calscot

But then recent Rangers managers have been criticised for having no width...

I agree. In our current position I can't see a problem with signing a promising and experienced young player from the SPL for free and slotting into our new wage structure, especially as we can't actually buy anyone till January. Seems like a good bit of business. A relative marquee signing under the circumstances.

Can't see Moyes lasting long...

I think that's a different debate on a different topic. I haven't seen anyone say the contrary and especially me. The point is I'd like the best team we can AFFORD that is able to almost guarantee the league title. Nobody is advocating spending more than we have.

We have the second most money, we should therefore have the second highest wage bill, otherwise the fans are being short changed. You can't guarantee any team or game will be to some people's taste, "entertaining" but you can promise them a level of wages that will bring players to have the best possible chance of winning the league. You can win the second division with much less money - it happens every year, but none of those teams virtually guarantee it. You could buy the whole QOTS squad and manager and still not be sure of winning the league next season, or even promotion. We used to have a smaller wage bill than Hearts, did they trounce us on success and entertainment? How are the 4th most expensive team to watch? (Aberdeen?) People have to decide what they really want from the club. I personally don't want to risk taking longer than necessary to get back to the top.

Ally has to guarantee winning the league and now not only that, he needs to do it in style. What he's basically saying is that in that scenario what manager wouldn't want to spend half the cost of an average Premiership player if it was given to him? I'm sure he'd get 10 players for that - peanuts! However, he was speaking hypothetically as he's an intelligent guy who knows the score.

Let's get this in perspective, Premiership players go for about £20M these days, so £10M is about equivalent to about £3M max in the Advocaat era. Can you imagine people slagging Dick off for wanting to spend £3M on half an entire squad? Ally even said it with plenty of self awareness and keeping his feet on the ground.

You mean we're going to play him as a goalie? But your reply kind of sums up the nature of the perpetual complaint. No matter where you play someone, people will complain they are out of position...

Seems Clark was a midfielder playing out of position last season... So would some on here prefer him moved back to right midfield? :fish:

Seems the only changes are play-offs for an SPL place and a bribe towards merging the leagues. The only reason we seem to be able to fathom for this is the inclusion of Rangers in the television and sponsorship deals. Otherwise, what other reason is there and where would they get the money from to give more to the first division? Without Rangers the whole thing makes no sense in the context of a bunch of clubs renowned for not being able to see past their own self interest.

Good point about the best young players - even if we could afford them we can't sign them.

Seems to me that he's talking sense...

I can't see why it would need to. It's all up to the SFA. The SPL have no right to play in Europe over SFL teams that would stand up in court that I can see. The SFA could easily not recognise the new league and give the European places to the SFL champions and runners up etc. The SPL would also be banned for going to court would they not?

I can see few lessons to take too seriously from a one season wonder in the 2nd division. We're talking about a club that generally finished about 4th in one division, were then relegated and, without the biggest shock in the world, immediately won the lower division. We don't even know that they could do the same thing next year. As I've said before, people seem to have forgotten that a team wins the 2nd division EVERY YEAR. Are they all geniuses with lessons to teach? I would like the people who advocate this to choose a team they think are doing the right things that we should copy and tell us which to watch next season BEFORE IT STARTS. There is only ONE manager in the last generation who has shown a repeatable ability to win championships - or coming incredibly close. Without fail. That man is Walter Smith. Should HE not be the one to learn from? And guess what? We have his protégé... That just leaves us with style - but the guys who advocated putting that before results all FAILED - Burns, Mowbray and Hughs to name three. Can anyone name three such managers who succeeded in Scotland? (please don't mention PLG) And the question is - were Queen of the South playing the type of football we really want to see? I have no idea as I didn't watch them apart from cup highlights against Rangers, so maybe someone can enlighten me. There are 42 managers in Scotland, by all accounts Ally has been pilloried as below average. That leaves 21, make it 20 with the bigot. There must therefore be 20 teams playing much better football than us. I rather doubt it.

PPS For me it's the papers and the knee jerk reactors who can't properly talk about the definition of racism without crying "witch" that are the disreputable ones.

PS As far as I can see Green at worst brought any disreputation to himself and perhaps Rangers. Not the Association in any way.

When is Regan going to be fined? I now see the SFA as disreputable because of him and so he has brought the Association into disrepute. There is too big a list to state why. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of people who think the same. I still can't really see what Green has done wrong. A mate called me a "Scots git" again the other day, I didn't mind and don't think he should be arrested. Am I bringing this forum into disrepute by mentioning it in what is the public domain. It's ridiculous.

