For sentimental reasons, it is hard to envisage Rangers giving Ally McCoist the sack. Why this should be, I do not know, because it happens all the time in football.
Scores of ‘favourite sons’ have been binned down the years, from Billy McNeill at Celtic, to Willie Miller at Aberdeen, to Paul Sturrock at Dundee United. Even the god-like Jock Wallace was previously turfed out of Rangers.
In football, having a ‘legendary status’ brings lots of perks, but job-security cannot be quoted among them.
McCoist is the ultimate Rangers legend. He is adored by the club’s support, is Rangers’ all-time leading goalscorer, and has been a sheet-anchor off the field in this summer of Ibrox upheaval.
The question is, is he any good as a manager? Right now the brute facts cannot make that an affirmative, which is why there is fresh talk of the 50-year-old facing a possible dismissal.
In the here and now, it wasn’t just Saturday’s excruciating 1-0 defeat to Stirling Albion in the Irn-Bru third division which triggered this McCoist debate. That setback was only the latest in a string of poor results, on top of a lot of lumpen, unconvincing football played by Rangers this season.
It has led many Ibrox fans, notwithstanding their lifelong admiration for McCoist, to believe he may have to be removed.
One thing is for certain: Charles Green’s unequivocal statement that there is “no chance” of McCoist being sacked is a piece of fiction. Every manager is disposable. And if there is one man in Scotland who appears to care not a whit for sentiment, that man is Green.
The problem for the Rangers chief executive and would-be saviour is more complex. Green needs to work out to what degree he still needs McCoist, if he is to be successful in his plan to make money from his Rangers intervention.
At one point in the summer, Green was facing a mass Rangers fans’ revolt before McCoist spoke up on his behalf. “Ally has spoken – now we can go and buy our season-tickets,” was the gist of the fans’ response to McCoist speaking in positive terms about Green’s presence at the club.
It is impossible to overstate what McCoist did for Green that day in July. Green would currently be facing a financial shortfall without that key statement by McCoist – so the Rangers manager to a degree has already saved his skin.
On the other hand, what Green and his gang of investors cannot tolerate is a floundering Rangers in the third division – and certainly not a club which, as hard as it might be to believe, might not even gain promotion come the end of the season.
So Green’s attitude to McCoist contains both gratitude and judgment. The Yorkshireman, contrary to there being “no chance” of it, will certainly sack his manager if his business plan for Rangers is put in any peril on the park.
But Green, if it did ever happen, would face a further problem – whom to line up as McCoist’s replacement?
For me, this businessman still does not know Rangers and Scottish football well enough to make such a shrewd judgment. Many Rangers fans would be concerned, not just at losing the knowledge McCoist brings to Ibrox, but also by the fragile impasse in which the club would be left in Green’s hands.
There is absurd talk among some supporters of a Walter Smith comeback – it would represent the 64 year old’s third tour of duty at Rangers.
You never say never, but presumably a three-year challenge to restore Rangers, from the mire of the third division back to the SPL, is not one that would enamour Smith.
For a man who has been there and seen it all, and with money to burn in his retirement, I can think of more enjoyable things to do with your life.
McCoist needs to turn his fate around, and sharpish. If not, he will be sacked, with Charles Green not giving it a second thought.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article