craig

I can't imagine he has that amount of wealth to buy a club (he may have 20 mill but would he have much more than that - buying a football club should be risk capital only i.e. spend what you can afford to lose). I would reckon it is a consortium.

I have a friend who is a die-hard Man U fan, he is also English. This time last year we had a football team Xmas night out (always do it after Xmas as most people leave the island for Xmas) and we had an argument about whether or not Henrik Larsson was good enough to play for Man U (after Ferguson had previously tried to sign him). He refused to believe that any player from the SPL was good enough to play in the EPL, let alone for Man U. Another Scottish friend and I tried to convince him with what Larsson does aside from score goals and he wouldn't be convinced - am pretty sure that he will have changed his mind after watching Larsson on Sunday though. I am like you Chris, I actually very much admire Henrik Larsson - quality player, great finisher, assists too, great hunger for the game - something we could still be doing with at Ibrox.

If you believe some of the press stories then Ferguson won't ever be Captain again whilst SDM is there. Depends on what stories you believe. One thing I do know is that I DON'T want Barry Ferguson to be Rangers captain - too much water has passed under the bridge and whilst he may have been PLG's scapegoat there is no doubt in my mind that he wasn't completely innocent.

I agree with much of what you are saying calscot but just because the "drinkers" are playing better than the "non-drinkers" doesn't negate the fact that these guys get paid copius amounts of cash to be professionals. How long in your job would you be if you consistently turned up for work drunk or in no fit state to do the job at hand ? Not long I would imagine. No different to these guys. But just as importantly is that, if they remain sober and act like proper professionals, you probably get better performances from them. Just because the "drinkers" have been the better performers doesn't mean that they are doing well, or at least as well as could be expected of Rangers players. As you yourself suggest, the league table doesn't lie and that makes us a very poor second to Celtic - should these players be drinking ? I don't think so as they are paid for being professional and as athletes sobriety makes you more of a well-oiled machine. Is our distance behind Celtic a result of lack of sobriety ? Who knows. But we have lacked stamina later in games and that COULD be attributed to lack of professionalism in training (note COULD), but also could be a plethora of other things. I guess what I am saying is that whether they are the better performers or not there is every chance even they could be playing better if applying themselves better on the training pitch. I know your argument about the 92/93 CL run and the team that drinks together etc - however, that was 15 years ago, football has moved on even since then and players are more professional, more conscientious with diets etc - we CANNOT remain in the dark ages in Scotland or we will never progress. However, as calscot says, there are more pressing problems at the club than the drinkers vs non-drinkers issue.

Along with those marks used instead of apostrophes.....

And it worked well if they did put him in the shop window - out on loan, someone else paying the wages and then punt him for 2 mill without having played for the 1st team. Definitely good business

great minds think alike Pete......

Whilst that may be true the one thing that we need to ask ourselves is why is it that Celtic can have these lads as benchwarmers when if they were with us they likely would be automatic choices - THAT shows the difference in depth of the respective squads. Sad but true

I would be more dissappointed in losing Brown than Thomson. We do need more experience - but if this decision is being made due to finances and not wanting the more experienced duo then that is unacceptable.

Correct... but he WAS dropped as CB on Sunday and look what happened... Durrant had to bring him back in as J-Rod was a liability (I am surmising, I only watched the game just as J-Rod was being taken off - didn't seem like he was injured so I assume he was having a howler).

To be honest our responses to this really should be.... "who cares ?". He is gone, he will look forward and so should we. I would have preferred he was still here, but he isnt so we all have to move on from this. However, to answer the question I think his reputation will be damaged, but only to a miniscule extent. He had an unblemished record before joining us so IMO his reputation has to take a dent because of that.

I must be missing something here. Now they are saying that if Smith resigns then Rangers will have to pay compensation. If Smith resigns of his own volition why is that anything to do with Rangers (technically) ? If he resigned then surely under contract law the SFA would have to sue Smith for breach of contract and Rangers aren't involved at all. I admit that even if this were the case Rangers would pay any cost for the breach of contract - but technically surely Rangers wouldn't have to ? I am being pedantic I know - sorry.