They didn't have the rights to Rangers last season - presumably as they were tied to the original SPL deal which didn't foresee either Glasgow club not being involved.

Considering the complaints about team not being up enough for games or putting in the effort, you'd think Novo would be a popular option, as an example to the rest if nothing else. I do agree that we need to see how he is playing first and that he is of the required standard. But I do think we need a few players who LOVE to play for Rangers and will bust a gut to do so. Nove does have at least a modest pedegree and its gratifying to have someone like that wanting to come and play for us in Div 2 and with our current wage structure. Going backwards can often be a bit of a let down but sometimes in bad climates, it can give you a much needed boost. i don't subscribe to the "develop players in the lower divisions to eventually dominate the Scottish championship" fantasy. I think we'll see how a few youngsters develop and buy a load of players when we're promoted back to the top tier. Right now we need to guarantee successive promotions, that logically seems incompatible with the "development" strategy. Trouble is the fans want latter but aren't prepared to give up the former. It's strange when fans say they'll be patient if we develop youth, we then play 5 to 8 of them in almost every game, blooding 19 of them, and the fans are still scathing that it's not good enough after we win the title by 24 points.

How do you define "international class"? The standard to be picked for the Argintina squad is totally different than that for a country of say, Scotland's current stature...

Forgot to quote: I'd be interested to hear which ones you would like us to sign. Can you predict a couple that will get promoted and do better than ours in Div 2?

As was your post which came across to me as an anti-Rangers diatribe. We all have our opinions of others posts. Holding back highly criticising Rangers due to a few poor European results bracketed between a Euro Cup final appearance and the worst crisis in our history? Can you not be more constructive? I think I know what your getting at and itâ??s a poor card to play. Come into a football forum, overly criticise the team in question, get opposition and then pull the â??sniff sniffâ? card. Fans can criticise as much as they like but as a fan they do respectfully and donâ??t take things out of context to make it sound worse than it is. Why do that? Enemies of the club do it all the time, if you love the club why do the same? No-one is saying you are a Tim but your aggressively negative start doesnâ??t really make you any better. That was my personal opinion of your point. Where is the insult if I attack the point not the man? Maybe I should change my style to say, â??Nonsense/poor/pathetic/diabolical anti-Rangers pointâ?. Is that to your taste? Or is my bad language a bit of a problem for you? I hardly think that makes any difference. The point is how much the team on the pitch cost. You can have a team of freebies and sign a player for £5m then sell him and buy another player for £5m and so on for 8 years and â??spendâ? £40m. How much did your team cost? £5m NOT £40m. If you look at start of the thread, THAT is the way it has been compared. Not surprised, your argument only has relevance out of context. Ok, name ONE team who played as many games in such a short time as Rangers? You say you want a debate and then you come out with the word, â??excuseâ?. I donâ??t get people that do that. What is an excuse then? Any mitigating circumstances? Any point that disagrees with your negative view? Then there are a lot of clubs who have issues. In every round, half the teams lose the tie. For me, shit happens and I can deal with it. I want Rangers to win every game but I donâ??t throw the toys out when it doesnâ??t happen. I also have some overall perspective on the circumstances when it happens. Cup games are always a bit of a lottery, thatâ??s why Rangers invented the Champions League. Thatâ??s a whole different debate for another thread. Sorry but it seems you would say that. So Whyte spent the money he promised on Allyâ??s first choices? He got them in time for a proper pre-season? We played clubs after no preparation against a team halfway through their season â?? but you probably see that as another â??excuseâ?. Maybe you blame the club for the poor preparation but who was in charge? Eh, Whyte? The guy who started to destroy our club the minute he walked through the door. You may have been there yet you donâ??t remember its freakiness? Strange indeed. Even OUR goal was freaky. We played them off the park in the away game but unfortunately still drew. Again the â??excusesâ? card, where is the debate you craved? So is that an insult? You seem to be attacking my character. I thought we were past that. I think itâ??s pretty obvious that the best team from a footballing country is hardly likely to be easy to beat. Your argument seems to ignore it. Ah, â??excuseâ? again and then another insult. You donâ??t even understand the point. Whereâ??s this debating style you boasted of? By countering them with â??excusesâ?, â??excusesâ?, â??excusesâ?â?¦ Not impressed. I agree, itâ??s clear itâ??s to counter rubbishing of my club by people who twist things to see them in the most negative of lights. You go to Rangers games, I donâ??t know you but I canâ??t help but think, why? Rangers are a generally positive thing in my life, even in the bad times; you seem to dislike the experience. So you come on, rubbish Rangers with out of context criticisms, get an unfavourable reply from ONE person, that is then apologised for and given plenty of debate in addition, you then trash that reply and then spit the dummy out. You seem to have very thin skin and it needs to be thicker to last in any forum. No, I think you posted a message that overly criticised the club of the forum, expected everyone to agree with you and play the self-sustaining game of â??everyone trash Rangersâ?. Iâ??m sure there are other forums that are into that. Maybe even this one, but not me personally. You were given reasonable debate, albeit at the second go and instead of engaging with it in proper spirit you get your nose out of joint, dismiss it as â??nonsenseâ? and threaten to leave. Any debate certainly deserves better in my opinion.

