calscot

I don't see how we could ever be in a position in our current situation to have a great chance of winning a cup. We really can't compete with Celtic and if they slip up there is usually an SPL club or two who are on a great winning streak and they are clubs who we will be able to compete with but not find beating them very easy. Hearts have had our budget or more for years and not won much, Aberdeen have been more often than not been empty handed when spending "relatively" a lot more. Look what Advocaat won with the team with the biggest financial advantage in Scottish history in his third season. Over a season, in the SPL, I'd fancy us to finish in the top four with our current squad, with a good shout for second. But the cups are a different matter, something we should all know, and there are teams that will also raise their game against us as they see their chance of a famous win and revenge for all the drubbings we've given them. You expect to consistently win cups by being in the best two by a huge margin, having a slightly more expensive squad put together during a transfer embargo guarantees very little. The top priority, by light years, is to win the league and gain promotion.

If I was on the Everton board, I really wouldn't be able to see past Laudrup. They can afford the compensation for him these days and he'd be sure to take the offer in the absence of anything bigger. I'd love us to replace Durrant with his brother as coach. Durrant was an immense player in his heyday but doesn't seem to be passing that much of that exciting skill onto our players. Laudrup may be just as inneffective, but I'd love to give him a go. However, I can't see McCoist sacking on of his best mates without him doing something more obvious to deserve to be canned. And before anyone goes on about cronyism, football clubs tend to be built on loyalty.

I did say "could", it depends on the offers...

I thought it was 50k. Must be on much more now, with share options on top.

Selling Wallace could be very good business but you'd want a more consistent performer to replace him first.

Walter Smith may not be the most educated or business minded guy around but you don't become such a successful MANAGER of top football clubs like Rangers and Everton (and even Scotland) without developing all the desirable traits of a business manager but with an unmatchable wealth of knowledge about football and football business. You also don't do it without being a highly intelligent and canny person who learns quickly and can adapt with agility. He also has massive, massive leadership qualities that you'll find rare to match from highly experienced accountants etc. The guy has been around you know and I'm sure it won't take much training for him to be able to do a chairman's job with confidence - with the great leadership quality of doing a lot of listening to specialist advice when needed. Under Murray, I'm sure he was immensely privy to what was going on in the boardroom apart from what our former owner didn't want him to know. He's served almost a year on the board which is more than many football chairmen before they pick up the top position, and so a guy like him should easily have picked up what goes on and what is required. One thing he knows far more than finance people, is what direction a football club needs to go to be successful. Football is NOT a normal business and there is far more evidence of failure for those that try to ignore that fact. A company just needs to make good profit, a football club needs to be the BEST, better than all the other clubs who's only aim is to be the best. To quote from Highlander, "there can be only one" - in business there can be many. This counts 100 times more for a club like Rangers. The opposing trade-off for this is that it is easier to be successful not only if you don't make a profit but in the short term it's beneficial to make a LOSS. How does that tie in with normal business goals and practice? It's an anathema and paradox to most accountants. Success is not measured on the balance sheet. Of course we have learned the hard way that it is not in the best long term interests of the club to operate at a loss and as Bayern have shown, it is obviously prudent to not spend a penny more than you earn. It's not the only way to do it and it can be trounced by the speculate to accumulate method but the latter is an obvious gamble that can get you into deep shit. So the balance sheet, instead of showing a profit would be better off being "balanced" while efficiency improvements going towards improving the playing staff. Accountants can take care of that without needing to plan how a great club should be successful. That batton is probably better in the hands of one of the most successful managers of all time. He's not called the "Silver Fox" for nothing.

I'd be surprised to us bringing in Smith as a first choice considering his history. That story mentions his problems but doesn't tell us if he's cured or has it manageable. I don't think many clubs are willing to take a punt on him any more hence his unemployment. I would guess with our situation we're in a position to offer him a pretty liveable wage (1-1.5k?) as occasional cover for Wallace which will be of a decent enough standard for the first and second divisions. With the lack of offers elsewhere it's a no-brainer for a guy who may otherwise have slipped down the divisions in a less glamorous and lucrative way, or even retired from playing at such an early age. I really like to know how fit he and injury free he really is. Kind of guy who needs to start taking his coaching badges.

You've got to respect and be able to work with a manager and so I think you're doing Ally a disservice. There are plenty of players who have been persuaded by the manager to go to a club where they'd have turned down a different one. Gazza is probably one of those.

Wasn't replying to you particularly and didn't mean to put your nose out of joint. I was just offering some reasoning behind the bookies odds which do look strange at first glance.

The Tims are at their weirdo tricks again saying that we're bending the rules. They just can't grasp the concept of *following rules*.

