calscot

A shop in a particular location might not make a profit but as long as it doesn't make a huge loss it could have compensatory benefits, not least increased brand presence and awareness, as well as providing a convenient service to the fans. Not everything needs to be directly profit driven - all advertising effectively makes a loss but potentially increases income, but there is also brand image and prestige that has nothing to do with profits - otherwise why have an expensive marble staircase or salubrious dressing rooms and offices, a well kept stadium etc?

Ambiguity for position is great - it means McCoist can be criticised no matter where he plays him... :devil:

All I can say that if previous managers had this squad I could have forgiven Eck for finishing third and would have been happy to back PLG all the way.

Do people read the feeds? I find it easier to go to News Now.

Loss leaders? But start up costs can put a massive dent in your profit margin.

I think many will agree with your sentiments while at the same time determined to win every game right now - although you could say that's always the case at Rangers.

Are you sure? If we had this squad last season you'd have been confidence of an easy second place at least? I wouldn't. The squad we had last year was far, far better and more fits your description although it was a toss up whether it was first or second. We've lost something like 24 players and brought in about 5 lesser quality players. The squad is still paper thin and of standard SPL fayre. We may have the best squad in the third division by some way but I think we're not streets ahead when it comes to the SPL. Falkirk are not that long out of the SPL and so while I'd hope we have enough to beat them, I don't think it is an easy tie by any means. This is a big test for our team to help gauge how competitive we are for the cups and even for next season in the second division considering the transfer ban.

I thought Hibs looked like they were wearing lederhosen or moss green dungarees...

Regarding the point about him standing up for the fans - I think it is necessary for him to do that to get us on board financially and that will be why he is doing so. A bit false maybe, but good for us nonetheless. Sometimes greed does help...

Fleck out injured for next three weeks.

Sounds like the Dutch are paying £100m a year for their footie so the TV company are will be making only £20m a year in gross profit. Looks like it will be hard for them to make a decent net profit unless the price goes up. I was happy paying £10 a month for the Scottish football and stretched to £13 when it included the English stuff I didn't want. I refuse to pay something close to a grand a year to Sky and ESPN even if it includes broadband etc. At the risk of repetition, Scotland would struggle to gain as many subscribers per capita as I remember that we had a split on here with many having Sky but not Setanta. I don't think we can blame Regan et al for that at the time.

I actually watched Sportscene to see if they'd show the Rangers goals but our club weren't mentioned (although I did miss the first 10 minutes), so I won't be watching again - probably ever. Do Rangers TV actually show edited highlights? I really don't want to spend 90 minutes watching a game that I already know the result. 30 minute highlights would be perfect and would miss out most of the boring stuff when the ball is out of play or a player is on the ground. However, I can't remember the last time that 30 minute highlights were shown for a Rangers game - it either seems to be three minutes or the full match which to me is just stupid. STV should do a deal with Div three to resurrect Scotsport of old.

I don't think you'll get much argument there...

Also wondering, what proportion of Dutch subscribers money goes to Dutch football and the analogue in Scotland? Because of the packages model it's difficult to ascertain. There is also the point that fans have a severe conflict of interest here - they want their club to earn more money but to do so more of them need to be charged higher fees... We've already seen this with the debate on season ticket prices. There's a kind of version of Groucho Marx in England when a club has enough money to spend on the quality of players that the fans want to see, it means there is a proportion of fans who can't afford to watch them either on telly or in the ground...

I think any shop will be an improvement on the amount of money that we get as JJB have already paid a pretty big tranche up front which went to the old company and for which the new company will receive nowt. Sticking with them without renegotiation will only bring in £3m per year whereas even at the original deal with them will bring in about £5m a year.

