BrahimHemdani

He hasn't played for almost a year since picking up "a serious knee cartilage injury against Ipswich Town in a 1–0 victory on 10 January 2015" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eustace It's taken him 3 months to get fit, his knee must be a doubt and he's 36 on 3 November. Zelalem is going to keep Shiels and Law out of the team, so whose place is he going to take: Halliday or Holt? We are going to win this League in a canter and at 36/37 is he really what we should be looking for in terms of a return to the SPL? This whole thing smells to me. His agents are Key Sports Management, the same company that represents Kiernan, Tavernier, Waghorn and Warburton himself. You don't need to be a genius to add up whats going on.

Northern Ireland led by the redoubtable Steven Davis have qualified as group winners, apparently the first time 5th seeds have ever won a group. http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/northern-ireland-win-group-f-to-cap-impressive-euro-2016-qualification-campaign-a3087586.html We were 4th seeds in a harder but by no means impossible group and we finished 4th; so I suppose it's arguable that we did no better or worse than expected. We drew twice with Poland who qualified in second place and we beat and drew with RoI who are in the play-offs, so without a doubt it was the loss in Georgia that killed us. All the three above us won in Georgia and had we done the same we would have been in the play-offs on our points tally v RoI. Furthermore Scotland are currently ranked above Poland and RoI so I think it is fair to view finishing below them as a failure. Football managers who fail, normally are not invited to sign new contracts and the fact that Strachan is in that position demonstrates the paucity of other candidates as much as anything else. That said, Strachan is a proud man and he may also view the World Cup campaign as an almost impossible task. He can take something from this campaign but I doubt he would want to end his managerial career with two failures. I don't think he needs the money and he has proved to be a knowledgeable and popular TV pundit. I suspect he may see that as the way to go. He has resigned from his last three posts, I think this will be the fourth.

I am not certain about this I think you might find that the QC's are given sight of a draft judgement in case they feel any corrections might be justified e.g. the judgement says they argued A when they say that they actually argued B. These suggested amendments might go back to the court for consideration before the final judgement is handed down. This would avoid any dispute on a matter of the law argued. It would also mean that they would be able to say on the day whether they were minded to accept the judgement or not.

Sorry but personal circumstances at present mean my time is very limited so I will have to agree to disagree on the main point of debate. I would agree, however, that the draft pick system is some kind of aid to competition in American sports but clubs can and do trade their way out of it so I am not sure how much weight attaches to it vis a vis the even split of commercial monies. Bear in mind that in the NFL especially it may take a long time for a draft pick (especially at the pivotal QB position) to come through to the starting line up and I suspect that the majority do not make it all or are seriously injured along the way. If the system worked perfectly then the bottom team one season would win the superbowl the next or at least in the next few years and that doesn't happen. Also a number of dynasties have emerged over the years probabaly due to the influence of the owners and the coaches they have employed. The salary cap may have more to do with competition but it is a product of the league's revenue: The figure is derived from NFL revenue, of which players receive no less than 47 percent and no more than 48.5 percent according to the collective bargaining agreement ratified in 2011. The salary cap is, at its heart, a way to maintain competitive balance within a sports league by placing an upper limit on how much teams can spend on players. Among the four major American professional sports, only Major League Baseball does not have a salary cap in place. The result, according to some critics of the sport, is a league in which only big market teams in cities like New York and Los Angeles can afford to buy the best free agents, leaving scraps for the smaller markets. In 2014, the Los Angeles Dodgers led MLB by spending more than $235 million on players -- more than five time as much as the Houston Astros spent. Conversely, the NFL is lauded for its parity perhaps because of its stringent salary cap. Teams that go over their cap numbers are subject to hefty fines, cancelled contracts and/or lost draft picks. In 2012, Dallas and Washington were fined $10 million and $36 million, respectively, for exorbitant spending during the uncapped 2010 season. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/3/2/8134891/nfl-salary-cap-2015-franchise-tag-explained

The current deal is in place despite the fact that one half of the old firm aren't part of it in any meaningful way. A more even distribution of the commercial monies in the SPFL is equitable because all the clubs are equal members of the SPFL and the SFA (excepting our current status). An even split of league mnonies also works to create competition as the NA model shows but it does not prevent dynasties because of the inherent strength of certain franchises of which perhaps the Green Bay Packers (where season tickets are passed down the generations) in the NFL and the NY Yankees & Mets in baseball are prime examples that might be regarded as somewhat similar to the old firm scenario. "Mackay-Steven had already agreed to join Celtic under freedom of contract this summer, but last week the champions had a bid of £150,000 to take him immediately rejected. Matters gathered apace on Monday evening, however, with an improved £250,000 offer finally matching United’s valuation. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2937301/Celtic-seal-2m-double-transfer-Dundee-United-pair-Stuart-Armstrong-Gary-Mackay-Steven.html#ixzz3nrxrFMpQ So the answer to your question, is YES it may well have done. I don't think you appreciate the difference a £100k or £200k makes to a Club like DU or even more so clubs like Ross Co, Hamilton, Motherwell, Partick Th etc. Like it or not they are all "Premier" clubs in our set up and that kind of money does indeed make a big difference.

