Darthter

7 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Would it surprise you if you discovered that the director of football advised Gerrard not to even waste his time?

Not really....but am a "Glass 1/2 full" kinda guy.

He does (did) have some quality play & his scoring record was good....but if his head ain't in it then there's no hope.  Ultimately though, SG should be the one to decide that for himself.

7 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Rash?

 

He had six months where he struggled to get picked by the manager who signed him.

 

If he has demonstrated that he is any good during his loan then a Mexican team will show interest.

Rash in the sense that SG should at least get a 1st hand look at him before a final decision is made....

32 minutes ago, buster. said:

There is an arguement to be made that we'd be better off securing a mutual deal on him leaving and having a little more cash for the wagebill.

 

Given we couldn't do it previously, that may be wishful thinking.

I think that just cutting him loose would be a tad rash....let SG talk to him & see what he's like in training etc.  However it should be make VERY clear to Pena that this is the last chance saloon - if he doesn't impress, he's oot!!!

I think the club have boxed clever with this one.....

The incident was clear - Candeias did absolutely nothing wrong.  I don't think there is a single "expert" or pundit out there that believe he deserved a yellow.  As clear a case of the Ref getting it wrong as theres gonna be.  So the club challenge it.  Even though there is not an actual mechanism to challenge a 2nd yellow, the club used the "mistake identity" clause.  The appeal was NEVER gonna be successful & the club knew it.

What the club did get from the process was the chance to confront the Ref face-to-face & to question directly.  The ref had no option but to state that it wasn't a case of mistaken identity as there were no other Gers players there, and he did in fact book the opposition player as well.  Therefore the Ref must have seen "something" to warrant a card - even though there wasn't anything.  Therefore the ref got it WRONG.

This then lends weight to out request for a rule change and a closer look at the behaviour & quality of the Refereeing in Scotland.

Will be interesting to see what effect SG has on Pena.

We saw glimpses that there is a cracking players there...but Pedro was not the Coach/Manager to "tame the beast" (so to speak).   Will Gerrard fare any better???  It's worth a shot.

23 minutes ago, compo said:

If only he would stop picking up these silly bookings .

Is he REALLY picking up any more than the rest of the team???

As I mentioned in the Candeias thread - His 1st yellow in the last game was stupid & completely avoidable (the 2nd an embarrassment for the ref)....but as a result, he will miss the next game.  I don't see anyone commenting on his "silly booking"...

The whole situation is embarrassing....and as a result (as it stands), Candeias will miss at least 1 match.

He got a stupid yellow for celebrating the 1st goal (Leaving the field to celebrate with fans???), and a 2nd for doing nothing.  In any even, the 1st one could have been prevented.  Why are more fans not getting on Candeias' back, the same way that they did with Morelos for picking up a 2nd booking (in different games) in the League cup - resulting in him missing the Semi-final.

Candeias is an important player for us, and has been playing well.

2 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

One thing I think that has improved with Morelos is his finishing. He's scored goals this season he would have probaly missed last season IMO.

He's still young & developing.  His composure & finishing will improve (given the right instruction/direction).  I also think his temperament IS improving....he's getting his head "back in the game" quicker & starting to walk away from potential "flash points".

7 minutes ago, BlackSocksRedTops said:

He needs to drop the petted lip and slumped shoulders when things are not going well. It gives opponents something to feed off IMO

I think that is just him....I get the impression he sets high standards for himself & beats himself up when he doesn't hit them.  If you focus on changing that, he may lose some qualities as a player.

No....he doesn't.

Freddo is a cracking player who offers a helluva lot to the team as a whole.  He works VERY hard throughout the game - working defenders, holding the ball, bringing other players into play.  He is also no a completely goal hungry striker - he will give up a shot to allow an easier finish (sometimes).  He also regularly scores goals (which is handy).

Forward business plans are crucial to any business - it helps plan for future spending, budgets etc.  It can also be crucial for any required external funding or potential investors to give them an idea of how the club/business is going to be run.

