MARK Warburton was reluctant to talk about his departure from Rangers when he was officially unveiled as the new manager of Nottingham Forest at the City Ground on Thursday afternoon.
The unusual events which led to his departure are still being pored over at the League Managers Association and he had, he repeatedly stated, to respect the legal process.
Warburton, his assistant Davie Weir and their former head of recruitment Frank McParland all deny that an agent representing them had jointly tendered their resignations at Ibrox.
Senior officials at the trio’s former club, though, are adamant that he did. As things stand, it looks unlikely there will be a swift resolution to the stand-off.
But what merit is there in persisting with the matter now that he has, as he had been widely tipped to for some time before he left Rangers, moved on and taken over at Forest?
Warburton, Weir and McParland are all now gainfully employed again. It is not as though they are sitting at home watching daytime television, worrying how they will pay the electricity bill and smarting over the pay-off which they believe is due to them.
They certainly have a huge job on their hands at Forest. The once-great Midlands club is in freefall. They will do well to avoid relegation in the final weeks of the season. It will require their undivided attention.
So what possible benefit is there, then, in pursuing their grievance against the Ladbrokes Premiership club they left five weeks ago?
The former City of London trader was adamant the allegations which have been made about him – and they include that he leaked confidential information from a board meeting, was using Rangers as a “stepping stone” to a bigger job in England and was actively negotiating with other clubs down south during his tenure – since he moved on are “not true”.
However, his claim that he was surprised to be back in football so soon after his exit from Ibrox and his revelation that the move to the Sky Bet Championship strugglers had come about very quickly have raised sceptical eyebrows.
Whatever took place, it is obvious that relations between Warburton and certain members of the Rangers board had been strained for some time this season as new signings failed to deliver and the team struggled on the park. Clearly, their relationship broke down irrevocably.
Whether their representative technically resigned on their behalf is the point that is being disputed.
But the suggestion that their agent was discussing the terms their prospective departure and enquiring if Rangers would waive the right to compensation if they joined another club has not been contested.
The whole affair is a sorry one. The way it has been played out in public has been regrettable and unnecessary. It would be to the benefit of all parties involved if they put it behind them, went their separate ways and concentrated on the significant challenges that now lie ahead of them.
Whatever your view of Warburton may be it is undeniable that he did a decent job in difficult circumstances after taking over at Rangers in the summer of 2015. The majority of his signings were a resounding success. That elusive promotion to the top flight was secured with something to spare.
Celtic were also knocked out of the William Hill Scottish Cup following an epic semi-final encounter at Hampden. Some of the football played along the way was a delight to watch.
That has not been the case during the 2016/17 campaign. The individuals he recruited in the close season have failed to deliver or even, in some cases, play in the first team. His side have suffered some heavy defeats.
His insistence that his charges build play patiently from the back has been directly responsible for some ignominious losses and has at times made him seem tactically naïve.
The manner in which Warburton has left Rangers has damaged his image in the eyes of many supporters. It is possible that, in years to come, his time in the dugout at Ibrox will be viewed favourably. But if he perseveres with his complaint it will further tarnish his legacy.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel