calscot

Maybe we need a top 20 of crazy newspaper articles, or a top 20 of crazy things done to us or said about us by HMRC, LBG, SFA and SPL etc.

Film stars come in all shapes and sizes, I'm sure there are a few Timothy Spall or Robbie Coltrane lookalikes on here... But I agree that it's a bit gauche to slag of people about their looks for no good reason. People of all levels of looks deserve to find a partner.

Weren't they the first car to have recessed windscreen wipers? Pity the rest of the aerodynamics were reminiscent of a brick.

Watched and wasn't impressed with the "making huge amounts of money" comment.

The SPFA seem to be playing dirty tricks in this. They are muddying the water with a counter court case to use as leverage to get Rangers to drop their court case. If Rangers are so wrong then surely they should be fighting it in court? After all this is no kangaroo court with a huge conflict of interest, of the like that Rangers will face in other matters. It sounds like they don't have a strong case and so are going for dirtier tactics to compensate. However, once again they seem to be acting in the interests of the richest players at the expense of those who do not earn as much - a strategy that has put many of their members out of work. Not much of a union philosophy if you ask me. As for the TUPE, surely Green doesn't have a case if they turned this down properly? I could well be wrong, but it seems to me that instead of turning it down, they let the TUPE happen and then didn't turn up to work. If that's the case then you can also see the point of the claim for lack of consultation. But the biggest problem here is that in a system of compensation and contracts that are to be fulfilled money wise when they are not work wise, TUPE is not a good fit. Surely there should be something in FIFA's rules to cover this? How can clubs be demanding transfer fees from our per-administration days and at the same time other clubs are picking up our players - sometimes the very same ones, for nothing?

I think, like McCoist, there are few "admirers" of Green - more-so people who like some of what they do and have not seen enough to think of either of them deserving to be attacked all the time. Being overly forceful only reinforces that stance. My own opinion of Green is ambivalent - I like a lot of what he is doing but can't stand the way that he wants to take, in his words, "huge" amounts of money paid for by the fans, out of the club and into his and other fat-cats' pockets. I'm ok with people making a profit but only if we get value for money. I'd rather be £18m in debt to a bank and paying 4% interest than to have businessmen fleecing us in a way that makes Wonga.com look like they offer a reasonable APR, while charging us huge wages and expenses on top.

Got to disagree - one of your first posts stated opinion as truth and came across as arrogant to me, and I've never come across you before...

I think your wrong - but I would say there is a tendency for people to start criticising someone continually without real reason or evidence, and they are pounced upon. There is a 50-50 chance of getting it right and most of the time it's just a guess with a hullabaloo of I told you so if they are right and silence followed by the next rant about something else if they are wrong. There are too many people asserting that they "speak the truth" etc without knowing much at all - a bit like John Brown. And many of them are unable to back up their claims even with the slightest bit of common sense. It seems the fashion to have a go at someone these days, be it the owner, board member, manager, coach or scapegoat player that gets into an increasing frenzy - a bit like the criticism our club and fans has taken from one and all. That goes to the extreme when too many people are determined to be right even when they are proven wrong - something they can't countenance or even admit to themselves. It shouldn't be about being right and wrong - especially for something where the answer will never be clear; it should be about discussing the possibilities and the probabilities in a sensible way.

There should be less pressure but look at the reaction to a few points before a new and young team got into its stride... but I don't really see your point as mine is about having some wise heads around to lead the younger players and it certainly worked for Man United. You seem to be arguing for argument's sake with your last few posts.

Very poor. You are pretty much calling the Man United team of 1996, "Dad's Army". Yes, I'd like a squad like that dad's army with our youngsters suplimented by experienced players like Schmeichel, Bruce, McClair, Irwin, Pallister and Cantona - all over 30.

Alexander – yes, but he’s a goalie. Argyriou – 24 and foreign and not exactly composed. Cribari – 31, so could be but doubts about his English. Hardly in the league of Weir. Wallace – 25, good player but still young and this is arguably his first big club. Black – 27, in the same category as Wallace but slightly older. McCulloch – yes. Shiels – 24 – similar to Black. Templeton – 23, similar to Wallace. Kyle – 31, could have been but not exactly mature for his age. Little – 23, might be older than a teenager but still a rookie. Sandaza – 28, first big club, not exactly a role model. Perry – 22, first total rookie. Hutton – 21, likewise Goian and Bocanegra – not even in Scotland. I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at but I just don't agree with your thinking - there is not much experience in the squad in my opinion. Not all our youngsters are under 21 but even the 23 year-olds like Little, are what I'd call rookies. It's their first full season and they are still learning and not in a great position to pass on experienced wisdom, certainly not at the level I had in mind. Who would you prefer to take advice from - Perry or Weir? Ally can ONLY sign under 18's until September. Has everyone forgotten?

This problem is that 99.99% of teenagers aren't good enough - not when you already have 6 rookies in the team and 3 on the bench. Do you really think we need another 17 year old? What about if you're good enough, you're young enough? Or are you ageist? When you go for an operation, do you want a team of teenagers led by a 21 year old or do you want an older, very experienced consultant overseeing things? The same goes for just about any business but here we're talking about a 30 year old like he's ancient... Yeah, we haven't been successful in the last 20 years have we... The massive point that you're missing is that we have a transfer embargo. We CAN sign 17 year olds but as my original post pointed out, our team is already pretty young - possibly too young, which has brought some results that have had many complaining loudly - including the football not being "pretty".

