craig

My point is though Gav, that if it comes to seeing either McCulloch or Ferguson at CM then I would let Ferguson straight back in - McCulloch isnt a good player in his NATURAL position (whatever that is.....) so to have him in the engine room hurts our title chances. I agree with you though - Ferguson should be made to squirm and prove he wants it. But would you really prefer to persevere with LM in there ?????

I just got an email from a "Scotland fan" which said that Whittaker should have been banned too....... but the others should be let off. That, to me, is an indication of the mentality of some sections of the TA.

Another thing..... there was very little doubt that Burley was going to use them on Wednesday night - the whole squad would have known that they were on the bench for no reason other than to fill it. So why not just tell the squad this was the case and then let BF and AM just go home, thus avoiding the spotlight and, just as importantly, trying to get the nation to focus on the task at hand - instead he put them on the bench and effectively left then hung out to dry. I am not trying to defend BF or AM in this, no way would I do that - but there are others here who also could have acted differently.

I think the media furore forced Rangers hand in this instance. I think that, although it was an international incident, Rangers had to be seen to be taking action. It does bring the club into disrepute too. They will only miss two matches, right ? This weekend and the following weekend - the two week ban expires on Thursday April 17th. Technically they will then be available for selection, but will they be ? In McGregor's case it will depend on how Alexander does between the sticks but, unlike the last stint Alexander had, I can see WS sticking with Alexander until he makes a mistake. Ferguson, as you say, doesn't have the competition. What worries me is that in his statement, WS said that we have Edu and Lee McCulloch to call upon but not once suggested that Davis could be pulled inside into his natural position. If McCulloch gets the nod then, after the 2 week ban, I would have no hesitation in bringing Ferguson back in.

So the SFA have effectively admitted that the TA forced their hand and ths is the reason that BF and AM will no longer be selected. I don't recall guys like Jinky Johnstone getting sine die banned when he swanned off on a row boat - it was just the craic like. Sorry but this has a foul stench to it. Yes, these 2 players let themselves, their club, their country down - but the repercussions are far too extreme. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and really does stink of being an anti-Rangers agenda from not just the media but also the supporters of all other clubs. I may be a bit harsh in this assessment - but FUCK THEM - and if the SFA don't have the testicular fortitude to make its own decisions without fan pressure then they should be removed from their positions of authority and we should simply have selection by committee. My interest in the national team was waning as it was, thanks in large part to the ineptitude of George Burley - this incident makes me have as little interest in my national team as I could - and that is demoralising.

Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor have been told their Scotland careers are over and have been suspended for two weeks without pay by Rangers. The club handed out the maximum sanction available after the pair were summoned to a meeting with chief executive Martin Bain having been sent home from training earlier in the day. Both players were involved in a drinking session at Scotland's team hotel at the weekend and then enraged club and national team bosses by apparently making V-signs while on the bench after being dropped for Wednesday's 2-1 win over Iceland at Hampden. The Scottish Football Association claimed the matter was closed on Thursday but have acted on Friday afternoon by announcing Ferguson and McGregor will no longer be considered for international selection. The SFA have been besieged by phone calls and e-mails from Scotland fans. It is understood the negative reaction from supporters and supporters' groups added to the pressure for the matter to be discussed again. Following a further meeting between chief executive Gordon Smith and manager George Burley, sanctioned by the SFA board, it was decided neither player would play for Scotland again. Scotland boss George Burley insisted after Wednesday's game that both players would still be involved in future squads. But, following a summit between Burley and chief executive Gordon Smith, the SFA have performed a dramatic u-turn. An SFA spokesman said: "In light of the events of the past 48 hours and following further discussions between the national team manager and the chief executive, it has been decided that Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor will no longer be considered for international selection by Scotland. "This action has been taken in the best interest of the squad, the fans and the country. "We are determined to qualify for the World Cup and we must ensure that nothing is allowed to distract us from achieving this goal." Ferguson - who has been stripped of the Rangers captaincy - and McGregor were called to a meeting with Bain at Murray Park, where they were informed of the action being taken by the club. Bain said: "The overall conduct of the players during the last week while on Scotland duty has, regrettably, fallen considerably short of the standards expected by Rangers Football Club and our supporters and has brought the club into disrepute. "The management of the club has taken the view that this has damaged both Rangers and Scotland and is unacceptable. "Even though our club is entering the critical stage of the league season and the later stages of the Scottish Cup, appropriate disciplinary action was required." Rangers has agreed with the players that part of their deducted wages will be donated to charity.

What annoys me more than anything about this whole episode is that there were no less than FIVE additional players who were part of the "crowd". Yet every single one of them seems to have been able to slope off into the background because of the furore over Ferguson and McGregor. And whilst it could be argued that BF and AM were the main perpetrators the fact that the other five held their hands up and said they too should be punished would suggest that all 7 felt that they were deserving of the same punishment. Yet here we are..... just the 2 Rangers players given a rough time of it - I am not suggesting they dont deserve it, but are they the only two that do ? I wonder what excuse, I mean explanation, we would have got had they not given the "V" sign on Wednesday night. The only disappointment the media will have is that Whittaker was not also dumped.

Yep, that is who I thought it was too !

Hold up though.... no mention of Smith who came in and re-installed Ferguson as Captain ? Surely he is culpable too ?!?!?!

Same as it was a couple of years ago....... I think it is disrespectful to the manager who has picked him in his team to publicly show your allegiance to a player who has been punished by the club. Would still celebrate 3 points though.