You mean the club RELEGATED from the Division 1 last season? You know a team wins the second division EVERY year, and NONE of them spend as much as Rangers. And none of them have them money. If they did, they would likely spend more. The thing is none of them HAVE to win the league like Rangers does. So did you predict they would need to spend as much as they did to win the league at the beginning of the season? I doubt it. All you're doing is using hindsight. I doubt you'll predict how much money it will take to win Division 3 next season. Funny how Queens Park did so well by spending nothing - at least we are a club who didn't come behind another who spent less than us, eh? Do you want to play dangerously with Rangers future? I'd rather stack the odds massively in our favour, because we can and because we need to make sure. QOTS would only be relevant if we DIDN'T win the third division by a big margin...

How many home grown youths do Dortmund play? I'll wager it's a lot less than us, so what can we really learn from it that is relevant to us? Ajax imo don't really count as firstly, the whole Dutch system is behind them - which I'd love to transfer to Scotland, but that's not Rangers' remit. Also, according to Pete, their youth system hasn't been that successful of late. The more I read about Basel, the more I think they are more relevant to us.

I really don't think it was that bad. When some comes on with an incredibly negative post that ignores the normal ups and downs of ALL football teams to just put Rangers down, yes sarcasm is a reach-to reply - and pretty relevant. You've got to expect retaliation in kind. Maybe you need to look at your debating style where you deliberately take things out of context to attack the club that all of us support on here. To me that's more the MO of an enemy than a friend. I personally don't expect people not to criticise but it should be respectful and where it is due. We don't like our club and fans being singled out for harsh criticism externally where we are no worse than anyone else, so why do it to the club here? But looking at myself, perhaps I need to hold back. You don't get anywhere by being confrontational. So I apologise for the sarcasm (don't really see the insult). My reply should have been: Firstly the money spent was over a period and so isn't really a fair representation of any one team. Secondly, all teams have ups and downs for lots of reasons. The same team that lost to Kaunas, had a long hard season where they contested the Europa final - the first final for over 30 years so the investment wasn't that bad. The team won both cups and you would expect them to have won the league and also put in a better fight in the final had they not had to play so many games in so short a time while St Petersburg had a couple of weeks off. Thirdly, ALL teams at some point lose to cheaper sides with Real Madrid being an obvious example. Man City don't seem to be doing so well for their grotesque investment. Great Rangers teams in the past have lost to sides with less resources. If football was so predictable it would be incredibly boring - like the SPL race now, but then on individual games Celtic have lost and drawn plenty. I'm sure if we were in a league with Kaunas, Unirea, Malmo and Maribor, we would finish above them. Maybe my opinion but I think it's pretty strong. Fourthly, to complain about a couple of results when the manager was trying to build a team under the shyster, Whyte, who was deceiving us all and only pretending to deal seriously is a bit harsh. Fifthly, I doubt you watched the Unirea games, they were freaky and full of bad luck. Even neutrals see it that way. I think you have to be pretty biased against Rangers to not see that. Sixthly, a basic understanding of European football would suggest that the champions of a country have a pretty good chance against the champions of a fairly midling and declining football country. The champions of Sweden have won the UEFA cup in the past against sides with much more money. It happens and it's disrespectful to think they should be a walk over. Seventhly, having sending offs to lose a tie is hardly related to how much money you spend. I don't see how your point holds much water and I'm confused at its motivation.