Nope...... He just signed for Sunderland for 2 mill Shocker that one was !

My old man was an Ayr Utd fan and he knew someone who played under Ally McLeod back in the early 70's. Ally took this centre-half aside and simply said "son, all I want you to do is header the ball as far away from our goal as you can, make clean tackles and if the ball comes to you at your feet then I want you to either lump it up the pitch or put it in row Z - if I wanted you to play football I wouldn't have you in defence". Now, I know the game is a bit more cultured and we would love to have players that can do everything - but IMO a defender is, first and foremost, a defender - clear your lines under pressure is fine by me - trying to be a smart-arse, losing the ball on the 18 yd line to concede a goal is criminal for a defender IMO (and I was more of a ball-playing LB when I played - but defenders are employed primarily to defend - the fancy ball-playing stuff is for when you are cruising in a game, not at 0-0).

Smith could always just resign. I would try to get Davies, Burley or McCall.

Fair point Pete. I would, however, right now take winning the SPL with European mediocrity.

The difference between those players (possibly Ricksen aside) is that they also still had the QUALITY to be able to perform on the pitch - these imposters don't have the quality they think they have.

He tried to by signing Svensson and Papac though (Papac I felt was going to be used at CB even though he could cover at LB). Svensson has played better recently - but he never got the chance to settle early. I think the biggest mistake PLG made was that he felt he would have time to build his team and that this time would be longer than 7 months. You could see he was trying to buy young players to be able to mould them into a team for the long-term. Sadly at Rangers you can't look long-term. His signings could very well come good but when they are such a young age and with so much pressure on them from the start then it makes things extremely difficult. PLG's failings in my opinion in no particular order: 1) Tried to force his tactics for too long (much like forcing a ball into a square hole) 2) Signings were expected to come straight into the team and most were young players he wanted to develop 3) Man management was poor 4) Felt he could rotate his team - we don't have the depth to be able to do this. 5) Aloof from the fans and also was baffling with some of his media comments. There are more but these are some of the important ones as I see them. I am sure I have missed a few.

I agree Cammy and PLG does need to take some of that responsibility but at the same time I don't think he had enough time. However, I will leave that for the PLG thread. The players, almost to a man, should go to their fancy homes this evening and take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if they gave everything for their employers today and I doubt many of them can say they did. It matters not whether the manager puts out the wrong tactics and it matters not that we were managerless. The simple fact is that I reckon even I would be able to take our squad and put a team on the pitch that should beat DAFC with given them little to no instructions. Tactics did not defeat us today - what beat us today was a lack of application, determination, will to win for 50 minutes - and that is something you get from professional pride - it cannot be taught.

