calscot

I can't see how a youth system could have any sort of formula for producing the best of the best talent in Scotland on some kind of conveyor belt. I really can't see what we can do that would vastly surpass the combined efforts of 41 other clubs across the country just because we have good facilities and a top coach and scout. The reason that Rangers' youth system doesn't produce as many first team players as some people think it should is that to play for Rangers you have to be in the best 10 or so players in the country as we only have room in our first 11 for about five local lads. Make it top 30 when it comes to being a squad player. It's just not going to happen. Man U are probably the top club in the UK for young talent with far more resources than us and with 10 times the population to choose from and yet they spend hundreds of millions on their team... To be fair, I think MP has produces its fair share of decent players - most of whom have left for one reason or another. It only took 20 first team games for Danny Wilson to be pounced on by a far richer club. The unreasonable demands of the fans drove out another young player, Adam, who made it in a less hostile environment and got picked up for a lot of money by the same rich team. Another promising young player was injured and never came back to his previous form. Hutton became a great player and was bought for a fortune by Spurs. Wylde has just moved to Premiership side Bolton due to our finances. Chris Burke wasn't conisidered good enough but now plays for Birmingham in the Championship. Same with Ross McCormack with Leeds Utd. Then there are plenty not good enough for Rangers but who play for other SPL clubs. So in the first team we are left with one of the best keepers in the UK... Others that we have coming through are Jamie Ness, Ross Perry, Andy Little, Kane Hemmings, John Fleck, Rhys McCabe, Kyle Hutton and Darren Cole, all who have played for the first team in the last year. So to me, I think we are doing about as well as could be expected in terms of developing youth.

I was actually thinking though that donating was a mistake... What I should have done is buy a couple of tickets to a home game and give them to a couple of young supporters who can't afford them. Maybe that's what a lot of us should do to increase the support behind the team AND "donate" money. But then I suppose the tax man gets 20%...

When it comes to tax, one is legal and the other is not. Pretty black and white. For example, an ISA is tax avoidance, getting paid cash in hand and putting in a tax return saying you earned half the amount is tax evasion. Here's an even simper version of tax avoidance: You don't like paying VAT but you want to give your co-workers a treat on your birthday - so instead of biscuits, you buy cakes... You've just avoided 20% tax. Tax evasion: you sell someone some biscuits but on your tax return you put cakes and so pocket the VAT. However, it does get a lot more complicated and when done aggressively it starts getting to the stage whether the veracity of the motives behind the scheme can be tested. In the case of Rangers they used a loophole where money could be placed in an offshore account administered by trustees. If they give discretionary amounts to people without anything in return without obligation, the payments are not liable for tax. The question is whether in Rangers case the amounts were obligated, discretionary and whether anything was received in return - eg playing for a team in professional football matches.

Seems a bit of a silly threat. To be honest, I can't see that much difference between the teams at the bottom half of the league and the top half of Divisiion 1. If they resign, we just need to promote 8 to 12 clubs. That would leave the other clubs outside the league structure and if they start their own league, it would be outside the umbrella of the SPL, SFL, SFA, UEFA and FIFA. They probably wouldn't get a TV deal and their attendances wouldn't hold up much in a meaningless league. They would end up having to apply to join the SFL and at best be playing in Division 1. The way they've been treating Rangers lately and with only the motives of pure self interest on display as usual, I'd be tempted to call their bluff.

Just read the Times article and don't understand it at all. Who exactly is denying Lennon his human rights? Firstly, it seems to me that his human rights were not denied. We have no human right to go anywhere we want in this world, be it because of rules, of danger, threat of danger or perceived threat of danger. But in the end, I can't see how Lennon was barred from going anywhere. Rangers invited him to sit in the stand and he turned it down on the advice of his own security people. I doubt his security people would have physically stopped him from going to the stand and so I can only assume that the person who made the final decision to not go to the stand was Lennon himself. So there was no immediate danger and no-one physically stopping him. Just what is the problem? Seems to me he exercised his free will. If someone advises me not to go near a big hole in the ground and I decide to give it a large berth, are my human rights being infringed by someone? It's just ridiculous. It's the most contrived and exaggerated version of victimhood I've ever seen in my life. On a final note, the only person who stopped Lennon doing his job is himself. He misbehaved in the process of his job and was sent off. Can a sent off player do his job? Or is the referee stopping him from doing so? How is that different from the HMRC picking on Craig Whyte and stopping him from doing his job? Seems to me that if a manager is sent off, just like a player he should be uninvolved for the rest of the game.

