calscot

But if that's your hobby and you enjoy it, what's the difference in someone spending say 60 quid on Opera tickets or 100 quid on AC/DC tickets or 30 quid on a nice bottle of wine etc? Except they will definitely not see their money again.

I can't see an angry, violent nutter holding back on a woman who is probably attacking him and trying to restrain him. I'm not blaming her but when you're in some sort of a fight, gender doesn't really come into it when both are involved. If I was being heavily attacked by a bunch of women then I don't think I'd be holding back and letting them beat me because of their gender. I realise this guy is the protagonist and guilty party in this case but I think the principles of engagement will be the same. To be honest without knowing the details my first thoughts would be to doubt he just attacked a police woman but would infer that he was causing trouble, was confronted by police, got in a fight with them and because the likely weakest one was a woman, she came off the worst among the police. It doesn't make it right in any way, but I think the gender side of it may be irrelevant. Anyway, I assume the guy will deservedly be locked up for assaulting a police officer and probable ABH.

Our current problem is that that is already the case... We've lost Naismaith, Lafferty, most of Wylde, Davis to lack of form and a very underperforming Jelavic with Wallace/Papac and Healy acting as very poor deputies. Ally doesn't seem to have enough confidence in Bedoya, McKay, Kerkar and Fleck either. Our attacking options have gone from excellent to poor in the space of half a season. With the defence also not performing anywhere near previous standards, it's no wonder we're dropping points all over the joint. You've got to wonder if it's all just bad luck, bad player attitude or bad/naive/inexperienced management - but it's probably a combination of all three and I'd personally err on the "inexperienced" side of the last option. Ally's been good when things are going well but he's not been coping when things have gone pear shaped - although you'd have to give him a wee bit of slack for the way his hands have been tied in terms of the squad. Hopefully Walter is dishing out the advice over the phone and Ally is heeding it.

Which is why people almost always end up losing? I like the idea that someone may have betted on Celtic when they were nine points behind and now betting on Rangers - as long as the odds are better than even you're guaranteed to win. The only flaw is that you don't know that the odds will ever change as we could have romped league from such a good start and you'd end up losing money on a bet on Celtic - very hard to swallow.

I'd like a new right back, we have two under-performing ones who are injured anyway and so will struggle to get back to fitness and on form any time soon, and Bartley looked like he was all over the place against Aberdeen (in the brief highlights on BBC) and was highly at fault for their goal.

He's scored 10 in the SPL and is fourth top scorer behind Jelavic (14), Hooper (12) and Daly (11).

In what way are they giving us a decent test? In the 11 years we've been playing the split and 38 games, Rangers have averaged 85 points per season, if you extrapolate our current haul to the end of the season (simplistic I know but let's keep it simple) then we could be heading for 87 points total and so slightly above average. We have won the league with 87 and 86 points in that time. Celtic have averaged about 91 points in the same period and now look to be heading for 93 points and so they are also performing above average. Of course, we have to play the better teams more times in the rest of the season but an adjustment for that still makes both side look average and definitely not worse. Statistically Rangers don't seem to be playing that badly as we top the shots and shots on target table as well as conceding the least goals. It just seems we're not converting those chances enough. Turning a 9 point lead into a 4 point deficit in a matter of months shows a very worrying lack of form but a season is more than a bad run, it takes the good runs into account too. What are the odds against us going on another long unbeaten run while Celtic break their good run with a couple of bad results? Not very high I in my opinion. Celtic fans could have written off their season (and probably did) when they were 12points behind with one less game played but look where they are now - what were the odds of that? I'd rather be in our position now than their's then and we're close enough to still be in the hunt - although I can see the negatively coming from the team's form not suggesting a great turnaround is imminent. However, good runs and bad runs usually come to an end fairly quickly and virtually the same squad have shown they can get the results. I would say that nothing is predictable between the fortunes two OF sides at the moment and only total losers give up at the first sign of adversity. A few gave up this time last year and just looked like pathetic surrender monkeys come the final day. I think the best thing that supporters can do, is to get behind the team and support them and the manager. The latter is not a failure quite yet.

