craig

I didnt expect that type of response to be honest but it seems that when someone poses a simple question of you that you go on the defensive for no apparent reason. Was a perfectly valid and innocent question. I am genuinely interested as to how either 1) your stance has changed or 2) how your current stance relates to the previous one I am not in the game of chess, I say it as I see it - can you ? Or would you prefer to start not answering the questions, again ? You have been asked on here a few times to answer some questions and you deflect and avoid, on occasion. I don't want, nor have the time, to read your previous posts - ohhh, and I didnt go read them either - I just so happen to have a decent memory. I am no perfectionist either - but either way, you are trying to deflect from the question, I will ask again. Ohhhh and I am not taking any of it seriously my friend. But if you dont want to be questioned (be it by the UN or business associates or someone on a football forum) then perhaps you shouldnt make the statements - because statements are there to be challenged. Has your stance changed from your previous posts or can you tell me in what way those same posts relate to your current stance ?

lol, he said 1IAR, not 11IAR.

maineflyer, Was it not a few short weeks ago that you said that the next few weeks would be interesting for SDM in that a group of supporters would be putting pressure on ? But now you are stating WE have NO option and that SDM need not listen to any of us. Does that not make the actions you said were forthcoming futile ?

sharpraybear, Are you sure that even with 16 mill of debt we would meet any criteria placed on us ? The debt would, one would assume, be tied to the level of income - so say our income is 60 mill and we have debt of 16 mill then a company with 600 mill of income could have 160 mill of debt and be in a similar position in %age terms. I would like to see the criteria before we determine if we meet such criteria. Another thing to consider is...... do you honestly think that UEFA will ban the "big boys" ? UEFA make far too much money thanks to the big boys to exclude them. Clubs like Real, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal would ALL likely be banned under such criteria - so I doubt that UEFA would even follow through with it !

we will agree to disagree then because you say that the money and fame side played its part. You think by staying in the UK he will avoid the fame ? I doubt it. That is my point - he needs, in my opinion, to alienate himself from what asissted him in getting to where he is. I am no professional on the subject though. I also didn't say that football was the complete cause but one of them and by using "football" I meant all that goes with it, not just football itself but the adulation and fame if you like. Sorry but I just don't see why ANY professional club would EVER trust a KNOWN alcoholic with their kids in the U-19's(who are still impressionable at that age and who no doubt would look to him as a role model). Sorry but to me that is quite simply an absurd suggestion. Why would moving away be "worse" - his benders in the UK are every bit as bad as the ones he has had outwith the UK. You don't think that he has "close ones" who have TRIED to take care of him ? I would think they have - but it has fallen on deaf ears. Hence why I belive getting away from it could assist (however, he is known to be depressive so even being away from it may not help). I fear that there is NO helping him until he, quite simply, helps himself.

Yeah it looks to me like some of his info is inaccurate. For instance, Ian Murray didn't go to Hibs, he went to Norwich IIRC. But if the figures used are reasonably accurate then we have indeed done well in the transfer market, but could still do better.

Rumour is Mancini with Di Canio as assistant to take over from Mancini at some point.

I actually think the opposite Gribz. It was being a part of "that" life (football) which assisted in getting him to where he is today. I think that a complete break from all that is football and, controversially, a move away from Britain for an extended period could very well be what he needs.

If McGeady had his way he would have been down the line ALL the time - why was he turning inside ? Because Broadfoot wouldn't let him down the line. Davis' success at curtailing McGeady was due, in part, to Broadfoot also not being beaten down the line by McGeady.

My "aye right" comment was aimed at your "I feel guilty now" statement ! Glad you all enjoyed though, as did we all !

Antti Niemi has retired too - on Sporting life

You will be happy Gribz !! Bilic favourite to take over Alan Curbishley has blamed a "breach of trust and confidence" for his sudden departure from Upton Park. Curbishley has become the first managerial casualty of the Barclays Premier League season, resigning his post over a row regarding the make-up of the Hammers' playing squad. In a statement released via the League Managers' Association he said: "I started my West Ham United career when I left school in 1974 and have remained a lifelong fan. I have been incredibly proud to manage such a great club and my decision to resign has been very tough. "The selection of players is critical to the job of the manager and I had an agreement with the club that I alone would determine the composition of the squad. "However, the club continued to make significant player decisions without involving me. In the end such a breach of trust and confidence meant that I had no option but to leave. Nevertheless, I wish the club and the players every success in the future."

I don't agree with the "taste of their own medicine" stuff. Tit for tat just perpetuates the problem. I too have reservations about Lennon being the victim. As you say, we should have been in high spirits and, even if drunk, most Gers fans would have been, you would expect, ripping the piss out of Lennon, not trying to wage a war. We had just won FFS. It is just as likely that this is exactly what was happening and Lennon took exception, raised to the bait and said or did something that wasn't liked. Ohhhhh, wait.... that would never happen because Neil Lennon is very passive right ? Come on, Lennon is as hot-headed, temperamental as it could possibly get. Obviously I am surmising but there is every chance that Lennon was as much the instigator as the victim.