When this was last discussed three years ago there was no proposal to split the gate money; the only proposal was to slightly rejig the "prize money" pot and that's what happened. I am committed to making the league more competitive which would be a benefit to all the clubs; I am not committed to making each club the same.

I am really suprised at this line coming from you BD. #1. I do not suggest we "give away" any of OUR money; I suggest a more equitable share of the SPFL "pot". #2. The reason I make the suggestion is that we need decent teams to play against. It might mean, for example, that the top two in the SPFL would lose a combined £1.0 - £1.5m a season and the other teams in the League would benefit by about £100k-200k each which could still be graduated to make success worthwhile in terms of money. That might mean that a team like Dundee Utd would be able to retain one or two of the players they sold to Celtic for the remainder of last season. Would that not have made them a better team? Leaving prejuduce against Dundee Utd, or any other team for that matter, aside; wouldn't that be good for Scottish football or do you subscribe to the Doncaster model where Rangers play Celtic every week?

No. Each team's match day income is their own, that's what makes us stronger in the long run.

I think Bearman has a point, Pete. It does seem a tad illogical to put the thread in the area for "all things Rangers" if your argument is that "it has totally nothing to do with Rangers FC". Perhaps "Footie Chat" would be a better home for it? As to the OP, sad to see yet another ruined career; he showed a lot of promise early on, despite being a bit of a lightweight, and I seem to recall him performing creditably well in some European games.

So long as the buy-outs aren't set ridiculously low e.g. the same or similar money that we paid, just to attract the players to put themselves in the shop window. I want players who want to bring us success, then their own careers will blosson as well; but I also want us to build a team for the Premier League and Europe.

I already agreed with that at #5.

I don't regard taunting opposing fans who have had three people stabbed at the weekend as "banter".

I would be surprised if he had been offered higher wages by a Championship club, which would have been a step up for him and a shop window, and he didn't go; but your information is usually reliable. More to the point they all share the same agent as Warburton, Key Sports Managament; work it out. it's not rocket science.

I agree entirely and would go further. If you take 92 teams in the English "senior" divisons and consider the population equation then we should have 9 of 10 senior teams max. However, as we've seen that does not work in terms of a "proper" league without a split and a convoluted play-off system. So I would go for a 16 team Premier League which would be all or mostly full-time; and a 16 team Championship/2nd Division all or mostly part-time. That would cover all the teams in the current top 3 divisions, so shouldn't be hard to push through. The rest, the current League 2 would go down to a regional league set up along the lines of the Highland and new Lowland League. I would start it in season 2017/18 and allow next season to sort out the positions. Four teams would come up automatically and I would have play offs between the botom two in the Premiership and the nos 5 & 6 in the Championship. That way every team who thought they would be in the Premier League next season would fancy their chances of staying there and vote for it. The extra games would be made up by a regional/sectional league cup, which would mean that there would still be 4 old firm games for TV, albeit two would be played at the start of the season and the other clubs would have a chance of playing one of the old firm in the knock out stages. I have written about this on here more than once in the past and it is largely taken from the Supporters Direct Fan's Plan which I helped write in 2012.

Moyes hasn't exactly set the Basque heather on fire; Allardyce's record is little better than 50/50 and most of that at the other end of the table although he did well in his last two seasons at West Ham; Dyche might be comparable to Rogers three years ago. Rogers won exactly 50% of his games at Liverpool (and only lost 25%) which is a better record than any of those mentioned above. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Rodgers

It's tough at the top; I didn't fancy him at the outset but he surprised me and a lot of others as well no doubt.

