calscot

Does anyone here actually count Strachan's third league win? For me that was only gained by cheating, pure and simple. And why would anyone want a cheat from the dark side managing us? Strachan won two league titles against Eck, who had run out of ideas and built a very poor squad after a huge budget cut, and then against a clueless PLG. He was out of his depth against Walter in the second half of the Le Guen season and then for the next two seasons where he could only beat us by making us play 8 games in about 20 days as well as postponing a game against us where they had a few key injuries, with a very dubious excuse. After that he completely failed at Middlesburgh by building what could have been a Celtic side. I think looking at that, while he may not be a bad manager, his credentials are somewhat flawed. I think people are getting overly impressed by one Scotland result - and if by chance he actually does turn Scotland around and get us competing again, I think I'd actually rather keep him there instead of risking another Levein/Burley type of appointment to embarrass our nation further.

Sounds sensible to an extent as there is the point that of all jobs a PR one is the most relevant where not only do you need to do your job, it needs to be seen that you're doing your job.

The thing about employing Traynor is that we removed from the press the one journalist who wrote about us without the agenda against us and provided a small bit of much needed balance.

Just stating the facts; if you want to spin them that's up to you. Another fact is that it took Gretna three years to get out of Division 3. Trying to show up a club for not coming first by a as big a margin as another club in another year just seems daft to me. In sport it's better not to take your eye off the ball. If you watch the TT you'll have seen the proper competitor's reaction to suggestions of breaking records: "irrelevant to me" and "bigger fish to fry". Gretna are one club I'd rather not emulate.

Gretna dropped 20 points in Division 2... They dropped 42 points in Division 1 and 101 in the Spl.

Winning a league by 24 points is difficult to consolidate with the word "struggle" and is a sign of the paradigm problem many of our fans have. We do not have a top European or even top SPL squad that our fans have been brought up on in recent decades. You have to look at the number of times SPL clubs have not walked over lower division sides in the cups (even Celtic against Arbroath) to see that when the gap is not so huge, the difference in talent is shown over the season, not in every game - which is why we used to win the SPL by about the same amount. For attractiveness of football then you should be comparing an average SPL side or even the under 21 teams instead of our previous sides - and the one guy who recently prioritised attractive football over results had his team relegated and himself on the dole (Hughs). But even if you have a side that is capable of winning by more than 24 points, it's not often that this happens due to human nature as players ease off when they know they are going to win by margin. Just look at Celtic last season and other countries where there is only one or two top sides that are far richer than the rest. Celtic are also an example in the other direction where they were minnows against a giant Barcelona and yet the Catalan club came off second best. Ironically, some people hold that club as an example for us to emulate, but it just shows that you can pick any team in the world and they will have some bad results over a season, especially when every team that plays you does it like it's a cup final, while for our players it's a weekly grind. I think it's obvious that there is not a single club in Scotland that would please some of the more negative supporters in our midst. No not one. It will be interesting to see how the darling of last year, Queen of the South will do next season to justify their lofty praise. I wouldn't put money on them winning Division 1, whereas I think it will be difficult to put money on Rangers - I can't even find a bet for us winning Divsion 2.

Not a fan of it myself. The lettering on the socks made me think of the ozone layer... haven't realised all football clubs who are CFC's are bad for the world... evil clubs! ;-)

Wouldn't the bigger company have taken over the smaller company and just closed it down to promote the business of the bigger company?

Part of the lack of appetite will also come from journalists not wanting to show up their previous ravings as absolute rubbish...

We are only allowed 22 senior players and so I can't see the squad getting too bloated. The wage bill will be very skewed at the moment with a few legacy players earning disproportionate wages for our current position. Alexander, McCulloch, Goian, Bocanegra and Wallace will take up a sizeable proportion of the budget. The likes of Templeton and Shiels and Black will also add to that as to come to us they will have significantly increased their SPL level of wages. There will be quite a few players that are in a middling wage position which is far less than we used to pay but more than an average SPL side. That HAS to be the case as we are Rangers and the high wage is unfortunately one of the main attractions, especially with the caveat of playing the in the lower divisions. We are a club that will rarely get bargains - which has the plus side of the fans having a club that attracts a lot of half decent players and doesn't have to do the ducking and diving in the transfer market like the likes of Aberdeen or Hibs. It seems obvious that we need to remove the high wages of Alexander (at least get him on a lower wage), Boca and Goian. McCulloch is our captain and so is deserving of a high salary and the likes of Templeton and Wallace have good resale value and so the wages justify this. I'm sure the new players this summer, while having high wages for Scottish football, will be on a new wage structure that reflects our lower turnover. They are not the likes of Ronald de Boer, Arthur Newman, Paul Gascoigne or Trevor Steven with sky high salaries that match or surpass the Premiership.