I agree that we probably have to say goodbye to Boca and Goian first.

I always thought another part of the reason that Rangers didn't sign many Catholics was that all the best ones went straight to Celtic - and why would we want second best? If we're interested in say the top 50 players in Scotland ie 25 each for the OF, then at 18% Catholic that makes a maximum of 9 players we'd be interested in - an all of them would probably interest Celtic and in their usual sectarian zeal, would choose to play for them over Rangers. People in Scotland always seem to forget that it's not an equal street. Celtic have always got off because they played "some" Protestants. However the chances of a player being Catholic was just under one in six but for an example lets make it the same chance of throwing a one on a dice. Now would it be that unusual to throw 11 times and never throw a one? A tiny bit maybe. However what are the odds of throwing 11 times and coming up with a one eight or nine times? Far more unusual. On average Rangers should have played two Catholics in every team and for a while played none. One average Celtic should have played NINE Protestants and for a while played two or three. Which is the worse statistic, especially when taking my first point into account? Maybe we should check the average statistics for the last 25 years for players, managers and board members, and see which club should be investigated by the Equal Opportunities Commission...

I really don't get D&P's strategy for the creditors. In a ruthless sense they should have sold all our sellable players to the highest bidder and tried to bring in about £15m, sued the SPL for the prize money and sold off as much real estate as possible while leaving enough for a going concern. There's plenty of other income they seemed to write off or gift to the newco.

You think we should try to sign players who aren't available? I don't get it. The plan seems to me to be to bring in reasonable quality players who are the most suitable of those available for us to sign, are interested in coming, and at not too high a wage. In fact the players we are signing have been impressive considering the weird position we're in. The plan seems to be pretty cunning to me and also coming together nicely. We've actually got rid of a few players from last season. Youngsters who only played one or two appearances will probably get a few more next season depending on how they develop. We can only sign 22 players over 21 so the squad size will take care of itself - and it will be far smaller than we've had for decades. Why would you be able to see the control over spending? There is obviously a budget in place but unless you're on the board, you're not going to be in the know. You'll see where the control is when we stop recruiting. The strategy for the future seems reasonably obvious. We need some players to not just get us through the next two season but to *guarantee* promotion - a concept many seem to struggle with. A team will win division three next season and I can promise you now, they will have a far smaller wage than we had. However, are they guaranteed to win by a margin and if so, which team is it? Yes, you can win a league on a small budget, sometimes even run away with it, but you can't virtually guarantee it. We also need some players that are younger who can be part of the squad we form for the top league when we get there and we've signed a few of those. Lastly we need to develop our best youngsters and that strategy has been fairly obvious last season and I'm sure it will continue - with the strategy that we whittle last season's quota down to the best performers and I'd expect to see fewer play but have more time. The higher the divisions we go, the harder it will be for all the youngsters to shine. Most will find their level and it won't be with us in the top league.

I thought the fee was set as he's out of contract and so is a standard development fee... Therefore the amount of interest doesn't matter a jot, it's where he chooses to go.

Bookies odds are not directly related to the real odds of something happening, they are based on how much they'd have to pay out if it did. They then fix it so that most of the time they make a profit no matter what happens. If someone puts a million on Lennon his odds will drop to odds-on favourite...

What about the club who were set up as a discriminatory club and STILL have not lost that baggage. Surely it is noteworthy enough to justify comment?

I was disappointed in this one. The guy might be a chartered accountant but it doesn't look like it in this article - more like someone who's skimmed a book on business management and tried to apply it to football in his tea-break.

I remember Lovenkrands had a weird Gaswedgian / Copenhagen accent...

Why post this link to anti-Rangers drivel? I stupidly clicked on it and now ruing the extra hit for a malevolent site that gives it more validation than it ever deserves.

I'll see the resemblance when Ally finishes third. Give a 10 point penalty and administration and he still finished second - and some weirdos complain about that. If Eck won the league by 24 points we wouldn't ever discuss the type of football his team played. Nobody talks about Scotland's style when Eck had us almost qualifying from the group of death. I'll bet there is not a manager in history that has been criticised so much by so called fans for not once coming one place worse in the league than expected. If people want to have a random rant why not choose Advocaat who spent the most money ever and still won fuck all even with a striker that cost more than our current squad -and that's not even in today's price index. maybe you should be older than 12 before you start this kind of stuff.

I always thought bringing up that would show we had class while they were shallow cheats who would stoop as low as possible.

What, winning the league by 24 points?

PS We've recently signed a player because he had the season of his life while playing "out of position"... You know when a football fan actually becomes a successful manager by using these "simple" rules of management, I might actually start having respect for this kind of stuff.

Yeah, 140 years worth...