monitor the progress of the company’s financial and operating performance against its budgets and plans. This is done at regular Board meetings where all aspects of the company’s business is reviewed and evaluated. What is stated and dealt with during those meetings is confidential and governed by a number of rules, regulations, laws and ethics. Put simply, what is said in Board meetings stays in Board meetings.

Ahead of the Board meeting at the end of January, I advised the manager that the Board wished to review our recruitment plan and performance over the previous two windows. This was a routine request and was timely given the concerns that everyone at the Club has with regard to the high level of wages we were paying relative to the performance on the pitch. In particular, a large portion of our wage bill was not even seeing regular playing time.

Under normal circumstances such a review would remain confidential. However, in this instance, your Board’s routine questioning of management was leaked to the media and conveyed as being a negative reflection of the Board’s attitude to the manager and the recruitment department. It was confirmed to me that the leak did not come from a board member.

Irrespective of who leaked confidential information, it is clear from subsequent media comments that the manager did not respond well to the Board reviewing his recruitment activity. This is a strange position to adopt and, in my personal experience, is not a position that a more experienced manager would adopt. No manager in the world can reasonably expect to be beyond scrutiny.

Things moved quickly from that point. There were rumours that the management team (presumably their agent) was negotiating with English clubs and, in one instance, I was informally approached to ask if the Club would waive compensation if the management team was to leave. While this was unsubstantiated by direct confirmation from the Club in question, I was alert to a conversation that Mark Warburton had with me after joining the Club in which he advised me that his long-term ambition was to manage in the EPL and he viewed Rangers as a stepping-stone to achieve this. His comments to the media simultaneously reinforced his present unhappiness at the Club.

I was therefore not surprised when the management team’s agent approached the Club’s Managing Director Stewart Robertson to request a meeting which was held in Glasgow on Monday this week. The outcome of this meeting was that the agent subsequently offered that Mark, David and Frank would resign with immediate effect without compensation as long as the Club, in turn, agreed to waive compensation from any new Club that they signed for. After discussion the Board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated. In order for us to achieve our ambitions we need employees that, like your Board members, will always put Rangers first.

While we were dealing with the admin and press releases relating to the resignation the agent again contacted us and asked to defer the resignation until the management had secured a new club. I assume that the new deal had somehow collapsed at the last minute. The Board met to consider this request but resolved to hold them to the original agreement.

We are now in the process of reviewing the best interim and long-term solution for ensuring that a modern and robust footballing structure is put in place that will continue with and entrench the footballing philosophy that we have in place. We also must protect and support the marvellous work that has been achieved by the Academy over the last two years.

Dave King
11 February 2017

A Dub in Glasgo

So the G&SL says resignation was accepted on Monday with immediate effect and lets Warburton take the training all week? Didn't Warburton take the weekly press conference on Friday as well?

Loved the way the G&SL decries leaking of confidential information then goes and reveals confidential information in his statement, does not look like he took legal advice before putting that out.

Chris Sutton on BT Sport earlier .. 'from the Magic Hat to the Tragic Hat'

Broxi_Bear_Eire

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

So the G&SL says resignation was accepted on Monday with immediate effect and lets Warburton take the training all week? Didn't Warburton take the weekly press conference on Friday as well?

Loved the way the G&SL decries leaking of confidential information then goes and reveals confidential information in his statement, does not look like he took legal advice before putting that out.

I disagree i think Mr King will have had legal advice

bobbysands81

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I disagree i think Mr King will have had legal advice

"Mr" King!!!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

He would have had loads of legal advice telling him to pay his taxes in South Africa as well.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobbysands81 wrote: »

"Mr" King!!!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

He would have had loads of legal advice telling him to pay his taxes in South Africa as well.

Well if your buddy can use silly names. South Africa is past maybe you want to live there most people move forward unless of course there's some sort of underlying need

Berserker

zorro2566 wrote: »

Who would be the best candidate to manage after MW, a Gers old boy or a foreign boss, depending on budgets of course?

DeBoer would be a good long term appointment but he is going to need time and money to implement his vision. I'd be happy with Gary Rowett who comes across as a very good young manager. His lack of experience as a player or manager of a big club would be a slight concern.

bobbysands81

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Well if your buddy can use silly names. South Africa is past maybe you want to live there most people move forward unless of course there's some sort of underlying need

Not too sure what you're trying to say there.

You'd think you fellas would be suspicious of anyone running your club considering what's been going on recently instead of doffing caps and calling the latest incumbent "Mr".

Broxi_Bear_Eire

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Not too sure what you're trying to say there.

You'd think you fellas would be suspicious of anyone running your club considering what's been going on recently instead of doffing caps and calling the latest incumbent "Mr".

Really you don't get it Quel Suprise.
Sure an intelligent man like yourself can work it out. Nothing to do whether I trust the board or not

CantGetNoSleep

Berserker wrote: »

DeBoer would be a good long term appointment but he is going to need time and money to implement his vision. I'd be happy with Gary Rowett who comes across as a very good young manager. His lack of experience as a player or manager of a big club would be a slight concern.

A big club you say?

bobbysands81

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kenny Miller as player/manager until the Summer.

Given that soft loans from Directors are paying wages at the moment the money isn't there to pay for a new manager never mind money to buy players.

It's a poison chalice. Nobody will want to be remembered as the manager of The Rangers when Celtic won 10-in-a-row.