So if this gives the Easdales more than 10% will that signify another Green lie?

I think it's obvious that if we can't loan or transfer Boca and Goian then we will have to keep them and play them. We can't have such expensive players not playing. They have contracts and I don't see us paying them off or them reducing their wages. As such, we can't afford to bring in a new CB until at least one of them is off the payroll. Seems to me that if there is a chance of players staying then you shouldn't say you want rid of them in public - if you want them to play well for you. Can't see where the ignorance of our manager comes from. He's always come across as an intelligent and knowledgeable guy - who would trounce most people here on a Question of Sport never mind on a football field. He may not have shown the management Midas Touch yet but he's certainly no mug.

Yes, but there is more to scoring and conceding than the fitness of your own team.

With the state and flux we are in at the moment, I actually think this will suit our club competitively. We really need to get our finances sorted for a solid base for future squad investment to be able to compete with Celtic. We're nowhere near sorted yet and the fans will probably find winning the lower divisions more palatable than a couple of seasons of really struggling in the SPL. It also gives the SPL some more time to fail which for me is almost a necessity for the future health of Scottish football. That cancer needs to be excised or shrunk with some metaphorical chemo...

That may be for one game, but I have many memories of the same player sulking on the touchline and not doing much at all - until a devastating run and dribble here and there... He used to get knackered having to take a corner from one side and then immediately another one from the other side, or swapping wings with Willie Johnston. He used to shout for the ball a few times and if he didn't get it, he'd sulk and you wouldn't see him run much for a while.

That's funny but would you be able to take your manager seriously if he asked you to do the same thing with the main object of your work?

I would say that training till you puke means you're over-training and will likely be counter productive as well as messing with your immune system and general health. I also think it would be massively negative for motivation and sports psychology. If it actually worked, everyone would be doing it. It's a very old fashion way of thinking. I'm sure not many on here would be putting in good shifts at work if they had to work until they felt ill. Does that mean we're all prima-donnas?

I did say "supposed to" and I'm sure the current coaches and medical experts we have at the club know far more about this kind of stuff... Sports science has moved on a hell of a lot since the eighties.

Running up steep hills is definitely good interval training that really pushes the cardiovascular system, builds leg muscle and the training in sand is supposed to be good for strengthening the deeper, supportive muscles around the joints. However, there are other ways of doing the same thing without the dangers of unknowns in the terrain that could injure the players. The army need to learn to traverse all types of terrain and so this would be more beneficial for them - and if someone is injured it's not going to be as crucial as losing a star player. Players need to train to sprint often on a pretty good, flat surface and so not sure it's as beneficial. As an allegory, a lot of people think training on a heavy bike with high rolling resistance will make them faster on a light road bike, as it switching to a light, low resistance bike with then feel easy; however, top cyclists never train that way as it's a totally different cadence and rhythm than when in the race.

Don't think many people remember the mid 80s when not only were we poor under Wallace, many a game was rendered pedestrian by passback after passback to the keeper.

The SPL2 is nothing but the greater evil - it's slitting the throats of the many to benefit the few.

And would the greater good be better catered for if the current SPL cabal was dealt a fatal blow? I certainly think so.

I always thought they gave chairmen share options to encourage them to keep the share price up.

It's a valid role but why should it HAVE to be the case here? What is wrong with taking it a step further? Why pigeon hole people? Our club is in a deep leadership and boardroom crisis and the one man the fans trust is now in the head role. To me that can only be a good thing - provided he's up to the job, and looking at his case in my previous post, I think he is. I don't see the need for a glass ceiling. Lots of people work their way up from the bottom to the top of their business. Why not an exceptionally intelligent and wise footballer?

It's a valid role but why should it HAVE to be the case here? What is wrong with taking it a step further? Why pigeon hole people? Our club is in a deep leadership and boardroom crisis and the one man the fans trust is now in the head role. To me that can only be a good thing - provided he's up to the job, and looking at his case in my previous post, I think he is. Lots of people work their way up from the bottom to the top of their business. Why not an exceptionally intelligent and wise footballer?