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

Bromp Carlisle

Well-Known Member
He can’t swim, he attracts enemy radar, he attracts sharks, he nudges players when they’re trying to shoot, he always insists on sitting at “The Captain’s Table”… he mucks about. Imagine… the fear… when you go to sleep with Mark Allen as DoF and think “Oh God, when I wake up, will everyone be dead?” You can’t run a club like that.
 

CaptainCourageous

Well-Known Member
A rough translation:

He was hard to like
He struggled to offload players
He bought in too many players of dubious quality
The club now revolves around SG, there is no 'top duo' any more
He did some good work though
Surely Gerrard could have said no to the players he didn't want?
 

Earl of Leven

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Surely Gerrard could have said no to the players he didn't want?
I think ID10 and others have hinted at this: many at club wanted the 'twin leaders' thing to work but weren't impressed at all but MA's dealings...NOW we will see SG getting only the players he wants - good or bad.
 

TQ3

Well-Known Member
I always cringed when I seen him on the pitch. I thought the DoF was a board room position rather than a coaching team role, so expected him to sit in the directors box.
I do think that whoever takes over has an easier start, as the infrastructure seems to be in place, where as MA had a blank page.
 

JMCK

Well-Known Member
I’m inclined to believe that this ^^^^^ is pretty accurate.

I’m not reading into this that anyone, including you ID10, is saying Allen did a terrible job. My take on all of this is that he did an ok job but seemed to have an out of control ego that may have caused him to overstep the mark somewhat.

I think we can all agree that the improvements in Auchenhowie and around Ibrox are good news. How much of that was Allen and how much was Gerrard, we may never know. But you’re post makes a number of very interesting points, particularly the quite revealing issue of him plopping himself into the squad photo, hours before he got out of Dodge.

Anyway, I’m not going to be over critical of him, because he does seem to have been reasonably competent at his work. However, the necessary “upgrade” comment in his article is one I’m now persuaded is needed.
Apart from what he's written @ID10 didn't think Mark Allan did a terrible job?
 

Drumchapel-Bear

Well-Known Member
I think ID10 and others have hinted at this: many at club wanted the 'twin leaders' thing to work but weren't impressed at all but MA's dealings...NOW we will see SG getting only the players he wants - good or bad.
Not ideal is it? If Liverpool come calling tomorrow Gerrard will be off. The whole point of the DOF idea was to make transition easy between each manager without it affecting the philosophy etc.

Some of the most popular players in the support are guys Mark Allen identified and brought to the table - ie, Katic and Kamara.

It seems to be a case of any good players = Gerrard and any players who don't work out = Allen's fault.

When you are shopping in the bargain basement (generally - which we have been since Allen came in) and there's huge turnovers of players, it's virtually impossible that you won't pick up a few duds along the way.
 

JMCK

Well-Known Member
I think Mark Allan did a good job; the job he was given to do wasn't easy, obviously, but overall many of his decisions appear to have made sense, notably the recruitment of Gerrard. He deserved for Gerrard's words to be the final word after he left.
 

Roscoblue

Well-Known Member
I always cringed when I seen him on the pitch. I thought the DoF was a board room position rather than a coaching team role, so expected him to sit in the directors box.
I do think that whoever takes over has an easier start, as the infrastructure seems to be in place, where as MA had a blank page.
Imagine anyone thinking the Director of Football would sit there.
 

jackstar

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info ,

Doesn’t sound great , He certainly wasn’t very good at trimming the squad that’s plain to see.
I do concur in one thing. He shouldn't be anywhere near the training pitch,surely that should be a no go.He should be going about his business as quietly as possible. In that regard he does come across as full of himself.
 

Drumchapel-Bear

Well-Known Member
I do concur in one thing. He shouldn't be anywhere near the training pitch,surely that should be a no go.He should be going about his business as quietly as possible. In that regard he does come across as full of himself.
What's wrong with him coming down and watching the lads training? He'll love football just like the rest of us. I'd probably love to go and watch them training as well everyday if my job allowed it.

It's a different story if he's down at the training field and trying to stick his nose into the training sessions etc but simply watching them? What's the problem with that?
 

SuperGers07

Well-Known Member
More than once SG was asked about loan deals etc in press conference and he gave out what turned out to be inaccurate answers.

I think those answers gave a hint that there may have been some disconnect somewhere in the player personnel department.
Bottom line was it looked like SG wasn’t really on top of day to day operations.

Wouldn’t surprise me that the next DOF may have some connection to SG.

Listen to SG comments closely from weekend. He specifically says Technical Director. I'd expect that to be the working title going forward, cutting out the being involved with deals aspect.

I fully expect an internal appointment with either Andy Scoulding or Craig Mulholland taking the role of Technical Director.
 

pelem

Well-Known Member
Coming soon to a tabloid near you, a regurgitated negative Rangers clickbait story.

He knows what has been behind the scenes at Ibrox which the vast majority on this forum or off it (me included) don't know anything about the goings on, so I'd say I'D10 ain't far off the truth so until anyone can REALLY ACTUALLY say any different then he will be the gauge to his leaving.
 

SuperGers07

Well-Known Member
What Gerrard has said, publicly at least, definitely go’s against the narrative being built by journalists against him.
I listened to last nights Flagship H and H pod. The impression is Allen was taken by the idea of Gerrard and liked being around him, Gerrard wasn't fully returning the favour and was not really fussed if he left. If Gerrard wanted him to stay, he'd have stayed
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
As @ID10 has mentioned his manner and behaviours towards staff at times was shocking and bordering on oppressive at times. Staff at the HTC stifled due to fear of losing their job. What I would say is that he did bring in a more professional outlook at HTC which was badly needed. As the article indicated his failures outweighed his successes. Let's just say that the biggest smile you are seeing at the HTC just now is the person who smiles the least. Hopefully he will go to pastures new and leave things as they stand.
Who was he stifling? As far as I can see the youths are performing well and it's encouraging that we may have players breaking into the first team squad in the near future.
 

HarryBosch

Well-Known Member
He knows what has been behind the scenes at Ibrox which the vast majority on this forum or off it (me included) don't know anything about the goings on, so I'd say I'D10 ain't far off the truth so until anyone can REALLY ACTUALLY say any different then he will be the gauge to his leaving.
Not arguing that. More a comment for the scavenging 'journos' scouring the forum for something to write.
 

SuperGers07

Well-Known Member
I think ID10 and others have hinted at this: many at club wanted the 'twin leaders' thing to work but weren't impressed at all but MA's dealings...NOW we will see SG getting only the players he wants - good or bad.
I think so too, Barker and Jones were signings Allen had chased for some time, so we can safely say they were Allen signings with SG approval.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
I listened to last nights Flagship H and H pod. The impression is Allen was taken by the idea of Gerrard and liked being around him, Gerrard wasn't fully returning the favour and was not really fussed if he left. If Gerrard wanted him to stay, he'd have stayed
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.
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
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.
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Fatbearblue

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

pelem

Well-Known Member
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.
 

LOL 133

Well-Known Member
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:

ID10

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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.
He follows my blog

Should I slide into his DMs & ask :D
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
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.




 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Big Buff

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Arminius

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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 :)
 

Marstonbear

Well-Known Member
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
 

JMCK

Well-Known Member
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.
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
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.
 

gersrus71

Well-Known Member
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
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Top