calscot

We've had what seems to be like an injury jinx since Oleg Kuznetsov and used to blame it on having no training ground. So what is the current setup doing that is not best practice?

You have to wonder why we didn't have a fire sale to raise millions - at least for the creditors.

Who said that? You can give your views but does it have to be given in a blizzard of empty and inane comments? It just gets tedious. Why not get your thoughts into one substantive post that actually explains your views in a relevant way, every now and again, instead?

Nobody had Whyte "pegged" from the off. There are a lot of arrogant people who make a guess on a 50-50 outcome and then take credit for being wise and knowledgeable when they are right. It's like getting a coin toss correct and thinking you're some kind of genius. Whyte was at Rangers and so to them was "bad", the fact he was bad does not make them right in any way.

Useless is not a word you should use to describe any club - a team maybe, but not the club. There is a hierarchy of clubs and just because you're not at the top does not make you useless.

Yes.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Seems to me that either it's a job and we're customers or both are something a bit different... Seeing as you agree we're fans, you should be able understand people being upset about former players making derogatory remarks...

I can't really remember but I've read it several times over the last week.

Don't agree, being a football is NOT a job in any normal sense of the word. For evidence, just have a look at the antics of just about any footballer. Footballers only use the definition of "job" when it suits their agenda or bank balance. If it IS a job, then part of that job is surely making sure you have good PR with the customers?

The only way I can see the SPL fast-tracking Rangers in would be to give us more sanctions and point deductions. They want our money but they don't want us able to compete for the title. I wonder why...?

I thought that had already been mentioned. Isn't their projected turn over for next year in excess of £115m? (Due to increased TV money).

This guy is supposed to be a journalist? He comes across as one of those uneducated Celtic fans whose argument relies on repeating innuendo and rhetoric while ignoring any kind of engagement with a well reasoned argument. Looking at that exchange without knowing who you both were and asking people to point out who is the journalist and who is the fan and I would be shocked if most people didn't choose Thinker as the educated journalist and put Thomson down as an ignorant, narrow minded fan.

Is it really surprising that we are now footballing minnows? Just why would a small country like Scotland be any good at it? Not only do we have a small population to choose from, according to the Daily Mail we are second behind the US in the obesity league table at 26% (with England fourth at 22.5%) and so have even less healthy people to make up our potential squad. Until recently we slashed the average number of hours that kids are exercising in PE in schools and banned them from playing football in the playground in case of injury and risk of being sued. We've dug up and built on pitches and most parents don't allow their kids to play on the streets anymore. We have a couple generations that prefer playing computer games to playing a sport and a legacy of teaching non-competitive doctrines. Spending on sport is pretty low especially compared with arts, and while the latter is worthy, it doesn't help the poor physical health of the nation. We are way behind the world in our grass roots football, for kids and adults and these days charge a fortune to anyone who actually wants to play. How many kids from working class families can afford to play at Power Leagues a couple of times a week? Add in to the that the perpetual incompetence of the SFA and self interest in the clubs which has all but killed our game. The kicker is the amount of money that leaves an already less well of Scotland, to go to the already rich Premiership clubs of England. We're one of those middling affluence countries that is not rich enough to throw money at the problem or poor enough to have nothing else to do but kick a ball around. Instead we're a fat, lazy, small minded, middling affluence, low populated country with fading memories of a much more illustrious past. We've lost all vision of what used to make Scotland exceptional in so many ways with regards to education, sport, arts and philosophy. Expecting more from us in a footballing sense is ignoring where we are as a nation.

How many casualties were there for those being hit by cushions?

Can Tom English do basic arithmetic? He's trying to say that Green expects 500m people to pay £2 a go for our games and that would bring in £100m a season. Multiply 500m by £2 and you get £1b per game! At say 50 games a season that would be £50b a year. Or is he just talking complete shite to riducule Rangers? For £100m a year you'd need say 1m people paying £100 per season and while that doesn't look very likely it's 0.2% of the uptake that English is talking about. I don't remember ANYONE but Tom saying that we have 500m potential customers. I think Green actually mentioned 5m, but why let the truth get in the way of a Rangers bashing story. Poor, badly researched reporting that doesn't even pass the common sense test.

I believe that he has already said many things that are not entirely true and which are open to interpretation. "Developing the club" - what exactly does this mean? There is also the possibility that he could ring-fence that money to run the club while paying back investors with other income - and therefore not really be lying. But the obvious is that he is overvaluing the shares ie investors have put in up to £10m and after another £20m is invested the club will be worth say £30m. Then the original investors will probably own over half the club - increasing their holding to at least £15m - a 50% profit.

But would you pay £500 for a brick? And would you pay that for a brick knowing the money is just going into someone's pocket? Either this is a money making thing for someone or it is to fund the rebuilding of the club. It's being sold as both so how much of each is it? So where exactly do you want your money to go?