But you said he was the common denominator and then named the managers that were convenient to you. I listed all managers and showed that at least 7 of them had not lost the dressing room with Ferguson there. If you want to asses the disruptive influence of someone you surely need to look at all the managers they have worked under. You also suggested I used circumstantial evidence, which is fine. But at least I have backed up that circumstantial evidence with what looks to be plausible. Your rebuttal is simply that he is the "common denominator" - but that is only when you look at the managers you want to. What about the others where the dressing room WASNT lost ? Should we conveniently forget them ? Hughes got to know him well enough to install him as Captain. It wasnt the players fault with Vogts. Players got capped under Vogts that wouldn't get a game in a Sunday pub team. Even the best players in the world couldn't turn that scenario around. I am not saying he is blameless, far from it. But to use only the information that suits you is unfair to the player.

What age was he when his career was ended Pete ?

So he is to blame JUST because he was national team captain ? Come on, that is a very lame reason to be blaming anyone. I dont think for a minute he is blameless but to give him blame just because he was captain makes no sense to me. Do you know exactly what has happened here ? If you do then let us know so we can all make a reasoned judgement. Because as far as I see it we are still working on supposition. It also looks like there is more to it, or at least more players involved. I am not trying to defend Ferguson but it ires me that we can cast blame without being in possession of the full facts.

You know him well enough to call him a twat Pete ? I dont believe we should be making personal insults. Please refrain. I want him to leave the club too but not because of his discipline (or lack thereof) but due to the lack of what he brings to the team. No-one has said that he is a wee angel. Have they ?

But those juries are not necessarily right. So how come he was installed as Captain if he is so disruptive ? He also did not cause any upset in the Blackjburn dressing room and, in fact, was also made Captain there. So he has had at least 11 managers (5 with Scotland - Brown, Vogts, Smith, McCleish, Burley) (5 club managers - Smith, Advocaat, McCleish, Hughes, PLG, Smith). Of the international managers the ONLY one where there seems to have been a problem was with Burley. In fact, 4 of those managers, including Burley, made him Captain. Would you honestly do that if the player in question was disruptive ? Of the club managers the dressing room has seemed to have been lost 3 times (Advocaat, McCleish and PLG). It was widely suggested the split in Advocaat's time was due to the Dutch vs rest problem. With McCleish it could easily be suggested that it wasn't Ferguson's fault - why else would Eck install Ferguson as national team Captain when he took over from Smith ? Smith never lost the dressing room 1st time around and still hasnt, yet, this time. Likewise he never seemed to have split the dressing room under Hughes and, as I said, was even made Captain. PLG we know Ferguson was instrumental in that. So in 11 managers it would seem the dressing room has been lost or there has been an obvious split between management and playing staff on 4 occasiona and, of those 4, two (Advocaat & Eck) can be justified as not being Ferguson's fault. So heavy involvement in 2 dressing room splits in 11 managers - that hardly makes him the "common denominator" and therefore the culpable party and disruptive influence you make him out to be. Further, if a player plays under 40 different managers and the dressing room is lost on 1, 2 or 40 occasions - as you are looking at the player he will ALWAYS be the common denominator - doesn't mean he is the instigator or the reason for those dressing room splits. Sooooooo, 2 out of 11 and he is the problem ? I have attempted to put numbers to this but, as yet, all you have done is supposed that he must be the big, bad Barry because that is who you want him to be. I am not, by the way, trying to defend him and suggesting he isnt at fault here - but to ride roughshod over the facts and figures is unfair to him. Funny that he has been made both Club and Country Captain on so many occasions for being such a disruptive player. Why would any manager do that ?

Touche Pete. As there are questions to be answered you ALSO cant simply determine that as he is the "common denominator" he MUST be to blame. And that is what you said.

What a load of nonsense Pete. Just because Ferguson is the common denominator doesnt make him the cause. Advocaat lost the dressing room because there was a split between the Dutch and non-Dutch (from what I remember). How does that mean it is Ferguson's fault ? Eck lost the dressing room because, quite simply, the players were crap and his tactics were questionable. Again, not necessarily Ferguson's fault. PLG. I supported PLG through that one but none of us know for sure who was to blame and to what extent. Most definitely Ferguson was one of the primary players though. Was it his fault ? Who knows. Smith - hasnt lost the dressing room in his 2nd sting has he ? Not to my knowledge - so does that mean that this is also thanks to Barry Ferguson as he is still the common denominator ? Smith also didnt lose the dressing room in his 1st stint and Ferguson was there during that time - so was it also thanks to BF that the dressing room wasnt lost ? Burley. Obviously BF is partly to blame as it stands, but seems that there were plenty others who were not blameless, so why is he scape-goated ? Just because someone is the common denominator does not make them the root cause of all problems. I am by no means saying he is blameless - but to suggest he is the only problem cause is highly unlikely

Depends surely ? If he is on the line blocking the way that isnt necessarily a foul, unless he is obstructing intentionally. You see it all the time where a player stands right on the keeper but it isnt a foul unless the keeper is obstructed when trying to claim the ball. I never saw the goal so not sure if it was a foul or not.

Already have yours on do you ? :fish:

If I remember correctly ? And then you tell us the exact crowd.... come on, admit it, you googled

It could be that they want to help a guy who gave the game so much but looked like heading down the "George Best" route.

It is more brown than ginger....... actually make that grey

you wouldnt win that either though.....

You sure ? Send me the postage for those Gunners magazines :fish:

Your point is ? I said a new winner, not a new award. Do we have a "blindest user" award ? :fish: