calscot

Never heard of him, but he does have an exotic, foreign sounding name, so he must be good.

BTW that would also reduce some of the difference in money that the OF earn due to their larger stadium that they don't otherwise fill.

As all the teams were happy to vote for only have one or two home games to an OF side a few years ago (or an averages of 1.45 games against Celtic) then surely there is no case to be made for needing more than a guaranteed two games - one against each of the OF? So the only teams affected by a 16-18 team league would be Rangers and Celtic, with the latter seemingly happy not to play us at all. We've got used to not playing Celtic much, and after the horrendous scenes that their fans create, I think some of us are already a bit sick of it, and no longer looking forward to 5 or 6 games a season, an average of about 3 should be fine. So, personally I'm warming to a larger, non split league. Maybe we could start with a 16 team league and an Atlantic cup to fill the fixture list and replace the missing games against Celtic, Heats and Aberdeen? An extreme way to stop the meaningless games would be to relegate 4 and put the next bottom 2 into a relegation playoff, with the 5th and 6th in the 2nd tier. So relegating 4 or 5 a season, which would give pretty much all the second tier teams a very good chance to taste the high life every few seasons. A play-off between 3rd and 4th for a European place might spice up the top half. The SPFL is moribund as it is, we really need to try something new or slowly die.

I recall reading in the Scottish press (and so not the most reliable source) that Ferguson had talks with Rangers about the position. Ferguson reportedly said that he had taken Aberdeen as far as he could with Aberdeen on their budget and what he wanted was a large and sustainable budget to allow him to build a team that was capable of not only winning the league and cups but also to become a force in Europe. Secondly, he wanted to sign anyone he liked, no matter their background and religion. Basically he wanted what Souness was eventually offered a few years later. Rangers said no and offered what was given to Jock Wallace. He was then offered what he wanted at Man U, three years later, just after we gave what he wanted to Souness. The other aspect to consider was the attractiveness of the Man U job - basically it wasn't. They were a reasonably big club known for winning the European Cup, but had not been successful for about 20 years (bar a few cups) and a second division title, and seemed to be the death-knell of quite a few managers' careers. Not only that, the English league was a dark, depressing place at the time, full of hooliganism, crumbling terraces and no European football. This is what allowed Souness to attract top English internationals to the best stadium in the country, for a team guaranteed to win stuff, and play in Europe every year - and as money was predominantly based on crowds and Ibrox was brimming with about 44 thousand every home game, the wages were among the best in the UK as well. The top team in England, for a long period at that time, was Liverpool, with a great record in the league and cups (for England) and also in Europe (it has to be remembered the ban came after they played in the EC final). When you add in the number of years Souness played for them, it's relatively easy to understand why, despite being successful for three years at Rangers, he would be attracted to just ONE specific job down south, just as the European ban was being lifted. I can't for the life of me understand why the Man U job at that time would be more attractive than Rangers (without knowing the future) - especially when Ferguson himself seemed about to be just another managerial casualty of the poison chalice of what looked like a mountainous task. In the end, while he can make his own career decisions, I suppose that what will rankle with Rangers fans is his continually professed love and loyalty for our club, which gives him a bit of affection or even just tolerance in many a Rangers fan's mind. While the defection to Liverpool blunted that affinity, it was at least somewhat understandable - the Man U story just says that he's been bullshitting us for decades. As with all these kind of things, he's entitled to do what he likes in his career, but on the emotional side, if we disagree with his motives or integrity, then we are entitled to think badly of him.