I actually think he deserves it. He has been very consistent this season, whether played at RB or CB. He has looked pretty assured beside Bougherra at CB at the start of the season. And who amongst us would have thought that he would have had McGeady in his back pocket on Sunday whilst at RB. Not only in his pocket but ripping the p1sh out of him too. He showed willingness to get forward and he did his defensive duties reasonably well (bar not getting close enough to prevent the cross for their first goal)

Cal, I am certainly not angry at Rangers treatment of Gow, simlpy because I don't know what has happened to tarnish a relationship which, if we remember, started with him performing admirably after losing one of his family. So admirably, in fact, that it had Durrant and Smith singing his praises to the hilt. From there though I have no idea what has happened so I am angry at neither party. I understand that you see things from Rangers point of view and rightly so. However, that also has the potential for judgement to be clouded as you no longer are impartial (not saying you are but there is the possibility for it to happen). I disagree that Gow refusing to move lacks ambition when looked at from a different angle. IF he wants to stay to try to prove himself then I would think that it shows the polar opposite of lack of ambition. Wanting to stay at a massive club like Rangers to prove yourself is far more ambitious in my opinion than going to a second rate team like Blackpool, especially given the players he would be fighting against to get a start. I happen to think that is VERY ambitious. You could call it stubborn or naive and with justification - but those same set of circumstances could just as easily be justified as being the complete opposite. I guess the point I am making is that we don't have all the facts and whilst we don't then we are speculating at almost every juncture. I worry about Rangers finances too and I prefer to see them as lean as possible - it is after all a BUSINESS - so I don't want to see us making these huge payouts to get rid of players. But then, I just prefer we don't sign the deadwood in the first place. But, again, you suggesting that Gow taking a wage without being part of the team is too simplistic for me. I would be quite sure he WANTS to be part of the team - the decision for him to be part of that team isnt his though - and if we are talking in these terms then there are plenty of others at Ibrox who aren't part of the team but getting a wage for it. I understand any player blocking a transfer fee is irritating and frustrating - however, if your employer wanted rid of you and was asking you to move 200+ miles (guessing.....) just so they got rid of you and it was somewhere that you didn't want to go, would you do it ? I know for sure I wouldn't, especially if I was on a contract that I was quite happy with.

Regardless of the Lennon incident, tit for tat is no defence. It is quite appalling. Why Novo ? Because he is so hated by them ? Shocking behaviour. No doubt it will be swept under the carpet whilst we were harangued for someone posting what was undoubtedly a JOKE picture of Neil Lennon hanging from a noose. I am not condoning that but which do you think is the more serious ? A caricature type picture or the posting of a rivals home address ? It isnt like they have done this before - and you can bet that the mhedia will soon have forgotten it all again !

Rather than go back and forth.... to your point about keeping the other side happy - it is interesting to note that Gow's agent (agents aren't the most truthful but you never know) stated that Hearts were interested but RANGERS were more interested in the Blackpool option. If that is the case then I fail to see how that would be doing so - they don't want Gow playing against them so, it APPEARS, they vetoed a move which it would seem the player would have preferred (to caveat - this is according to his agent). I am not sure that he thinks he is better than he is - you are surmising as much of this is on both sides of the debate - I would surmise that he simply doesn't want to leave for lesser money and so is happy to bide his time. We don't have proof that he was offered the same wages elsewhere, do we ? If so I retract the statement. If it is the same scenario as with Souness then surely that becomes the clubs fault that they took Gow on given they knew he was in the SPL and they could get "stuck" with him ? Not the player's fault for sure. Even if as you suggest he is being detrimental to his peers, why should he move to appease others ? I don't see the validity in that to be honest. It isnt his concern is Rangers ignore SPL players. They have ignored him already so why should he care ? I get what you are saying Cal and on the whole don't disagree - I just don't believe that it is as black and white as Gow being unreasonable whilst Rangers aren't. I can see why you think Gow is being unreasonable but is it any less unreasonable for him to say "you know what ? I love this club, have dreamt of playing for this club, WANT to play for this club and believe I am good enough to play for this club and therefore am going to stay and try as hard as I can to prove it to you" ?? See, that surely has as much validity and for one person that is not unreasonable whilst for another could be portrayed as being unreasonable. My point being he could very well have those thoughts so by not moving it may not be him being unreasonable but, as someone else says, he wants the chance to prove himself and fight for a place. It could be stubborn or in denial if you like but not necessarily unreasonable. Equally, it could be suggested that if his agents words are true (again, who knows ?) and if he wanted to stay close to home then it could be construed that Rangers were being unreasonable by not allowing him to move to Hearts. Again my point merely is that it doesnt come across as being as black and white to me as it does to you. He hasn't been given a chance at Rangers (rightly OR wrongly I don't know because I dont know what happens at training, games, private life etc) - but he hasn't been given a chance. Who knows why ? Not me. All that said though - he is now gone for a few months so I think we should all be getting on with who we DO have at the club and getting behind them, whilst keeping a watchful eye on those who are not at the club, but still contracted, to see how they get on.

