Miserable

[rodman]

I honestly aitn baiting, but is it worse now than when JFH was in charge?
I swear i read all this to the letter when he was getting nil nils every week.
Oh and when Harry Out! was in charge for that matter.

From the start of Jimmy's last season in charge, for the 16 games he managed there wasn't one single nil nil draw.

And yes it is worse.

Olly has a lower goals per game ratio than Jimmy.
Lower points per game ratio and a massively bigger defeats ratio.

Jimmy was poor but Holloway is worse.

[Stanley]

The chairman should judge the managers record deem it nowhere near acceptable and get rid of him.

73, I keep saying this - TF is not the 'hire em fire em' type of Chairman and never has been. Since the 1st day he walked into the club his mantra was stability, because he was so acutely aware of what had preceded him at the club with the conveyor belt of managers Flavio got through in such a short time, which is also one of the factors that made us such a laughing stock at the time, the way outsiders observed the way we were being run. The only thing that turned things around in the last 18 months was Amit getting more involved and hiring Warnock. There's even a very revealing scene in The Four Year Plan where Flavio is on the phone to Amit and he tells him, to paraphrase, "Ok, I will leave things to you now, I trust you." Amit had tamed him basically. That was then the point that Flavio took a back seat and is what began our ascent to the PL under Warnock. And even then during the bad run we went on in 2010/11 Flavio wanted to sack Warnock but Amit once again intervened to save his job.

The point I'm making is this is all the back-story to what TF inherited and he was well aware of this. He was aware of the fan protests outside HQ with the chanting of "We want our Rangers back!" So when he arrived he promised an end to all that by preaching his vision of stability for the club and saying he doesn't believe in firing managers just because they go on a bad run of games because he's more interested in the long-term stability of the club.

In no way should the above be taken as a defence of the man. I'm simply offering an explanation of his mindset. The problem with his philosophy though is that throughout his Chairmanship he has always sacked managers too late i.e Hughes, Redknapp and he's making the same mistake again now with Holloway.

[1973 ranger]

Good post Stan, If Fernandes wants or wanted stability why has he left us in such a state financially with the biggest case of mis management in the history of English football. He now has a case of people not attending matches and his manager telling the fans not to come back.

[bakes8]

73, I keep saying this - TF is not the 'hire em fire em' type of Chairman and never has been. Since the 1st day he walked into the club his mantra was stability, because he was so acutely aware of what had preceded him at the club with the conveyor belt of managers Flavio got through in such a short time, which is also one of the factors that made us such a laughing stock at the time, the way outsiders observed the way we were being run. The only thing that turned things around in the last 18 months was Amit getting more involved and hiring Warnock. There's even a very revealing scene in The Four Year Plan where Flavio is on the phone to Amit and he tells him, to paraphrase, "Ok, I will leave things to you now, I trust you." Amit had tamed him basically. That was then the point that Flavio took a back seat and is what began our ascent to the PL under Warnock. And even then during the bad run we went on in 2010/11 Flavio wanted to sack Warnock but Amit once again intervened to save his job.

The point I'm making is this is all the back-story to what TF inherited and he was well aware of this. He was aware of the fan protests outside HQ with the chanting of "We want our Rangers back!" So when he arrived he promised an end to all that by preaching his vision of stability for the club and saying he doesn't believe in firing managers just because they go on a bad run of games because he's more interested in the long-term stability of the club.

In no way should the above be taken as a defence of the man. I'm simply offering an explanation of his mindset. The problem with his philosophy though is that throughout his Chairmanship he has always sacked managers too late i.e Hughes, Redknapp and he's making the same mistake again now with Holloway.

You say that Stan, but Fernandes went and sacked Warnock after a few bad results in the Prem, a shocking decision in retrospect, and followed that with a string of disasters.

Stability is no good if you're going down the divisions. Whilewe were firing all and sundry we were actually winning more than we were losing until we found the golden nugget in Warnock. Do we really think Ollie will turn this round? His team selections, tactics and substitutions lead me to believe this is not the case.

Fernandes needs to act and he needs to make the correct appointment for a change.

[Stanley]

You say that Stan, but Fernandes went and sacked Warnock after a few bad results in the Prem, a shocking decision in retrospect, and followed that with a string of disasters.

I agree, but that's because Warnock wasn't TF's man to start with; and ironically the one time he was too hasty in firing is the one time he shouldn't have been.

[dogsrrs]

Funny how things change Warnock wasn't T Fs man 1st time around and Warnock wasn't L Rs man 2nd time around QPR

[1973 ranger]

Only at Rangers under Fernandes could it happen and even more baffling is the current manager keeping his job.

[Hitman34]

Only at Rangers under Fernandes could it happen and even more baffling is the current manager keeping his job.

richard thomson was hounded out for alot less than what uncle has done to us, thats for sure.

[1973 ranger]

Richard Thompson ran the club in a way where we competed and when a player was sold we bought a replacement for less money and developed them. We are in danger with this clown in charge of going under.