Can we stick to the thread, stories about feeding yourself etc are very dull and detract from the debate? A very subjective opinion which one again strangely ignores the Llambias effect that I thought you had more knowledge of. You are entitled to that opinion but it should not be difficult for you to understand why someone would have an opposing view especially when you consider the more objective facts. Are you really unable to play a devil's advocate on your own opinion? I think it's obvious that you have a problem with that. That's all very well but I've painstakingly pointed out where I don't agree with his philosophies, and like the Kate Moss thing, anyone can boast when there is no evidence, and I've pointed out the example of Roxburgh. In fact there is a lack of results that make it worrying - we don't even have a Lewis McLeod never mind a Durrant, neither of which had the benefit of Warburton's scheme. And I can name countless others. Until we have results the jury is out. And as I've alluded to I'm worried about having a guy who follows the text book. I want the guy who writes it. I've always said I'm comparing results. I'm also on record as not fully liking either manager's main style. You are condescending but regularly fail to justify it. I'v said before that you may disagree with me, but you need to understand my reasoning, which I hope isn't too hard, when you get that, I think my opinion while different from you is not worthy of condescension. However, your mo is condescend opposing views regardless of their validity. Your posts tend to contradict that. You always seem to accuse me of your own faults. Pontifs don't go to great pains to explain their views or debate them - i do this, you don't. Your mo is one line put downs implying people are stupid for not being privvy to your knowledge. I find most of your posts are rude and condescending and told you that when you first joined, but I'm not going to stalk you about it like you are me. if you don't like my posts, don't reply. Simple. Fair enough, but the templeton is a stange one. Sometimes players don't work out - Barton, Krnajcar? But your obfuscating, McCoist never had a positive transfer spend IIRC. Warburton has had two. Now maybe I'm about to sound superior (woo), but have you read my posts? I have doubts about MW and have said for years that AM is not a good fit. If MW doesn't improve it will be like slagging me off for not thinking the square peg fits in the round hole better than the triangle. I don't get your thinking. I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Through what? Please share and explain your insight. Show us your chops. Otherwise you are just killing the thread with meaningless one line innuendo.

Tonight I'm going to get some moss from the garden, call it Bob, shorten it to Kate, put it next to my bed, and tomorrow I'll be able bullshit like the best on here.

The difference is is I'm not arrogant enough to say I categorically state that you didn't. I don't state things as facts that I don't know. I also realise that you may be say talking about a friend's cat called Kate Moss, or even some tranny who you met who claimed that was their name. For the model maybe you did, but plausibility is low, while a manager being involved in a transfer of a player who plays that season is more than highly probable. But in any case you are still trolling as it's a minor detail to the thrust of the point I was making, and the strange thing is that I've already admitted my mistake ages ago and apologised for it. So really, what salient point are you making that contributes to the actual thread? Your persnickety game is becoming very tedious and I believe you've already lost.

Very sad viewpoint, and yes, mking stuff up about the viewing habits of a guy you don't know on the internet is complete bonkers. As I believe you have said you are a Chelsea fan living in Scotland, can I ask how many of their games you attend? do you post on a Chelsea site? You obviously lie about watching Rangers games, as I caught you out with the "same old rubbish" comment when we had a big improvement. That's what prompted you to continually talk weird bullshit about my viewing habits. The bonkers part is that I had to have watched the game in question for you to be caught out doing your slagging Rangers for anything hobby. But it's a sad, sad person who insists the number of games you go to is a factor in whether you are allowed an opinion on your team. Get a life springs to mind. There is more in this heaven and earth than going to a football match - especially when it's about 450 miles away.

if you're anything like SBS then I am so grateful! Many thanks.

