Darthter

6 minutes ago, Dave M609 said:

I don't think Hodson is a better defender than Tav, Hodson is truly awful. I just see Tav as a bit of a weak link in that defence atm, he could probably do a job further forward, he is constantly getting drawn towards the ball then we get a high ball over the top and no one is marking the oppositions LM of LF.

I think Hodson HAS shown that he is better defensively - looks decent against Wigan....but he is pretty awful going forward, which weakens the overall attacking threat.  Flanagan appears to have a much better balance all round.

18 hours ago, Dave M609 said:

For me Flannigan defensively seems more capable than Tav and just on that alone I would rather have Flannigan in there

Hodson is better defensively than Tav, but not even close going forward.

One (quite) important point is that we haven't see Flanagan playing RB yet.....

With the signing of LB Barisic looking likely, it would mean that Flanagan could move to his more comfortable right back position.

but who would be the preferred starter @ RB??

Just now, Ser Barristan Selmy said:

Seems strange we're spending a significant figure on an area we're already pretty well provisioned for, particularly given how poor we are in attack. 

We have plenty of LB bodies...but how many are of the standard the SG is looking for???

Is Flannigan actually a LB??  If Barisic comes in we'll also have Tav, Flannigan, Wallace, John & Hodson.  Hodson isn't registered for Europe (I believe), and I'd assume neither is Wallace.  I also can't see Wallace playing for us again.  I think Wallace & Hodson will be moved on in some manner.  That would leave Tav or Flannigan on the right and Barisic or John on the left.  

3 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

What’s an eight?

better than a 7.....not as good as a 9....;)

The key is to be sensible.  So far the team have managed games pretty well - especially away from home.  They need to continue that here.  We dont NEED to push for another goal, we're already winning the tie.  However, we need to make sure that we don't lose a goal.

Keep things solid in MF & try a couple of quick bursts at them to kinda test them a bit & let them know that they're in a game.  Osijek are the ones that need to really push for a goal, otherwise they're oot.

Basically, be sensible & take chances when the appear.

16 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

I don't think what they have done in the last few seasons has any relevance to this season. This was our record against them last season with a manager who wasn't working out and a problematic defence.

 

won 2-1 away
won 3-0 at home
won 2-0 at home
drew 1-1 away

 

Took 10 out of 12 points from them which was a better league record against them than the yahoos had and I see no reason for that to be any different this time around. What has to be different this time around is the stuttering to also rans particularly at home. And so far the pre season and Euro ties seem to suggest we have gone a long way to solving the defence problems.
 

I simply don't see them as being a major challenge to us. But as you say it's all speculative until the season gets up and running for a quarter or so but taking everything into account I feel my speculation is the most likely outcome.

 

They weren't a challenge to us in head to heads last season and shouldn't be this season either.  

4 results out of 38 are irrelevant.

All that matters is that Aberdeen finished in 2nd place, us in 3rd.  It's all well & good say "If this hadn't happened", or "if only we'd beaten xyz" etc, but at the end of the season, Aberdeen had more points than us, and that has been the case for the past 2 seasons.

Until we can move past Aberdeen, we have no chance of winning the league.

36 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

It’s fair to say the original deal was a shocker Darther and the Board were in a difficult position but this 2017 deal doesn’t look much better. In some respects it looks worse particularly in regards to the rolling and matching clause. 

 

What we don’t know is what was agreed out of court a couple of days ago and its also not clear whether we can just walk away and pay £1m to Ashley if the fresh negotiations break down on disagreement over what constitutes material terms for example.  But from what the judge said it is only the material terms which can vary in any new contract. Whether or not the rolling matching aspect is s material term relating to duration is probably one for the lawyers.  It’s noticeable JD have not said anything yet either but that’s probably wishful thinking. No doubt they are just waiting for the SD deal to be signed before formally saying anything. 

 

Whilst folk appreciate it was an incredibly difficult situation I think a lot of the anger is that following the £3m payoff we were given the impression in 2017 that there was more of an equal partnership between us and SD and we had paid another £350k to lawyers to clarify our obligations when money is needed for players. We don’t have what anyone would call a fair contract if all we are doing is changing the price and framework for the 3 areas SD wanted broken down in detail.

 

If you add in the disastrous financial outcomes associated with Pedro many folk think the Board have not done very well over the last year.

 

I wish bonus schemes for my annual performance had been as generous as those for some Rangers Board members. 

The revised deal last year was on considerably better terms, and allowed fans to start buying strips again - even though SD were still involved.  I don't think the "1st refusal" part is going to present any worse of a deal - they have to match any proposed new deal after all.  I would also assume that SD would have to match any cut that JD (or any other retailer) have proposed.

I would assume that the "1st refusal" part of the 2017 contract could have been a complete deal breaker - Accept the clause & sign the new deal on better terms for RFC, or reject the clause & see out the 7yr notice period on the originally agreed term.  Remember, SD were the ones with the power in the negotiations - they had a signed, "water-tight" contract (in their favour)...they get to dictate terms.

Recent activity appears similar, though not quite as bad.  I get the impression that RFC have tried to fulfill the contractual stipulation by supplying the absolute bare minimum of information about the proposed JD deal (assuming that specific details were not set out in the original contract).  The court have effectively upheld SD's claim that there wasn't enough info in order for them produce a matching deal.

Therefore, it doesn't necessarily point straight to Board incompetence, but more towards legal wrangling over a "grey" area of a contract.

