calscot

People are paying for their ticket price to watch the team and you want to tell them say only 15% goes towards that team while a large chunk goes on erroneous consultancy fees and other strange expenditure? Sorry, I really don't know where you're coming from. Rangers fans are paying to see the team not Charles Green, there are other costs involved but they want a decent chunk spent on a decent enough team rather than just enough to win the league - with a huge risk of not doing so. You're arguing against yourself by condoning Green's wages and pay-offs and again when you comment on how bad the team was to watch.

At around 30% of turnover I think our football costs in the player wages department are pretty sound. If we're losing money while our players do the necessary job, it's the rest of the expenditure we should be looking at as disproportionate to our income - like unnecessary and unqualified consultants.

I would say that means we have what we need for our level. You seem to want us to have the same as the opposition. That is a strange desire for a Rangers fan.

How do you know? What level are we at? We're NOT a League One team, we are a team who have an imperative to be far better than all the League One teams. Not only that, we're a large club with some expectation of have a few cup runs. Our squad isn't exactly huge.

Can't see too many quality sides obliging us... they have other fish to fry.

Correct. Just voicing my opinion.

Even during Eck's most parsimonious spell, we were in a different league to the likes of Fulham. Now the tables have truly turned.

The strange thing is that I was on the fence, but the more I hear the no argument, the more I lean to yes.

I somewhat agree with that philosophy and that's what makes me ambivalent - but it's rarely the message I hear. I'm not so sure about that. Scotland suffers badly due to the UK's asymmetry. The North of England also suffers but we are even farther from the centre of wealth than they are - and they aren't a nation that can do something. They say the Geordies have as big chip on their shoulder as we have, but their problem is that they can't blame the English. The south thrives at the expense of the North and the peripheries. Independence would give Scotland a better share of its own wealth and restore some balance. There may still be more emphasis on the central belt but the differential would be a lot less. London is both the jewel in the crown and the debilitating parasite of the UK and Scotland suffers for it. If the UK would spead its government, armed forces and public works around the whole country, then that no argument would be far, far stronger. Unless the above argument has more strength, it starts to look like apathy and who can be bothered voting for that?

Used to expect us to win against English teams - and we usually did. Now I don't expect much at all.

I've not heard that one but it's obvious it's in the Tory ethos. you can't do a big campaign against devolution and then say you'll never reverse it.

The problem with the no vote is that it mainly relies on telling us how shit we are and how much we rely on England looking after us. The other argument is that things are great the way they are - but when you ask people about the state of our nation, not many are complimentary. So the no vote campaign just comes across as a complete con.

Why even mention it then? Doesn't sound that you have a strong case that you can defend.

Here's some scaremongering by the no vote: You'll need a passport to get to England due to border control. We'll be thrown out of the EC and NATO. Not being in the EC means we will be subjected to import and export taxes with EC member states including England. Freight won't be able to travel through England cutting off supplies. Most of the oil is in English waters according to weird maps. The oil is almost gone. Without oil we have no exports. Without the Barnett formula Scottish taxes will rise dramatically. We won't be able to use the pound and will have to join the Euro or invent our own money which won't be hard currency. Without Westminster to bail us out we'll have a poor credit rating. Etc, etc, etc. That's just off the top of my head.

What is a "united Ireland"? Is that like a united Korea? Should Haiti and Dominican Republic unite just because they share an island? It always seems to me that the real problem is that Irish are just bad losers. Most territory is owned by winning battles and settling there over generations, so why should this be different? Should Germany start claiming back territory they used to own last century? They've already tried that once, it didn't go down well. Should we be bombing France to get Normandy back? Every country has changed it's territory and size. There is a time just to live with what you have.