Anyone else a bit disappointed by that total? Especially with reports of about half of it coming from corporate donations... Either the vast majority of fans are not donating or I donated a way above average amount even though it wasn't exactly huge and was what I expected the normal amount to be...

Novo and Weiss also tweeted something similar...

Can't see us coming out of admin or being sold until the tax ruling is made...

Come on, it's not true. How would you like it if because a ring of people were convicted of paedophilia in your town that you are now automatically labelled as a paedophile as you're from the same town? And the name caller's defence is that it is true... I think being called a paedophile when you're not is pretty offensive to a "reasonable person".

I can't believe we didn't sign him on a longer contract when he showed what he could do - before administration. I can't see him staying if anyone comes in with a similar wage offer or better. Rangers are just not an attractive prospect at the moment, especially when you've already had to take a huge wage cut.

Is this true or a load of bollocks?

I think he saying it should have been a booking.

I think possibly the point is that in the heat of the moment you might put a swear word in without thinking. However, if you're repeatedly doing it, you should be able to notice this and modify your behaviour. As an incredibly highly paid professional it shouldn't be too difficult to zip it.

It's why the RST have such a bad rep these days.

Trouble is that McCoist just won't give Durrant a run in the team... I've heard he doesn't play youngsters.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it but it seemed to me that Ally was somewhat more impressed with Kennedy... With the little knowledge I have, I'm definitely preferring him myself.

I still don't get the bit about not being able to do his job. What could he do in the directors box that he couldn't do in the media room? It's not as if the players could hear him or had time to try and look for him for hand signals. He couldn't do his job because the broke the rules and got sent off. If he's complaining against the ref then it's as stupid as a player saying they couldn't do their job because they were sent off... Basically the problem is that he didn't want to allow the referee to do his job. As for slurring our country - where does he get that from? It's completely making it up as there is no evidence he needed to be protected. It's like going to a Dublin pub, mouthing off and calling people names until they get riled then leave. Then saying that Ireland is a crap country due to your girlfriend advising you not to go back to the pub for your own safety. So if I advise all of you not to go to Ireland for you own safety, then Ireland must be crap country full of shit people? Going by the same logic it must be true... Actually, couldn't a "reasonable person" be offended at what he said as it is racist?

Doesn't look too bad to me. Are you going to post a picture of your wife/girlfriend to let us see what your standards are? :fish:

What's Ticketus' position if no-one buys any season tickets? Ie everyone just does pay as you go - and spends the same amount. Some could make the money up by avoiding certain away games...

Yes. A basic flat in Monaco costs a million euros. To get residency you have to buy property AND deposit �100k in a Monaco bank. They reckon to live comfortably in Monaco you need an income of about 2 million euros. Below that and you're probably better off living in a cheaper country which charges tax. He's also bought Castle Grant and reputedly renovated it at a cost of £5M. So the guy must be worth at least £7M in personal wealth and probably quite a bit more considering his castle spend - you don't spend all your money on your property. So how come you don't get this despite sounding pretty knowledgeable on subject of money?

I think it's obvious he as access to plenty of cash - he just hides so well no-one can get any from him. BTW Stating the obvious but it seems to be overlooked a lot: billionaires don't have a billion in the bank. It's all tied up in their companies and investments.

What is there to be unhappy about? Imagine he bought Rangers in a debt free position, invests £40M of his own money and then sells the club to the fans for a quid. The only caveat is that he brings a top rugby team to rent a share of the stadium - but then that actually brings in more income. The only real problems are fixture clashes and the state of the pitch - which we could probably afford to keep in better nick. I think I'd be much happier at that scenario than I am with the last ten years of crap. So yes, I'd be happy.

The blade for harakiri is called a tanto. Funnily enough I was reading up on seppuku on Wikipedia recently...

Why would anyone admit to this unless there is an amnesty? And if there's an amnesty, surely that includes Rangers?

To me a supporter on the board would be a condition of me buying in to the share issue. They would have to put in some constitutional clause, where all the small shareholders get to vote on their representative on the board every couple of years - in proportion to their share holding. The representative gets to vote on all boardroom issues according to his election manifesto.