4 minutes ago, cooponthewing said:

I heard this Dart and started laughing out loud. The guy stuttered for a minute then said he watched ALL the Rangers games. He then just carried on talking about Rangers. Brilliant and so very weird!

He was a scream...Had obviously studied our team & tactics in detail....then started getting rather worked up when Shug & Alex Rae didn't agree with him....

Priceless....

So radio Clyde Super Scoreboard started back for the new season last night.

1st call on, a Ceptic fan....calling about, Rangers!!!!  (there's a surprise for you).  Going into detail about how he's not been impressed with the team so far (after watching a few of the games), and doesn't think there's been any improvement from last season.

The clubs biggest asset in all of this is the fans.  IF SD want to actually make money out any possible deal - the fans are the key....and RFC is the only party that can enable fan sales.

All Rangers need to do is point out that if SD push through some kind of exclusive deal, that doesn't benefit the club, then no-one will buy the strips.  If SD hold the club to a stupid long contract, no-one will buy the strips.  Unless, the club publicly backs SD selling merch, no-one will buy anything.  SD have already seen this in action & it clearly works.

IF they work with the Club and want INCLUDED in a deal, then a few words from the club encouraging fans to purchase from ALL available outlets inc. SD would see revenue notable rise.  The result being a win for both parties.

Ok...from reading info here....

Is it the case that the the Court actions have not actually resulted in SD being awarded a new contract, but instead it has supported their case to have the ability to match the JD deal.

I get the impression that RFC were trying to side-step the who SD/matching side of things & just plowing ahead with JD.  However, SD have won there point & will have the opportunity (based on specific details supplied by RFC) to decide IF they want to match & ultimately renew to term contract.

Also, there is no noted time frame for this to happen, so SD could string this out for a while, which will ultimately delay the retail release of merchandise.

There is also something that occurred to me - Puma & SD are closely tied with regard retail.  Could Puma have a say in whether SD are able to sell Hummel merchandise. (note: This will have no bearing on the Hummel/Gers deal).  The deal between Puma & SD may have some exclusivity clauses which restrict the sale of other brands. (note: absolutely no evidence or proof of this).  As a result, Puma may actually have a say in whether SD ultimately submit a deal.

Just now, gaspard said:

technically you are correct

 

 

technically

VERY clever wording on SD's part - essentially means that they can keep the contract running as long as THEY want.  They also don't need to do any work with regard to contract renewal - they just let someone else do it, then match it.

7 minutes ago, gaspard said:

in 2017 rangers announced the renegotiated deal with SD, and clearly stated there was no fixed commitment, well a rolling contract that gives them the rights to scrutinise competitors tenders then match them, looks more like an eternal commitment to me.

TRFC and SD hope that the new arrangements will be long standing but there is no longer a fixed commitment on that front. We will rely on  combined commercial performance and drive to cement the relationship going forward.

Technically, there is no FIXED commitment to provide retail services - Looks like the original press release has been VERY cleverly worded.

SD appear to have the right to scrutinize any potential deal & match it if they see fit.  If they chose NOT to match the deal, then both parties walk away.  However if they DO chose to match it, the train keeps on rolling.

1 minute ago, craig said:

Maybe the Community Council should consider how much work Rangers already do in that community.

True, but we don't know the actual details of their objection.....it may well be something that can be resolved very easily and we have another case of the media making a mountain out of a molehill.

4 minutes ago, craig said:

The club also already support activities at that very venue.  They run many of their summer soccer school programs there.  Maybe they should just scrap having any soccer schools at the pitch across from the stadium and move it away seeing as the local council don’t want them there on match days.

 

tit for tat and all that.  

 

Will those pitches be getting used if Rangers scrapped the soccer schools that take place there ?

It's not about getting into a tit-for-tat situation, that doesn't help anyone....it's about working with the Community Council in order to resolve their issues with the Fan zone proposal.

17 minutes ago, buster. said:

On the face of it, sounds like we have really f**ked this up, are now just desperate to get the shirts on sale and to do so are forced back into a deal with SDI.

 

On the plus side....it will be on the same terms that JD had offered, therefore the club should not be losing out financially due to a bad deal.

If the deal mean exclusive sale through SD, then there will be a financial impact.

24 minutes ago, colinstein said:

thought Hearts had already brought strikers in to replace him. Seems to me they have prepared themselves for his departure. Maybe they need to offload now

So why play hard-ball and push for an unrealistic fee???

Not hearing of any other clubs submitting offers.....If we pull out, they are left with the potentially unwanted/excess wage.

£300k profit on a player after 1 year ain't too bad for a club like Hearts.....

12 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

I think the fanzone is worth a reasonable amount of money to Rangers. I’m sure a revised proposal could be made which enhanced the playing facilities with floodlighting for example to offset when they would not otherwise be used, or provide good equipment such as goals, balls, coaching staff. I don’t know the exact solution as I’ve thought about it for 5 minutes and don’t have access to data indicating current usage etc but the guy randomly dropping in and conflating Sky TV with burgers as if these things don’t happen elsewhere suggests there is room to manoeuvre. Rangers could even contribute hard cash to community projects encouraging the uptake of sports. 

 

Btw is this the bit of land opposite the main stand that used to be our training pitch? Never realised we had even sold it 

That's my whole point....the club opens up dialogue with the Community Council & they reach agreement the suits both parties.  Resubmit revised plans with no objections.