In the goldfish bowl that is Glasgow football, publishing such a plan would be a terrible move as it would open the board up to no end of criticism.  Look at the flack DK got about investing £30m of his kids inheritance....

20 minutes ago, craig said:

Well, aside from the fact that Companies DO (though are not obligated to) provide their forward looking EPS numbers.....

can you imagine the uproar if Rangers failed to meet any of those targets???

They get EVERY statement they put out analysed in minute detail & criticised by their OWN fans, what would it be like with financial projections??

20 minutes ago, Bill said:

One thing I never see are figures projecting future financial performance, which would be hugely interesting. Not in an annual financial report of course but surely the club has a financial plan that must include broad targets, assumptions, etc. 

Will never happen.....Companies generally won't make their business plans public in any format.  It wouldn't be in the best interests of the company.

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

That's not policies, that's wrapping paper.

If the BBC's summary isn't adequate....here's the full manifesto document (not that you'll read it).

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/thesnp/pages/9544/attachments/original/1496139998/Manifesto_2017.pdf?1496139998

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I don't think it's presumptive at all, since the SNP only has one policy. What else COULD they be voting for? Better healthcare, better education, better law & order? Better local government? Fairer taxes? More personal freedoms? No, looking at the SNP's record in power, it can't be any of those and THAT is precisely the problem. Hope over disappointment.

Wee bit more than that....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40091999

Quote

Key policies

• A plan for an "alternative to austerity" that could release almost £120bn for public spending across the UK over the next parliament
• This would mean balancing the UK budget for day-to-day spending by the end of the parliament, and after that borrowing only to invest
• Hold a second independence referendum "at the end of the Brexit process"
• Protect Scotland's place in the single market and demand for the Scottish government a place at the table in Brexit negotiations
• Secure a mandate for Scotland having a choice on its future when the terms of Brexit are clear
• A living wage, by the end of the next UK parliament, that will be slightly more than £10 per hour
• Call on the new UK government to increase health spending per head of population in England to the current Scottish level, which is 7% higher
• This would result in an extra £1bn for Scotland, on top of planned increases
• Support an increase across the UK in the Additional Rate of income tax - for those earning more than £150,000 - from 45p to 50p
• Press for the abolition of the two-child cap on tax credits and the associated "rape clause".
• Seek to protect the triple lock on pensions
• Stop cuts to the winter fuel allowance
• No increase in taxation on the low paid, in National Insurance or in VAT.
• A call for Scotland to have control over immigration
• Removal of the 1% pay cap on public sector pay
• Stand against all of the further planned cuts to social security,
• Demand reversal of the cut to Employment and Support Allowance that is removing £30 per week in vital support from disabled people
• Oppose the freeze on working age benefits
• Always protect free personal and nursing care
• Continue to extend free childcare
• Campaign to restore the post-study work visa so students can stay in Scotland after graduation.
• No support for further reductions to the headline rate of corporation tax
• Support an increase in the Investment Allowance to encourage businesses to invest more in plant and machinery

9 minutes ago, buster. said:

To a degree but really we are still very much a football club.

 

What I mean by that is that we very much depend on our football results to develop financially.

IMO we need to win the title and get into the CL group stages to turn things around.

 

IMO. a serious 'brand' in football is basically those at the very top end of European football who can generate relatively huge amounts of money via deals with large corporations. Those brands are strong enough, that they might soon not even have to depend on performance to get into elite competition.

 

AC Milan have done diddily squat for years yet they appear to be a potential founder member of a rumoured breakaway league for the powerful and their guests. 

Results & the success of the brand go hand in hand....that was my point.  You simply can't charge top whack, playing in the 2nd division.  We are starting to claw that back though.  We have a manager to has single handed raised the profile of the brand, simply by who he is.  Our current Euro run will be doing wonders for corporate clients.

Overall the team/club is generating positive media coverage & interest - that will drive up revenue.

Rangers are a "Brand".  Over the past few years it will have been difficult for business development & marketing people to sell that brand to those willing to play the big bucks.