The deal is only for one year IIRC so we'll be in a much stronger position next season - but I can see it given away as leverage to remove the transfer embargo.

In a war I can't see what we have to lose - we're already in the 3rd division, it can't get any worse for us, but our fans are coping admirably. As for the SPL clubs, they are floundering and the only way is down if they fight us. We have a 6m wage bill with 46k average support, we're in a strong position and entering any top flight league, be it in Scotland or Europe, we will immediately have cash to build a competitive squad. They tried to damage us, to weaken us, to even kill us and it's failed, but how quickly will most of the SPL clubs recover if they are damaged as a result? How many of them will die to never return? They are also being weakened financially while their rivals in the SFL are getting a bonus from our fans, the danger to the SPL clubs is to be relegated and then be unable to compete to get back up there. Rangers have a loyal following and will always be strong in the long run - even in the lowest league in the land. How many other SPL clubs would survive with that kind of punishment? I think some of this will start to dawn on the smaller SPL clubs next season and they will be the ones coming cap in hand.

With the fact that you'll pretty much lose most of the money, I agree the minimum is too high. At half the amount I'd be more interested as I could probably afford to miss £250 but at £500 it's a much bigger decision. I would have no problem with that amount if it was for full fan ownership, with a pro-rata share of the club and all the money went to making the club stronger. However, I have doubts about where the money is going and am wary it is to be for lining the original investors' pockets. I also don't believe a fair share of the club will be given for the value of the investment. I think the club is probably currently worth around the £12-15m mark and raising £20m for half the equity is not good value. In addition I think the timing is very poor and the reasons for the investment don't fully make sense - money for the squad when we have a transfer embargo. I'd prefer to invest AFTER I've seen the accounts which have not yet been published for the new company and not for a year and a half for the old. It's all very well Greene being bullish but his bluster seems to have the spectre of smoke and mirrors or at least a bit of wool pulling and exaggeration. A lot has been made about him not being a fan but a businessman who is openly out to make money so I have to wonder why I would invest in him if I'm not going to make money and instead it looks like I'll be the mug who loses money while he rakes it in. He's hinted at this all along. It smacks of a pyramid scam while pulling at fans emotions. It's a very difficult one for me.

And it now seems the BBC did both!

But "if" is a pretty valid word used for the conditional and used in this sense to give a conditional response in the future. Your phrase is not analogous as it is conditional on the past, with the original author giving humorous reference to the fact of it already having happened and therefore the condition being redundant. It doesn't work for the future as there is no redundancy and so your post doesn't make much sense.

Another misuse of this oft overused ditty. What exactly does that mean in relation to the post you are replying to? Are you saying that if you granny acquires some balls in the next few years that all your family will be happy? Sorry, but I fail to connect with your chosen metaphor in this context.

Not sure if you're countering my point but I did add: "However it only affects four clubs and the likelihood is that it will only benefit two clubs once one of the new teams is relegated." There is a missing point is that the Highland teams could have had their derbys AND Rangers games had Rangers been voted to stay in. Dundee have benefited massively and the point about Dundee Utd stands. When it comes to Celtic, Hearts and Aberdeen, they all thought their fans would compensate them for Rangers not being there but that's not really happening but they have it the way they want it. Celtic are compensated by an almost guaranteed title and taking up the one CL qualifying place. Hearts were banking on what they thought was guaranteed Europa cup. That leaves four clubs who must be wondering what they voted for, plus Kilmarnock. But the fact is they were blackmailed by Celtic fans - and Kilmarnock may still suffer for that. The problem for them was that to vote for Rangers staying meant guaranteed boycott from Celtic PLUS the possibility that Rangers would be voted out by the rest meaning they could lose THREE or FOUR OF home gates instead of one or two. As it is instead of being guaranteed 3 OF home games with the possibility of 4, they are guaranteed 1 with the possibility of 2. Three bottom clubs will have their OF income cut to one third of its previous size...

Perhaps we need to rethink the whole system and fully do regional leagues. Smaller countries could be absorbed into the big five leagues. What's the point of us playing Portuguese teams when it would make more sense for them to join the Spanish teams to form an Iberian league and us joining the English for a UK + Ireland league? The Dutch, Belgians and Luxembourgers could join in with the French and the Austrians, Danish and Poles could join the Germans. The Swiss and Greeks could join the Italians. Belarus, Ukraine, Romania and Moldova could join the Russians. Keep that Yugoslavian group and form a Scandanivain, Baltic league, and amalgamate Turkey, Cyprus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and most countries would be catered for. While the top five would still have their strength, it would give the smaller countries a chance to compete as they would be part of the same leagues and potential income. Just a different thought.