ha ha, you just can't help yourself eh? Fine, but as many say when the comparison for McCoist is favourable, say for the first 15 games of the season in the SPL, the circumstances are not exactly the same. So we have to be a bit subjective in our assessment which will lead to different opinions. Now firstly, Mccoist didn't finish the season, so the comparison you want boils down to McCoist resigned in a position where extraditing was eminently feasable. So the only difference in your specified comparison is that McCoist resigned. Whether that is worse than Warburton is down to whether you think he wouldn't have done so under the same circumstances. So already it's obvious that our difference of opinion is merely down to how broadly and accurately we look at the full picture. That's even before we look at the vast difference in circumstances - which for someone so involved in the club, I'm constantly surprised at the stuff that is rarely a factor in your opinions. You also ignore the Hearts factor which is up to you, but I would hope you'd at least understand it... I'll explain again. If you assume that if Warburton took over a year earlier, but that didn't affect the Hearts games that didn't include us, then he would be struggling to top them. Any team would, it was a golden season for them. If you look at the games we played in the next season (note: I realise for you, I have to emphasise that I'm not saying that you or I literally played) and imagine that the results were similar, the conclusion would have to be that we'd probably have to beat Hearts 3 times and one draw to top them - that's from memory. Now to assess whether we could do that, we have one game as evidence - and the result is we would probably finish second. That is the position we were in when Ally resigned. So it looks like a draw as both would have had to do the play offs and for me, I think they would both succeed. Ally's record against SP teams as well as Hibs and Falkirk is better IIRC. Now this is all before taking into account the old board, Warburton wouldn't have had a supportive board, no transfer fees, no scout, and then the misery at the club under Llambias - a factor I thought you would be more knowledgeable about. Add in a fan boycotte, and my personal view is that all this would have negatively impacted the results. So definitely a draw or a no conclusion for me. You might disagree but you(and everyone else) should at least be able to respect my view due to the amount of reasoned thinking put into it. Ironically I know you don't. I just put that down to you not liking people disagreeing with you, and even worse them making a well reasoned case you find hard to counter. I think that makes some people very uncomfortable. So I understand the animosity I attract in some people who don't like to question their strong opinions. i can reason the same with any other comparison and due to all the factors it takes a lot of thinking - for me I'd put Warbs a bit ahead, but with the evidence it is hardly even slightly conclusive either way. I can answer your other comparisons with similar analysis and easily show fair stats where Ally wins - although obviously in different circumstances. But I'd like to stick with one at a time for the sake of clarity and time. If you want to rebut this one then I'm happy to listen to rational and respectful replies. Once that's concluded, I will be happy to discuss the next comparison. But if you want my quick synopsis, I think McCoist can do an average Largs graduate job in Scotland - do all the basic stuff and over time get about average results. With a supportive board? Who knows, as he's never had one, in that scenario he may prove me and others wrong. Warburton I think is a bit too inexperienced, he has some interesting theories that are not rigorously tested, and they have not passed the grade this season. Asking for better players is just cheating. If he's any good he should be able to beat teams with the same budget, never mind multiples. Unless there's a massive improvement soon, then I can't see how he's any more fit for Rangers than McCoist. Maybe we need a guy like Rogers, can't hack it at Liverpool but seems to know how to make an OF team do what it's supposed to do in the SPL. Yes they both lost. i think McCoist's record is 2-1-3. Warburton is 0-0-1. But I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Hearts team of two years ago was better than ours last season. I don't know what you mean - if we can't compare different seasons then how can you judge McCoist at all? You've been comparing stuff all through this thread. Come on be consistent. The very simple counter to that is that Neilson dropped 5 points to Rangers, Rangers dropped 2 to their equivalent, St Mirren. When comparing Warburton and Neilson, I think the whoe season is appropriate. You're schoolboy humour is duly placed into the very droll for a schoolboy pile. Well done you...

Ah, I start a reasonable, respectful thread and they start coming out of the woodwork. Now it's the turn of the Chelsea fan who likes to criticise Rangers. If you can't understand the difference between backing to the hilt and defending against extreme and illogical criticism even though it's explained to you dozens of times then I can't help you. The bonkers is for people who constantly say I said stuff that I didn't, even after I've explained myself again several times. They could even quote me but you can't quote what's not there.

Ali the racist was opposed to racism? I'm lost...

At the moment Neilson seems a good shout. Can do better than Warbs on a fraction of the budget...

So do you have evidence he wasn't captain that we can be privy to or are you just making it up to be contrary or for point scoring? Also do you have evidence Ally wasn't involved in the transfer or are you making it up? The problem here is that you are asserting to categorically know stuff as fact, but judging by your posts it's all pretend. I at least admit stuff I say could be wrong as it's based on memory and stuff I've read. Don't want to be rude but unless you have evidence your over-assertive claims seem like bullshit. You're not even plausible: why wouldn't the top scorer and soon to be promoted player in the u19 not be made captain? I've admitted I don't know but you are strongly asserting you do. Also, you're trying to tell me you know Ally wasn't involved in a transfer of a player who played in the first team in his first season. Maybe you know something the rest of us don't but without evidence, on the internet you just sound like your playing the big man in the know. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence but you must realise how pretentious that looks? It's not even a plausible assumption. I will give you all my sources, they are a bit mundane, but I don't pretend otherwise.

I think we should predominantly play it on the ground when it works well but we should also be good at long balls when we need to, when we want to, or when an opportunity presents itself. We need good clears in defence, we need accurate clears that turn into attack (remember Darchevill and Cousin), we need direct balls from midfield through the middle, diagonal and up the line. Not all the time, not predominantly, but when it's necessary and when it's prudent, and sometimes just to keep them guessing and maybe catch them on the hop. It should be a skillful part of our repertoire that should be second nature on the pitch. Of course we also need to be good at receiving them. Some of the best teams are fantastic at this and it's like velcro football, or a computer game. I though the aforementioned Watenacio duo were also good at this. But all that takes some training ground time and then be included in the managers tactical talk.