It seems to me then that if a CEO makes a real difference he should be rewarded however, if he's doing badly why should he have a hefty notice period? It doesn't seem to be in the interests of the company and also doesn't really make sense to normal people why you would have to pay someone a fortune to bugger off because they are crap at their job. I never said all CEO's are easily replaced but I'm sure Jobs didn't have the equivalent of a Billion dollar severance if he was sacked after taking Apple to the brink of bankruptcy. Anyway not the best example for me as I thought what the guy did with apple was quite evil - you can be evil in many ways and I think taking capitalism to extremes to fleece ordinary people out of money while pulling the wool over their eyes is pretty evil. You can go on about the lovely goods he supplied people but isn't it supposed to be the devil who gives great gifts but then later takes your soul in return...? He took Apple from the brink to being the richest company in the world by being the worlds greatest swindler. I don't know why that should be rewarded - more like criminalised. That's one of my points so glad you agree. We can see why we need to pay Jelavic £1M a year but we'd annoyed if we gave the same to a very average SFL player who didn't show any competence or any empathy for the club. I really can't see what Bain did that was worth more than an average executive wage - and I'm stretching there. I'd have preferred having you in the position instead of Bain - although I still wouldn't want you to be paid £600k a year plus bonus... I actually think the wage comes arbitrarily due to the fact that it might be considered insulting for a CEO to be paid far less than a significant proportion of the staff... However, with Bain hardly in demand and the role not seemingly requiring some kind of guru, I don't see why we can't bring someone competent in for a decent salary but with one month salary per year worked redundancy built in - and the possibility to easily make them redundant if key performance indicators are not met. I can't see how it's legal to lay off 4000 average wagers at a time and yet illegal to do so for an executive.

I thought you were saying something profound in latin there till I got it...

One thing about the way English clubs are spending money is that they are investing in the current squad for the here and now and not doing much for the future. This is very good for us as it means that we're not really suffering with the present difference in income and could easily catch up in a few seasons if we gained entry to their league or one which gave us parity in TV and sponsorship money.

Yes, I think Newcastle showed that but then they currently show that you can't keep a big club down. It doesn't guarantee success but it certainly helps in the long run.

I think Jelavic will be happy staying while the calibre of the clubs who are after him are of such a low level. He will not be less marketable in the summer, especially if he has a good European Championship and so will probably not be in a hurry to move as yet. I can't see him being here next season though, but hopefully he'll go to a decent club for a proper fee.

The thing I find strange and against common sense is that Bain was responsible for the financial HEALTH of the club - surely he and the board should have a duty to have some kind of severance policy in place that doesn't financially HARM the club - even for sacking CEO's. Why should a CEO be given around £600k a year plus a couple of hundred grand bonus and yet still have something like 10 times more severance protection than you're average Joe who could easily lose his house or struggle to afford life's basics if made unemployed? Shouldn't the poorer people have more protection than the rich? After all, Bain's wage for the last couple of years is more than most people earn in a lifetime. In fact the CEO is such an IMPORTANT job, it should have far LESS security so that they can be replaced easily and cheaply to save the company from mismanagement. In the viewpoint of the businesses I see why they should be allowed more than a few months notice to let them go for any reason - it should be in the nature of the job. Instead companies are forced either limp along with a poor CEO or almost bankrupting themselves trying to replace them. A former custodian of a company suing them for more than they can afford and freezing their assets just seems some kind of oxymoron to me. In the end I really can't see how people like Bain can be worth their wage - especially seeing as you could save your company about 600k a year by replacing them with someone competent on a pretty decent 200k a year... I can't see how Bain was like a highly sought after star striker and worth the extra dosh to make a massive difference. Using a euphemism, what he was paid seems criminal to me.

Unless we're really strapped for cash and lowering our ambitions even from the last few seasons of parsimony, then I can't see the point of selling Jelavic for less than double what we paid him. If he was worth £4M to us as a bargain then, at a time of fiscal prudence, then why would we want to cash him in now for not much more than we laid out for him? It only leaves a hole in the team that would take another £6M risk on a new, equivalent player to fill. Or we make do with virtually no star players - and we know how teams like that fare in a two horse race - too many dropped points to have a hope of winning the league.

While I think we'd survive without too much problem in the EPL (and eventually prosper) and should quickly work our way up our way through the leagues, I think the most difficult part of getting there would be gaining promotion from the Championship. It looks like a very difficult league to get to the top of and while I've no doubt we'd eventually get there, it could take several seasons when many fans' patience would be severely tested. The immense pressure to succeed would just make things so much harder and I could imagine us losing in the play-offs more than once. More money, a decent fan base and having the choice of Scottish talent is not always a great advantage as Middlesbrough showed recently. I could see us borrowing a lot to put together an expensive team to get us there and then risking suffering big time if it didn't pay off. Even if we were promoted to the EPL we'd initially be handicapped by repaying the debts to get there. There is an endemic debt ridden overspend in the lower reaches of the EPL and I think that would affect us more than most until we made a consistent success of it. To be honest, football is broken by the financial aspects in most countries and England more so than any. For a parochial long term survival viewpoint we'd probably be better staying where we are and drawing up some agreement with Celtic where we instil some kind of spending limit and agree for both to run debt free. It would make it a level playing field for both clubs in which they could both be financially secure, and they'd still both be miles ahead of the rest. Europe aside, there is really little need for the OF to get into the same debt cycle of the EPL yo-yo clubs. We should have done this over 10 years ago when we realised the situation we were in after Advocaat and both clubs could have been financially healthy right now.