Gordon Waddell is one of our better journalists but as has been pointed out his comparison with the NFL is wrong or at least it's only half right. And it doesn't prevent dynasties such as the SF 49'ers, the Green Bay Packers or the New England Patriots. A similar system applies in baseball but it hasn't prevented the SF Giants winning 3 out of the last 5 World Series or the Red Sox 3 in 9 nor did it prevent the Yankees doing 3 in 5, 4 times in their history. But he is 100% correct about what our game needs and that is competition. Competition boosts attendances, increased attendances bring increased revenue, increased revenue brings better players........ But the gate money is only part of the story. The distribution of the TV and SPFL commercial money is still heavily weighted towards the the top few teams in the SPFL. If all the teams in each division got the same money that would be a start, then the old firm would still prosper from their much higher gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial deals, but not at the expense of the other Clubs.

I'm enjoying watching him as well and I'm sure he enjoys playing in front of 45,000 fans a lot more than 4,000-5,000 at Carlisle and Shrewsbury for example; all I'm saying is that I would take his love and passion for our Club with a rather large pinch of salt until he has been here for 5 or 10 years. Perhaps some day he will emulate Nacho Novo or Michael Mols in their true passion for Rangers, let's wait and see.

Fair enough and we have rescued his career after 7 loans in 5 seasons but we have heard all this before, many times. Did Carlos Cuellar not say he wanted to play for us for life, 5 minutes before he signed for Aston Villa. Ultimately players go where the money is. He's played virtually all his career in League One. Call me cynical if you like but let's say he's on £5/6k a week with us; if a Championship club comes calling with £10-20k a week does anyone seriously expect him to turn that down and not swear undying loyalty to his new club and their fans?

Sunday afternoon bump

Can admin change the thread date to 2016 for me

I know I should be spending all my spare time planning the Gersnet Dinner on the 30th of January but forgive me for turning my thoughts to warmer climes, even if the difference is relatively marginal in January, Malaga v Barcelona has more of ring to it than Morton v Rangers. And Malaga has a hell of a lot more going for it than Greenock; not least a new marina and the Picasso Museum vs graffiti on the walls of old shipyards. So I was wondering if there would be any interest in a Gersnet trip to Malaga? I know it's the immediate aftermath of Christmas but it needn't cost the earth. Right now you can get a return flight with Easyjet for £111 and 3 nights in a 3 star hotel in Fuengirola for example, for under £100, so half that if sharing. (There's a direct train from Fuengirola to Malaga.) There are advance purchase match tickets available for €63 (10% discount). So theoretically under £200 sharing or about £260 single occupancy. Plus food and spending money. The big issue from an organisational point of view is that the Spanish are worse than us in terms of changing dates and KO times for TV. All Spanish games are listed as 4.00pm Sunday kick offs but are played over the weekend from Friday night to Monday night and they don't tend to announce until a month before the date. At the moment, the actual KO times of Malaga home games are only listed up to Sun 1st Nov. So even taking a chance on flying out on the Friday night would be problematical and we could book the return for the Monday and find the game being played that night. However, there is a Ryanair (yes, I know not my choice either) flight from Prestwick on the Thursday night for £29 and then worry about the return later. I am pretty sure I could arrange a lunch or dinner with Antonia Tapia who was the Malaga Coach before Pellegrini and who led them to their first Europa League qualification in 2006. He speaks good English and is a great tactician. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Tapia Obviously time off work would be another issue for most as would family commitments but perhaps wifes/girlfriends might be tempted. The Spanish sales will be on and there is great shopping in Malaga. Anyone up for it?

Yes. Read it through once quickly before the match but I'd like to read it again before I comment.

I am very sorry to have to tell you that a large section of our travelling fans are no better. In Bursa I was appalled and alarmed to hear Rangers fans taunting the Bursaspor fans with shouts of Besiktas just 2 days after 3 Bursa fans were stabbed in Istanbul on Bursa's return to that stadium after seven and a half years. http://www.todayszaman.com/sports_besiktas-and-bursaspor-fans-make-mockery-of-peace-pleas_228928.html

I'll summarise what I said in the similar thread. Rangers and Celtic may be attractive to middle order EPL teams because we would bring big crowds but we are not attractive to those challenging for Europe because with our crowds and the TV money we would threaten their European status and we are not in the least attracitve to teams at the bottom of the EPL because we would threaten their positions altogether. Don't forget that by UEFA standards the EPL already has too many teams, UEFA prefer a maximum of 18; so if Rangers and Celtic were admitted at least 2 and quite possibly 4 teams would have to drop out. At least half the League would be threatened by that. Also who's to say we would be parachuted into the EPL, do we really want to spend another however many seasons climbing threw the Leagues? It would be great to see but it's a pipe dream and like most pipe dreams it's not going to happen.