McCoist could have been the making of him - and he's getting slowly worse under Warburton - you don't know, but it actually fits the facts better. Or maybe we should give all the credit to the loan club managers. Normally, without McCoist, the first manager would get the credit. We don't know so it's best to go with the convention that the rest of the world would use. As I said it doesn't matter. McCoist did what we expect and desire. Warburton inherited a talented young player who was already developed enough to step into his team. I've lost you. Was McKay crap to start with but improved with every game under Warburton until he became the player he is today by the end of the season? I don't recall that. I recall him being rather good from the off - which means it was indeed weeks. You're at it here. The anti-McCoist specs you claim not to wear are still on. As I said, he spent the previous two years on loan so that could have been the making of him, but you're trying to shoehorn Warburton into it to slight McCoist. Funny that Warburton also sends players out on loans - says it's good for their development. Not when Ally does it obviously... :-/ Pre-season obv. No idea whether it's form or he's regressed, as you point out, neither do you. He's been criticised most of the season though - almost half a season of poor form is hardly a blip. I think he'll improve again although I think he's lost his shine a bit. But the point is that he has not consistently improved under Warburton, even if our manager ultimately is the making of him. You're just doing mental gymnastics to give Warburton credit and Ally none. I don't know why but it's consistent with what I've been saying about Ally's criticism and the agenda against him. Can't you just be fair for a wee holiday from putting him down?

Youth had plenty of chances under McCoist - whether forced to or not. He was highly criticised for it in the fourth tier and so they less got the chance in the third - but Lewis McLeod and Fraser Aird were the main ones who both got a good run. Interesting that McCoist gave Ryan Hardie his debut and Tom Walsh at 16 years and 150 days. "Walsh became the youngest post-war Scottish football league debutant for Rangers and second youngest competitive debutant ever for the club." I await the derision. Warburton gave Burt his debut.

BTW looked it up again, Barry McKay was signed in the summer of 2011. I believe McCoist was the manager. As such, his responsibilities were to target and sign players. As McKay was 16.5, I think McCoist would be involved. The fact he debuted in the first team at 17, less than a year later and in the same season of his signing supports this. If he was shite McCoist would be blamed as manager, so I don't have a problem with attributing his signing to the incumbent manager. Unless anyone has further information, so I think we can take that one for granted. Like I said, I don't really care too much, as my point is sound. But here I've been questioned about it. I'm still waiting on someone else to apologise for saying I made it all up - when in fact I was a bit hazy with a couple of minor facts - well actually one the 21/19 thing. Captain? Who knows, I think I got mixed up with him being the top scorer.

Too long, didn't read.

So a your saying a player was better at 20 years old than 18 after two years playing first team fooball on loan - and then credit the manager who trained him for a few weeks? I don't buy that. And it's a poor thing to argue about, not even relevant. He's not so good now is he - some would say he's going backwards or ruined... The main point is that I'm not going to give a manager credit for youth development for playing an existing 20/21 year old he inherited. It's incredibly weak. We're talking about taking teenage academy players and giving them their debut and blooding them for a handful of games one year and then giving them a decent run the next. You know it, and I know it. Let's get genuine. McCoist did that with McKay, whether it helped or hindered, I don't know, but in normal conversations that's considered doing something good for their development - except when it's McCoist. Warburton has done none of that at Rangers, generally people usually think that's a bad thing - except when it's Warburton. When are you guys going to get how you sound - and why I "defend" McCoist even though I don't rate him highly? For once use some objectivity.

You can argue about semantics all you like, I've said today and yesterday, if you don't understand what I mean I will explain again in different words. The only semantics that count when I'm giving my viewpoint is the meaning that I personally intend. The same goes for everyone else. I am not going to spend time pre-emptively explaining what I think is obvious for the pedantic. People complain my posts are long enough and I think they are explicit enough. If people want to play silly, semantic games to score points then I won't be joining in.

It was under 19. I admit the mistake but can't see it a big deal outside pedantry. The point is that I think he was manager during his recruitment - or maybe assistant manager which is maybe more pertinent to a 17 year old signing, I haven't totally worked out the exact details and don't really care. You're deliberately knit-picking even if not particularly nasty. Maybe you know who exactly signed him but so far you've added very little information or clarity to the debate.

Trolling again? I admitted that was wrong. It was from memory so I checked my facts. Do keep up. I contend McCoist was manager at the time of his recruitment, considering his age and rapid promotion, I will give credit to him for the signing as is conventional for normal people who have no witch hunt against a manager.

I do it every time... It would be nice if others did to...