SNP's argument makes the most sense motivationally. SNP say Scotland will be better off so want to leave. That's pretty logical. English opposition says we'll be worse off, therefore England will be better off, so we should stay. That doesn't sound logical. It sounds more of a con. There was a top secret report release a few years ago due to the 25 years or whatever thing. It said that Scotland would be at least 20% per capita richer if we were independent. That's why they made it top secret. Funny how they keep peddling the myth that Scotland would be much worse off. Seems to me that the worst case scenario is that we're no better off economically but would at least have control of affairs. Many of the barriers and scaremongering put forward by the English based parties are easily surmountable - we can still collaborate as close countries. I'm ambivalent about independence, maybe more so as I live in England but there has been far more shit been said in opposition of independence than that for it. When you start to ask why that is and the motivational factors above, you really have to wonder if the opposition have the slightest case at all except for the upheaval of change and the risk of the unknown.

i was thinking half that. Still a bumper pay day compared to normal. £100k?

Bit of a result for Pars fans. Must admit I'm envious. A CVA and fan ownership could have done us wonders.

Why do you think it dropped so dramatically? They didn't need the Scottish votes for a majority - we had 72 seats at that time. In 1989 Scotland was used as a political tax guinea pig with the introduction of the Community Charge a year before the rest of the UK. Ravenscraig steel works were closed in 1992 even though it was still making a profit and hitting efficiency records. It could easily have been kept ticking over until market conditions improved. The economic impact and massive knock on effects were disastrous. The nuclear submarine refitting was moved from Rosyth to Devonport in 1993 due to party political reasons even though the latter needed a £350m upgrade to do it and is need an urban area raising safety concerns. Just three of the nails in the coffin of the Tory party in Scotland.

But then the powers at be said, we're not sure but think you might be being bigoted with that word so to clear it up we're gong to ban it. Seems to me that if you STILL use it after that, you've lost that ambiguity. Why would you deliberately break the rules to describe a Celtic player in a non-bigoted way? Come on, the word you used was banned as it was officially considered bigoted. You may not have been guilty before, but you sure are now, clear as day. Your arguments are double edged swords. They might clear us of past misdemeanours but they damn us now. Like I said before, once it's considered officially offensive, it's no longer banter.

I think there was a window of opportunity but agree it was short. Although, thinking about it, many of the media were complaining about it for years (esp Spiers) with impotence to do anything. When they seen the legislation that gave them some power, we should have taken heed too. I agree with you but definitely think we could have been clever about the words but we were arrogant and stupid - and still are, especially as the song is still sung in its most damnable form. So why do I keep hearing them? You only have to listen to the Bristol and Sheffield footage to hear a lot of the old song book from TBB to Follow Follow to Super Rangers with all the add-ons. There seems to me to be enough individuals to cause the support a problem - and I think there is a large belligerent section of the support who don't need much of an excuse to join in. I don't get to many games and so don't know all the ins and outs of what happens but there is enough continual footage on TV and YouTube to damn us. It doesn't seem to correspond with the lightness of your treatment of it. To me it's a bit like drinking and driving - it used to be everyone against the police, now the public condemn it and it's really not cool any more. Everyone used to use their mobiles while driving too, now it's a big no-no. To me it's time to just get the gravity of it and show some maturity. There is the bonus that if we really clean up our act, eventually people will bore of our detractors wailings and fingers will be pointed elsewhere. If nothing else we could do with acquiring a proper, modern sense of humour. Our act is just way last century.

We have a huge connection with England but those that see that with rose tinted specs can't have spent much time in England or with English people. There is definitely a different culture here (generally) a ton of which is not as pleasant as that of the Scotland I left. The attitude towards Scotland and Scots is also often not very nice.

PS If he's good enough for the Premiership then he'll surely be picked up - and not have much chance of playing against Rangers in the next two years. He needs to be a top Prem player (outside Celtic) to play for us - and on the right wage.

We're effectively not a League One team. I'm sure he could do a job for another team in the league. That doesn't mean he'll enhance our own squad.

You said full time and the earlier argument was that 90% of staff are on 0 hour contracts. I can't see them paying that high a percentage of their staff a £90k bonus.