My personal opinion is that, ultimately, the buck stops at the top which is Sir David Murray. He "chased the dream", got us into debt beyond where we should have been and that debt did not add any value to the club at all (Murray Park aside - and that was only 25% of the total debt he got us into). From there you see the downward spiral of financial prudence which has resulted in us being bargain basement dwellers for almost 5 years. The questions therefore needs to be asked - if we have been in this position for 5 years why is it we are STILL in this same financial position ? As I see it, we got 75 mill in debt, he underwrote 50 mill of that debt to reduce it to 25, we also got 18 mill up front for the JJB deal, so realistically we SHOULD be only 7 mill in debt - whilst across the city our friends have 20 mill of debt. Now, all things being equal we should have 13 mill to play with - but we don't. Why ???? Also, with the financial prudence has come reduces in wages - with wages being the biggest cost of any club this is a welcome reduction and should add much financial value to the club, but it doesn't seem to be the case - why ? Also, we have had 5 years to progress our "brand" - has it happened ? No. Yet across the city our friends bought Nakamura 1) because he is a decent player but 2) because they have the foresight to see that he can be branded in a largely untapped market (for a good example just look at some of the baseball players that have moved to the US - they have been good players but not world beaters - but what they HAVE done is add good financial value). Nakamura probably adds more value to Celtic through merchandising and branding than he costs in wages, and that he is a decent player is gravy. Across the city they seem to know what needs to be done to increase revenues when you have a restricted local, domestic market - whilst our custodian buries his head in his French sand with a CEO running the club who is more interested in his tan than our club. Can anyone tell me what true credentials Martin Bain has to be running a football club ? Yet Sir David Murray felt he was the right person to be running our club when his credentials don't suggest, in my opinion, that he should be CEO. Managers are responsible for poor signings that is for sure. Players are responsible for poor performances that is for sure. But had our chairman not been fiscally irresponsible in the first place then our once great club would not be relying on Bosman signings and cheap signings to perform above their ability levels. We should be AT LEAST competing with Celtic - AT LEAST. We had the 9IAR years where we were a very fashionable club and it was at this time we should have been utilising that advantage to distance ourselves financially, in a branding perspective, on the playing side and indeed in every manner possible from Celtic and the rest of Scottish football - what in fact happened was that the fiscal mismanagement meant that we now find ourselves at least 5 years BEHIND Celtic when we should have been 5 years AHEAD of them. What makes this set of circumstances all the more worrying is that it happened in a span of less than 3 years. The ultimate buck stops at the Chairman's door.

I mentioned this very thing in a post the other day and this, for me, is the single most worrying aspect. We can blame PLG and we can blame DM all we like but until the players become more professional then they have to take responsibility as well. e.g. Some have liked the response of Kris Boyd after his goal the other day (his salute to "6") and that is fine - however, it is subordination of your manager. How many of us would be reprimanded in our job for doing the same ? Most, if not all, I would suggest. I am saddened because although things weren't going as we wanted performance wise and results wise I still think PLG could, and would, have taken us in a new, more professional, more continental route and that, given time, we would have been a team and a club where all the others in Scotland chased and aspired to. We complained that Eck simply took MON's tactics and copied him, yet here we had a guy that at least TRIED his own tactics (yes they failed short-term but who is to know that given the right personnel and the team having time to learn the tactics that they wouldn't have been very successful) ?? No matter what, we need to get behind the team - but I for one still have a sinking feeling that this is most definitely an opportunity lost. The sacking/resignation of PLG is a step backwards for our club I believe.

Because every time he steps on the pitch he obviously desperately wants to do so well for us ?? Unlike some of the rest of that bunch

I agree you are probably correct. Murray HAS to realise though that in order to sell he needs a steady ship, not one listing from turmoil to turmoil. He has to make moves to make us at least more competitive. I still doubt it will happen though....

I will agree to disagree then. It doesn't always matter which team you come from but the talent you have, the manner in which you adapt to the game in the country you go to, determination and application (Ian Ferguson came from St Mirren and he seemed to turn out ok for us.......) As for the 3 you mention from Celtic I wouldn't want Gravesen, I think he is pish, but then again we agree to disagree. Nakamura has a great free-kick but he still doesn't convince me either. As for JvoH, given our struggles to score (Boyd aside) I would probably take him. The bigger issue for me is not WHO they have but the amount of money they seem to be spending on their players - they ARE miles ahead of us on AND off the pitch. As for paying PLG 2 mill, would this not suggest he was sacked as opposed to walked ?? Either way that is a ton of money for a 7 month stint !

That's fine Jim and I agree with you about wanting players that want to play for the club. BUT... we have to realise the SPL is more of a stepping stone for any young ambitious players these days. I liked that PLG was trying to sign young players as opposed to ancient players looking to augment their pension. Also, given our financial predicament it now makes more sense for us to get a younger player for a decent fee, develop him for a couple of years and then sell him for a tidy profit. The other thing is I dont believe we can sell him to anyone other than Lyon right now due to the one club a season rule (similar to Sebo's situation)