Chris Jack: Mark Allen’s time in blue is no case of black and white for Rangers

You're a right piece of work.

You complain about people speculating about MA then at the same time give him credit while admitting, "from the outside looking in". A bit of speculating by yourself?

I notice also you aint too keen to argue against connected posters such as ID10. You're so transparent.

Hope you read Kris Commons' article and hope you were able to read between the lines. ID10 suggested this so you wont want to challenge this, will you?

I’m not speculating, I’m basing it off of what was actually known, which isn’t what you did, you based your warped viewpoint was pure guesswork where you decided the bits that didn’t work were Allen and the bits that did were Gerrard. So that’s the first point.

Second point, ID10 has connections within the club and will likely have some legitimate knowledge of what Allen has actually done, you don’t, which means your speculative nonsense isn’t worth the air into which it’s uttered, unlike ID10 post which will almost certainly hold a lot of weight. That’s why I’m more inclined to go with what ID10 says.

Another custard pie for you.
 
Which are ?

IMHO, Allen was welcome to stay if he accepted a few things. He needed a) to up his game both professional and personal b) accept he wasn't part of the manager's team and c) recognise that the manager he brought in is now senior to him.
I think the above squares with Gerrard saying he wanted him to stay - but with a clearer understanding.
 
Agree with that too.
It’s important keeping SG and his backroom team sweet.

Anything in that rumor about Ross Wilson being interested this time FBB?
Or just hear say…

Hey mate, I’m afraid I have no idea on Ross Wilson but I do know he’s very well compensated at Southampton and very well thought of. I do however think it would be remiss of us if we at least didn’t ask the question.
 
Not arguing that. More a comment for the scavenging 'journos' scouring the forum for something to write.


I see what you say, but we have one or two on here who have much more knowledge of life at Ibrox than the press gleaning part news and fake news combined.

I know who I would rather listen to.
 
I’m not speculating, I’m basing it off of what was actually known, which isn’t what you did, you based your warped viewpoint was pure guesswork where you decided the bits that didn’t work were Allen and the bits that did were Gerrard. So that’s the first point.

Second point, ID10 has connections within the club and will likely have some legitimate knowledge of what Allen has actually done, you don’t, which means your speculative nonsense isn’t worth the air into which it’s uttered, unlike ID10 post which will almost certainly hold a lot of weight. That’s why I’m more inclined to go with what ID10 says.

Another custard pie for you.

Well we all know who dishes out custard pies.

As for your first point. You must be hard of thinking as you simply dont seem able to comprehend what Ive said. Im basing my opinion on what MA has said in his interviews. You claim that isnt "hard evidence". Very strange. I guess you've never followed any political debates or legal proceedings otherwise you'd understand how important this is.

As for ID10. Im arguing like him that MA is better gone. You've backed the wrong horse again so the best you can come up with is to try to side with ID10 and claim that your sudden conversion is because he is ITK.

One more thing. You claim I based my "warped viewpoint" on "pure guesswork" where I decided that the bits that didnt work were Allens and the bits that did were Gerrard. Im interested to know where you get that from. My views are based purely on what MA said. Its not that difficult to understand, for most people.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
IMHO, Allen was welcome to stay if he accepted a few things. He needed a) to up his game both professional and personal b) accept he wasn't part of the manager's team and c) recognise that the manager he brought in is now senior to him.
I think the above squares with Gerrard saying he wanted him to stay - but with a clearer understanding.

How does that actually work though? You recruit someone to perform a role, one that initially gives him seniority over a club manager that he brings in, then at some point you tell him the manager is now his boss?

That's poor.

If the board were intent on redefining his role it would likely be because a) they didn't feel he was doing the job he was initially employed to do (which sounds like it may have been the case) and / or b) because Gerrard's stature and personality had grown too big to easily defer to Allen, not that it sounds there was any conflict between them going by the manager's own fairly glowing eulogy.

Unfortunately Allen can be viewed as another appointment the board haven't managed to get right and the idea of our implementing a structure designed to surmount the transient nature of club managers now threatens to be something less inviolable than it was previously mooted to be.




 
How does that actually work though? You recruit someone to perform a role, one that initially gives him seniority over a club manager that he brings in, then at some point you tell him the manager is now his boss?

That's poor.

If the board were intent on redefining his role it would likely be because a) they didn't feel he was doing the job he was initially employed to do (which sounds like it may have been the case) and / or b) because Gerrard's stature and personality had grown too big to easily defer to Allen, not that it sounds there was any conflict between them going by the manager's own fairly glowing eulogy.

Unfortunately Allen can be viewed as another appointment the board haven't managed to get right and the idea of our implementing a structure designed to surmount the transient nature of club managers now threatens to be something less inviolable than it was previously mooted to be.

It's not poor, it's good management to recognise and reward the relative skillsets of your staff.
Gerrard is simply bigger and proving better than anyone we ever thought we could attract to the club and refusing to accept and capitalise on that is what would be poor.
The DoF was, IMHO, the correct risk-mitigation approach for the situation we found ourselves in.
No denying though, we're currently not as 'safe' as with the DoF model.
 
Interesting to hear from people who are close to Rangers that the guy they just sacked was responsible for signing all the bad players, and the guy that's still in place was responsible for all the good ones.

This is the same story that comes out of literally every sporting organisation once a senior member of staff gets the bullet.
 
Apart from what he's written @ID10 didn't think Mark Allan did a terrible job?

I can’t speak for ID10.