I understand your chain of thought calscot, thanks for clarifying. And I see the validity of it. Couple of questions though 1. Do we know for sure that Gow sought compensation to leave Gers by way of a pay-off ? 2. Given Rangers have set precedent for this in the past he obviously thought that he may get something. Why not when others no more deserving got big payouts ? 3. I don't think his actions have improved things for himself but Rangers actions could be deemed to have improved only THEIR position (hear me out..... Rangers simply wanted him off the books - agreed ? They have not one care as to what wages he could get elsewhere so just because he could have got the same wages is nothing to do with Rangers but more to do with him and his agent). Sorry but I just can't see why Rangers would look to offload a player and then look out for the best interests of the player. Rangers are a business, and rightly so, so why would they care what happens to the player after leaving ? They wouldn't in my opinion. So both parties look out for their best interests, not just one. Do I think Rangers were wrong ? NO. Do I think Gow was wrong ? NO. I think that in simplistic terms Gow simply wanted more cash to leave and there is absolutely no harm in trying to get that - you don't get if you don't ask. He was told no by the powers that be and that is their entitlement too. The lad got a lucrative contract from Rangers, they have now seen that he won't cut it (in their eyes and for whatever reason only they know), they tried to offload him (makes sense), he wanted additional cash (makes sense from his point of view) and now he is, eventually, gone - which is good for all concerned. I just think we should simply draw a line under the whole Gow episode until such time as he comes back from loan and we will then have the debate on whether he is good enough to break into the Gers team, dependent upon performances with Blackpool. Sorry for the long post.

Would you say the same had it been Maloney or Samaras that struck it that way ? I doubt it. I don't think it is splitting hairs - it wasn't a sweet strike. Sorry but my version of a sweet strike looks like it may be different to yours. I am not saying that it wasnt a good execution. And I did say that technically it was difficult and technically he dealt with it well, obviously - but I can't in all honesty see that it was a sweet strike of the ball.

And just like Bert he scored a SCREAMER against them. A panic buy ? Unlike Loovens ? I hope we make a LOT MORE panic buys like Mendes. Ask them how long it took Scott Brown to get 3 MOTM awards after he signed for them for 1 mill more than we paid for Mendes..... it only took Mendes 3 games including one against THEM (although I would have given MOTM to Cousin....)

I completely agree - but to suggest it was a sweet strike is giving KM a HUGE benefit of the doubt !

Cal, I hate being pedantic (OK, I don't....) but it is BOUGHERRA, there is no "R" between the "B" and "O". We are definitely light at CB - however Broadfoot did a pretty decent job when he was in there at the start of the season. The midfielders you suggested leaving would be fine but I wouldn't bother either way if we lost Adam too - actually, and this may sound controversial, I would rather get rid of Adam than Burke - reason being that we have Beasley and Aaron on the left side of midfield but we are light on the right, using Davis (a natural CM) and Novo (natural forward) as makeshift RM's. At least Burke is a natural RM - and though he is much maligned, when we played the 4-5-1 last season he and Naismith actually looked the part - he is injury prone though.

His movement for his first goal may have been good but his finish was much less than sweet. Don't get me wrong it was a technically difficult finish but the connection wasn't sweet.

If Gow is not entitled to a pay off unless Rangers break his contract (which you are correct, he isnt) then I dont think we can complain too heavily when said player says "fine, I will stay on the contract I am on". After all, BOTH parties agreed to it and are obligated by it. He IS entitled to his wages under that contract so regardless of whether it is thought he lacks ambition etc etc he is entitled to stay at Rangers and pick up his wages for doing nothing. A contract is a two way street - not one (on both player and club's side). Cal, Gow is NOT in the wrong - he has the same entitlement as the club (i.e. obligate his contract) so irrespective of if you want to paint it different shades of grey both parties are in the right.

And maybe "thanks for taking the wages and applying yourself only when you could be arsed" ? See, because for every performance like Sunday's (and I am VERY grateful for it) he had 4 or 5 where he simply didn't want to be here. Great talent but IMO showed disrespect for the club by only trying when he could be bothered. I am sad to see his ability go but very glad to see his work ethic and disrespect to the club go.