Similar to any football club, the majority of revenue comes upfront from season tickets.  After that it then comes down to things like sponsorship & corporate sales - game by game.  When you are riding on the crest of a wave, it's easy to sell the product for a premium - champions league matches etc.

We are getting there.  sponsorship & corporate sales will have taken a massive boost this season & I'm sure will be looking health in the next figures.

5 minutes ago, craig said:

It really isn't embarrassing.  He should be embarrassed for telling lies for a start.  "Pitch invasion" - the exact words he used.  Which fans invaded the pitch ?  It's ok, I'll answer, NONE.  No, the field of play is the playing surface, not trackside.  And he didn't say "field of play" - he said "park" and I'm pretty sure we all consider "park" as the pitch.

 

Why should Rangers get carpeted for that ?

That is a matter for the SPFL to decide....not the police or local politician.

29 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Now, back to the topic in hand, please and the embarrassing comments from yet another SNP figurehead.

SNP figurehead - the MSP for Paisley???

Embarrassing is pushing it...Did the Rangers fans leave the stands and enter what is generally termed the "Field of play"??  Yes they did.  Was it a pitch invasion....no.  Is it a matter for the Police...no.  Will Rangers get carpeted for it...probably.

Just now, craig said:

Come on Darthter - you have been here long enough to recognize that Bluedell isn't the type to ever encourage physical abuse.  It was, to me at least (and maybe I'm the stupid one) that Bluedell meant verbally criticized.  Poor choice of words perhaps, but we've all been guilty of that before.

 

You are also assuming that people would have given you a barrage of abuse - had you said it, or Bearger, or whomever - I would have thought about the source and thought "poor choice of words but means deserve to be criticized".  Admittedly not everyone would do that, but most would IMHO.

Just shows how easy it is to misinterpret someone's meaning......I read one thing, others read something different.

How many times over the years do we see snippets of interviews/articles etc used as headlines, which on their own paint a very different picture to when used in context???

1 minute ago, Frankie said:

I don't want Brit Nat used as not only is it inaccurate and unhelpful it's being used as an insult and/or to make mischief in threads where the quality of debate is already that of my local primary school.

 

I consider the matter closed.

So you and the other admins will be cracking down on all the other insulting comments & personal attacks....or does that only apply to using Brit Nat??

Feel free to have a brows through some of the Lounge threads....

1 minute ago, Frankie said:

Sigh.

 

The United Kingdom is a union of nations so those defending the status quo may be considered unionists.  Scotland is part of that union but some wish to separate from it so could be considered Scottish nationalists as per the SNP.

 

It's really not difficult and I'd prefer it was kept as simple as I've respectfully requested.

So those defending the British Status quo can not be describes as British Nationalists???  You still haven't explained what is actually bad or even wrong about calling someone a Brit Nat???

1 minute ago, Frankie said:

As for this part of your post, BD was quite clearly meaning SNP supporting RFC fans should be criticised - not suggesting physical retribution or similar.

Again...I disagree.  I don't believe his intention was clear.  But then I'm clearly stupid (according to several regular posters).

Quote

If our fans vote for these Rangers haters then they deserve to be attacked. 

Take note of the full stop after the statement.  If I, or any other "Scot Nat" had posted a sentence like that we would have received a barrage of abuse.

Just now, Frankie said:

You're not daft so don't act it.  Nationalist and Unionist are fairly obvious and common-place adjectives and fit the debate perfectly well.  Let's stick to them and keep it simple for the rest of us...

 

 

I disagree....

Brit Nat is every bit as accurate a description as Scot Nat - one promotes British Nationalism, the other Scottish Nationalism.  Wheres the problem???

17 hours ago, Frankie said:

I've already politely asked you to desist from using that term. 

 

I won't ask again. 

Can I ask how using the term Brit Nat, is any different from using the term Scot Nat???

Considering the amount of personal abuse & name calling that us "Scot Nats" have had to endure, I find this rather confusing.  And lets not forget BlueDell's apparent endorsement of SNP supporting Gers fans being attacked (Post #18)