I was only stating what I took from what he had written. It didn’t read to me like something that said MA was absolutely garbage, although it seemed to me equally obvious that it wasn't remotely a ringing endorsement of MA’s work, nor did it suggest that ID10 isn’t glad MA’s gone. He clearly does feel that we're better off without MA based in what I’ve read only on this thread.

My response was just the way I read the post. Nothing for us to disagree over. Ask ID10 exactly what he thinks. I’m sure he’ll happily tell you himself :)
 
Think the most important thing for a DoF is the relationship with the 1st team manager.

In this instance that box can clearly be ticked
 
I can’t speak for ID10.

I was only stating what I took from what he had written. It didn’t read to me like something that said MA was absolutely garbage, although it seemed to me equally obvious that it wasn't remotely a ringing endorsement of MA’s work, nor did it suggest that ID10 isn’t glad MA’s gone. He clearly does feel that we're better off without MA based in what I’ve read only on this thread.

My response was just the way I read the post. Nothing for us to disagree over. Ask ID10 exactly what he thinks. I’m sure he’ll happily tell you himself
I didn't know how to double quote, that is why i asked you the question, apart from the fact that your point baffled me.
 
It's not poor, it's good management to recognise and reward the relative skillsets of your staff.
Gerrard is simply bigger and proving better than anyone we ever thought we could attract to the club and refusing to accept and capitalise on that is what would be poor.
The DoF was, IMHO, the correct risk-mitigation approach for the situation we found ourselves in.
No denying though, we're currently not as 'safe' as with the DoF model.

It absolutely is poor if you were intending to hold onto that individual.

If on the other hand you weren’t and believed redefining his role may cause him to seek an exit, well that would be what’s called managing someone out the door.

I suspect that’s maybe what’s gone on here.
 
Gerrard has been quoted - see my post above - saying he’d have liked Mark Allen to stay longer. It was an interview he didn’t need to give - and certainly not in such detail - so I’d suggest the comments he made were both genuine and truthful.

I think Allen’s problems lay outwith his relationship with Gerrard.

Gerrard is too much of a Gentleman to say anything else publicly.
He is very media savvy and would know not to give them any dirt.
What he thinks privately is probably another thing altogether.

Just remember this is the same Gerrard that told us we weren’t signing Flannigan or Kent
 
Gerrard is too much of a Gentleman to say anything else publicly.
He is very media savvy and would know not to give them any dirt.
What he thinks privately is probably another thing altogether.

Just remember this is the same Gerrard that told us we weren’t signing Flannigan or Kent

If he had a ‘grievance’ with Allen then surely the ‘media savvy’ Gerrard would have either said nothing at all - or would have said the bare minimum politeness would have allowed. He’s gone out of his way to praise the guy, way beyond the usual platitudes we could have expected if there was an ‘issue’.

People are looking for something that isn’t there IMHO. Allen hasn’t gone due to a conflict with Gerrard, there are much more tangible reasons there’s been a parting of the ways - most probably due to how he’s handled the recruitment and disposal of players. I’m sure the Board would have expected to recoup at least half of the Kent fee from outgoing transfers, for example.
 
It absolutely is poor if you were intending to hold onto that individual.

If on the other hand you weren’t and believed redefining his role may cause him to seek an exit, well that would be what’s called managing someone out the door.

I suspect that’s maybe what’s gone on here.

Can't believe you're missing my central point which is that Allen was brought in for a McInnes-level Rangers. We got very, very lucky and jumped beyond that stage in our journey, what Allen ultimately brought to the Gerrard-level Rangers wasn't enough and both parties were amenable to a split.
We're in agreement overall, though.
 
Well we all know who dishes out custard pies.

As for your first point. You must be hard of thinking as you simply dont seem able to comprehend what Ive said. Im basing my opinion on what MA has said in his interviews. You claim that isnt "hard evidence". Very strange. I guess you've never followed any political debates or legal proceedings otherwise you'd understand how important this is.

As for ID10. Im arguing like him that MA is better gone. You've backed the wrong horse again so the best you can come up with is to try to side with ID10 and claim that your sudden conversion is because he is ITK.

One more thing. You claim I based my "warped viewpoint" on "pure guesswork" where I decided that the bits that didnt work were Allens and the bits that did were Gerrard. Im interested to know where you get that from. My views are based purely on what MA said. Its not that difficult to understand, for most people.

Have a nice day.

Well for starters, my post was in reference to various forum members, not you specifically, so don’t flatter yourself there. What you essentially said was you didn’t like the way he talked so he was better off gone, which is an absolutely sound basis for judging his worth if you’re 10 years old. Being a grown man I was more interested in looking at what we know he’s done based off of the comments of other club staff, including the board and management.

What you said is in no way comparable to ID10 documenting a list of reasons for which he believes Allen’s departure is a positive change, a list of reasons that were likely all obtained from people who work within the club.

“Hard of thinking”, I do love irony. Chortle
 
Sorry GG you little or nothing about his role if you think it is ok for him to be on the training field with players or on the park celebrating with them after victories.
These things were his downfall and did not go without notice of SG. I think in time you may even hear of the real tensions in the Gerard and Allen camps.
Any manager worth his salt will not allow interference in his territory at any football club
I agree with this. The DOF should be well respected, professional and working with the manager and all of the football staff (not just first team) in the background. Yes speak to the media now and again but it shouldn’t be a role for a person who craves publicity. Mark Allen was very inexperienced remember, he joined from being an academy manager (not a DOF) and maybe he just genuinely didn’t realise that being in a tracksuit on the training pitch or dancing in the dugout cringeworthy wasn’t what he was supposed to be doing.
 
Back
Top