I think this needs further analysis to see what we're really dealing with. It has to be remembered that Netherlands have about 3.2 times our population and if you take the simplistic model that both countries will have the same proportion who pay subscription TV for football then you'd expect them to, as a base to start with and all things being equal (which I know they are not), have around 3.2 times the money. So let's take the first figure of 60m Euros and divide by 3.2 and convert into pounds. That's approximately £14.75m. Now wasn't our original offer £80m over 5 years? That gives £16m a year spread among less teams than in the Netherlands so our clubs were going to be on more money. They may go up to over €90m which would work out at around £22-23m per season. That's a bit more than us but could be considered a better product where the is more market penetration in their country rather than almost exclusively selling to the fans of two clubs. There is also the fact that Sky and ESPN are not a charity dishing out money to help the leagues, their model is based on how much they need to spend to get the contract balanced by how many subscribers they can gain or retain. I doubt the Netherlands has the same problem as Scotland in that there is already a significant number of subscribers who do so to watch the games of a neighbouring country's top league. I doubt that given the choice of German football for £50 per month or Dutch football for £10 per month that the Dutch would choose the former. But that's exactly what happened in Scotland. Right now, if you took Scottish football from Sky, they'd still have a significant share of subscribers in Scotland, I would find it hard to believe the same scenario in the Netherlands. Our obsession with our neighbour's football dramatically lowers the value of our own and it's no wonder we receive paltry sums compared to them. Our money is going to pay for their league as much as it is ours. It's about supply and demand and the demand is not there in Scotland. We're just not interested enough; the Dutch are.

We won't have a settled squad until after the transfer window closes. We're well behind due to not having a licence and ideally I think we should be bringing in almost all new players at the beginning of the window and before the pre-season games begin. We don't seem to have been doing that consistently over the years and I think you could find a good correlation between when we bring the players in and how good the start of our season is, and indeed our whole season.

I get the impression some people think that players' abilities go rapidly downhill after the age of 18 and that if you don't play in the first team your talent disappears overnight. All the players we played were 18 once. They have benefited from playing in the first team. What is wrong with playing them? Should be play McKay in every game till he turns twenty and then replace him with a seventeen year old? What is it people want? What is the point? Should we ban clubs from playing players over twenty or maybe people should just watch the under 21 leagues? Why is football in the Olympics less popular than the World Cup when you're only allowed three players aged over 22? With all these youngters, shouldn't the quality be higher? As far as I can tell, playing teenagers is not the magic formula for winning titles. Just ask Man U. There is a place for youngsters in every team as you have to learn your trade and you can't do that properly without being given a chance to do your job for real. But if you wanted a lawyer or a kitchen fitter or a mechanic, do you prefer the inexperienced young apprentice or the seasoned professional?

I didn't originally see that as he's on my ignore list but that is a vile post. I second your wish.

Do we really need to do more than win by four goals to be convincing? I didn't see the game but heard we also hit the woodwork twice and had plenty more chances. As a sport I don't think football would be very interesting if 11 guys couldn't get even a bit of the play against a team of 11 better players. In tennis most wouldn't criticise Andy Murray for losing a few games in a straight set victory against the 60th seed in the first round, or expect him to dominate every, single point.

Here we go with the "I'm an expert on player positions"... Little plays "out of position" and yet scores five goals in four games? The weird thing is that you use that to slag off the manager. So what makes you an expert anyway? On the one hand we have three FIFA qualified coaches who see the players most days in training, two of which who have played football at the highest of levels; and on the other hand, yourself. What credentials do you have? Are you a coach and how much do you know about this player? How often have you seen him play? Now if we'd lost 5:1 yesterday, I might have some severe doubts about the management team, but seeing as the result was the opposite, I'm dying to learn why you think you know better.

I'm confused about your post. ES would struggle in a junior league AND out-played Rangers? Which is it? Or are Rangers worse than a Junior team? How do you KNOW the first assertion anyway? Why don't these Junior players play in the SFL or even the SPL? No ambition? Should we sign Junior league players as they are better than ours? I really don't get your logic.

Might just be a European record - 60k in Brazil. http://m.sambafoot.com/en/news/24837_fourth-tier_game_attracts_60_000_spectators.html/ However, world records are incidental to what was a remarkable turnout. Who were the guys on here who promised us crowds of no more than about 20k? I'm sure they called themselves realists...

Fair points...

The trouble with a lot of these "wouldn't it be funny" ideas is that usually, it wouldn't... They would probably just see us as a bunch of subservient Uncle Toms. It's a bit like their, "Wouldn't it be funny if we went to Ibrox with a load of ice cream and jelly and fireworks?" You rarely get one over on people with these type of "pranks", you end up just looking a bit sad.