Maybe Whyte just has Bains' number and doesn't want to pay him a penny...

I think the point of a closed doors game is that what happens inside is private and you then give as much info as you feel is right for the circumstances. Negotiations are usually delicate and there are rival bids to be concerned about. You also don't want to give too much away as the fans reaction could influence things.

I may have had an overemphasised negative feeling from the posts but maybe people are being less critical than it seemed. However, I didn't see anyone being unrealistically optimistic about it to bring back down to earth and surely the whole venture had a lot of pre-thought and planning which will not have been totally unrealistic?

I have a permanent contract so would I get 23 years wages? :fish: I would suggest the suing itself and the freezing of assets reduces his chances the most... If he really has a case then there would be no reason not to employ him. Yeah, I was generalising but they still seem to be obscenely recompensed while the country is in crisis.

BTW is it not the case that "criminal" is sometimes a euphemism for "morally unjust" - especially in Scotland.

How much are you really due if you are sacked? Most people get nowt and just have to get another job or sign on. Tell you something, if employers have any common sense, Bain will really struggle to get another job now. I can't see how any company would touch him with a bargepole. But then my kind of logic doesn't seem to fit when it comes to high wage earners. I really don't know how most of them deserve to earn such ludicrous amounts and get away with some of the stuff they do. The bankers are a huge case in point.

Not sure how this will work but at least they are being proactive. I really don't get the wave of criticism and negativity - especially when the club have been highly criticised on here for ignoring foreign markets in the past. It just seems the club can't win - or people don't half love to moan... :fish:

What like Arsenal? And win as many titles as them? "Developing youths" by playing them is a complete fallacy. No you weren't. You couldn't have been more wrong. He's been very near the first team for about four years but hasn't shown he's better than the first picks. In that time he's played 59 times with 26 starts. How is that "not near"? You doing that weird argument again that taken to its logical conclusion would mean we'd be playing a full U21 team with the first team sitting on the bench. The cream of the youngsters who prove themselves get regular places and not playing from a very young age doesn't seem to do the best of them any harm. MacGregor, Wilson, Ness and Wylde have all had plenty of game time after they proved themselves. Games this season: McMillan 3 Perry 4 Fleck 5 Ness 2 Wylde 20 Bendiksen 3 Hemmings 3 Bartley 10 We've also signed a lot of young players who get into the first team in their early 20's because they are ready and they are at the time, better than our young players: Broadfoot, Wallace, Whittaker, Edu, Davis, Naismith, Aluko and Lafferty - or is 24 retirement age now? Maybe there is a reason for that - notwithstanding the strange omission of Wylde - or is he ironically so established he doesn't count any more? Sounds like we could play a team of U21s for a whole season and you'd want them all ousted for untried younger players. What is a "chance" to you? Three games? Or does it need to be a lot more? I thought a chance would be one game - a "chance" to show you are the best man for the job. If you don't take that chance then how is that the management's fault. Rangers are not in the business of developing youths, they are in the business of winning trophies. Other teams are half filled with the best youngsters in Scotland as it's cheaper. Funny how we usually tend to be miles ahead of those teams despite playing our rubbish oldies isn't it?

During the 90's we had a far greater profile and perhaps some grudging respect. Now we're seen as an irrelevance and if they called us Mickey Mouse then, I can't imagine what term they would make up for us now. As for struggling initially with our current squad, I think there is no chance we'd keep the same team. We'd borrow on the future income and sign quite a few better players - speculate to accumulate. Mid table would still not be guaranteed - but if Swansea and Norwich can do it, then there is no reason why not. There's also no reason we couldn't compete with the likes of Stoke and Sunderland given the £50M of TV money. I think people are giving Premiership teams far more respect than they deserve. Most of them are at an artificial level based purely on the TV money. How well they do is basically based on how well they spend that money. The TV money is such a majority of their income that it means they are much of a muchness in wealth in the middle which is why that part of the table looks pretty random. It's easy to fail and be relegated if you spend badly - then it's really hard to get back in, although the parachute payment helps. I would think we could have the edge over most of them in total finances as well as the boost from size of the support and the ethos of the club. While in the Premiership I also think we could attract better players than the likes of Stoke or West Brom as in my opinion we'd have a lot more to offer than just a wad of cash. To say we'd definitely struggle seems to just be negative defeatism to me and doesn't hold much water. To me it's a toss of the coin.

Yeah it was a long time ago and the MoJo aspect was the main bit in my memory.