Yes, there's an outcry for Rangers boycotting a club that vilified us, said they didn't want us and kicked us out of the league - and this was a couple of years after shafting our fans out of money. We're vilified for using our civil right NOT to give them our money to attend their ground - a ground where we were told we weren't welcome. So can someone explain to me, what exactly Kilmarnock did to Celtic for them to have a boycott that makes the attendance for the game smaller than the visit of Dundee? What? They didn't like their democratic vote on a matter about Celtic? No! A democratic vote about another club altogether! Did they vote against Celtic's view? No - they ABSTAINED! How outrageous! They deserve to punished big time. And yet not a squeak from the press... I think we need to invent a new word to deal with how extreme the immorality that is coming from members and employees of this very strange club.

I think we need two figures. Tickets sold and actual attendees. The Olympics already looked stupid for having mostly sellouts but with swathes of empty seats. The second stat is what we're interested in, why do we have to guess it when the club and police have the actual figures?

The whole thing sounds like a money making scam where the rich pull the wool over the eyes of the relatively poor and then empty their pockets. Can you imagine doing it the "right" way and going to Dragons Den for the money? Pitch: We're looking for £1m for a 10% stake a football club which is in financial trouble but will be debt free due to the parent company being liquidated and then plan to take that club back to the summit of Scottish football and a force in Europe. Duncan: What's your profit forecast for the next five years? Pitch: Year one, break even. Year two, break even. Year three, break even. Year four, break even. Year five, break even. Duncan: So how come there's no profit? Pitch: Each year we put any surplus back into the club. Duncan: So when do you pay a dividend? Pitch: Never. Duncan: So how do I get my money back? Pitch: We'll sell shares to the fans, invest in infrastructure and the staff and so the company will increase in value. In five years time you can sell your shares for a possible profit. Duncan: But you're saying you're going to water down my shareholding and spend all the money raised on patching up the stadium and salaries for over-paid players? Pitch: Yes. Duncan: Sorry, that sounds ridiculous and ludicrous, football clubs lose money all the time, and either my shares will be worth a fraction of the value in a few years or you'll be coming back to me to pump money in. I'm out! Or the "wrong" way... Green: I'm looking for one million pounds investment for a 10% stake in resurrecting a huge club and making a lot of money taking them back up the leagues. Peter: How do you plan to make the money? Green: Your money is needed to purchase the assets from an administrator, we'll then appeal to the fans to get behind the club and buy season tickets while dramatically reducing the wage bill. This will give us plenty of working capital and so we'll treat your investment as a loan and pay three quarters of it back in six months without diluting your holding. We'll then have an IPO where the fans will raise £20m due to loyalty and sentimentality but we'll only give them a fraction of the shareholding by valuing our shares at £25m. Peter: So after getting most of my money back I'll have 8% of £45m company with no debt? Green: Yes and of a company with assets of over £100m and a large chunk of the yearly profits made by only having a 33% wage to income ratio, will go towards a handsome dividend. Peter: I'd like to make you an offer for the full amount but for 20%. Charles: Sorry, I can't allow anyone to have more than 10% ownership as a lot of this depends on keeping the trust of the fans. Peter: Ok, sounds interesting but for my input I'll need a seat on the board with a £350k wage with the same in bonus and more in share options. Charles: You've got a deal!

Celtic attendance stats are not accurate anywhere. I'm sure the lower stat includes a game where they withheld the figure and so some places who keep on-line stats just put in 0. According to ScotPrem.com they have had 317549 though the gates - but of course that is also inaccurate as Celtic have been bumping up their attendances. However, you have to suspect that they are publishing the number of tickets sold otherwise they may be falling fowl of the tax man.

We can sign young players out of contract now and in-contract in January but the question is do we need any more youngsters? We are already playing about 9 of them with 6 regularly getting a game. It's all very attractive to think of playing 11 youngsters but is that really what people want to see? And who do these youngsters learn from? For me, unless we can find the next Gattuso, I think we've got enough rookies for going on with.

Brilliant.

Not sure what you're getting at but I am sure that the death threat to death ratio is incredibly high.

There is no chance that the SFA can change the rules without opening a huge can of worms. Not giving us the money would be another act of theft. Queen of the South, East Fife, Falkirk, Motherwell, Inverness, Alloa and Elgin have all taken money this seaosn from playing at Ibrox where the crowd was predominantly Rangers fans. We subsidise Scottish football and the one time we say no, they want to steal our money. I really can't see what their problem is except for greed, hypocrisy, stupidity and weird hatred.

So Stokes had death "threats" for attending a fundraiser to pay for real killings? Who is the bad guy there?

Traynor taking a job with Rangers will seriously undermine his previous reports that before this could be seen as objective and non-partisan. Big mistake. We need him in the independent media as a voice of reason - and if he justifiably attacks us then so be it.

I think Dundee Utd fans are too stupid to understand what the sharing of the ticket money is all about. It's not about which fans turn up and how many, it's the fact that it's only one game and will be at home for one and away for the other. If they start basing it on how many tickets your own side sell then not only is it unfair, but it means that any team that get's drawn at Ibrox won't get the same pay day. (I was going to include Celtic there but with crowds of 8k no-one benefits there...) We could change it to a two legged affair where the home club keeps their gate receipts - I'm sure we'd love that, bar the fixture congestion. They could have put out an intelligent and dignified statement but it ended up being about as stupid, petty and hypocritical as you could get.

RTV will still have to pay Dundee Utd and even before that, have them agree to it.

Then donate 10 quid to club ffs and still save money but stand up for the club at the same time - or are you reluctant to give Rangers something for nothing but fine giving DU your money? The thing is that by going you will be severely letting down a great number of your fellow supporters; even if you disagree in principle why would you do that?