calscot

The thing about RDB is that he was a good player for us, classy at times, except he never looked like he was really trying. He was very good but not great but it always looked like he would be fantastic if he really wanted to and pulled his finger out. I was always a wee bit underwhelmed by him - although he usually played very well - I just thought he looked like he could do a lot better if he tried.

To be fair to Ally, he fitted into the team no problem, but the manager preferred Mo Johnson to partner Hateley. As we were winning, you could hardly criticise the manager and there is the fact that Mo was a great player.

PS Just wondering, could we buy up a bankrupt Championship team and move them to Ibrox and play two sister clubs in two leagues? A bit like we did with basketball a while back? I take it that's against the rules but with the possible get out clause that we're still in the same country - for the moment...

The pedant in me wants to point out that Berwick Rangers are not a good example of cross border membership as they were originally in Scotland until the border was changed for constituency reasons. Cardiff, Swansea and Wrexham are special cases as they were members of the FA before UEFA even existed. Rangers were also a member of the FA but left to join the newly formed SFA as Scottish teams in those days struggled afford the travelling expenses of going to London etc. In fact I think Queens Park forfeited the FA cup as they couldn't afford to travel to a replay after they drew in the final. I think Cardiff and Swansea have shown how successful we could be in the EPL as they don't have the same scale of support as the Glasgow teams due to being a smaller population where football is the second sport. However, I can't see how much different we would be to the likes of Newcastle who have struggled even to compete for a long time, although are doing well now. I think with the lead in finances from the Likes of Man U, Man City (artificially), Chelsea (semi-artificially) and Arsenal, we'd struggle to ever break into the top four. When you consider Liverpool's wealth, sixth to 10th would be our level in my opinion, fighting it out with the likes of Newcastle, Tottenham, Everton and Aston Villa as well as the in form teams of the season like Stoke at the moment. I think we have a better branding and size of following than most of those, on a par with Newcastle and so could have an advantage there. But that could be offset by lower incomes meaning lower ticket prices. I also think we usually punch above our weight against English teams which comes from a different playing environment and a winning mentality, both of which would be lost after a few years. I don't really WANT us to join the English league but the way things are going I don't think we can afford not to. In fact the longer we stay in the SPL and the bigger the financial gap becomes, the more nervous I get about our future in the European game. I really can't stand seeing what was a minnow compared to us like Swansea, totally out muscling us in the recruitment of players. The fact we're now poorer than a Welsh team is pretty depressing.

After cooper I used to quite like Bobby Russell and Jim Bett. Oh Yeah, and Derek Johnstone - in fact I think he was my hero before Cooper due to his 41 goals one season when I was about 7 - it was the first time I read an article in the newspaper and have been reading them from back to front since (if I ever get to the front that is).

I have four bikes and an unfortunate handicap where I only have the ability to ride one at a time. I don't use them all equally and newish one hardly gets much use at all despite being relatively expensive. Should I have not bought it? Probably, but it has come in very handy on quite a few occasions due to its inherent qualities - it's a Brompton folding bike. But how I choose which bike I ride is sometimes obvious and sometimes less so and even sometimes arbitrary with a bit of favouritism. To outsiders it not only could seem strange about which bike I use or even why I have four bikes to start with. But I wouldn't want to have to justify it to any except perhaps my partner due to the considerable financial outlay. And if I'm getting results in fitness, ability and transport, I wouldn't see why I should change my selection policy.

The first goalie I remember was the Girvan Lighthouse - Peter McCloy. I don't suppose he inspired that many budding keepers unless they were of the lighthouse variety.

Calm down a bit, I was only emphasising my large sense of disagreement in a slightly mock polemic but common way and I'd think Craig knows my style well enough and is obviously good natured enough to take it in good humour. I've "known" him online long enough see him as more of a kind of mate (at at least internet-wise) and I think that's a pretty normal way to respond to a mate (actually it's a bit more polite than the usual "bollocks" you'd use for a close friend) although perhaps it doesn't always come across as intended. I never think I'm always right - I always listen to others when they make good sense to me and in fact I think that improves the quality of my opinions as, if I think your argument is better than mine then I'll adopt your argument as my new opinion. I'm always upgrading in this way and rarely entrenched. I may be assertive when I make a stance but it is usually backed up by a lot of rational thought on both sides as well as facts and figures. I also qualified the whole sentence by saying "I think". I could have said "that doesn't make sense to me" which would be a more polite way of saying the same thing but when you get over-polite the sense of banter can be lost. You may love or hate Jeremy Clarkson but I can't imagine he'd be anywhere near as popular if he suddenly became Mr PC - and I don't think I'm anywhere in his league. I don't think I'd have had the same reply from you if your views weren't so diametrically opposed to mine on the subject. If he wasn't weak he wouldn't have backed down from a confrontation where he clearly would have eventually won had he had the tenacity. I'm not suggesting he's inherently weak but the toughest of warriors is effectively weak when he just can't be bothered which I think this is a case of. I don't see how it was the cheap option - Le Guen could have made it the more expensive option as Barry could even have be sold for a fee whereas a manager has to be paid off. But I think he was happy just to call it quits. Anyway, you seem to be arguing on both sides here - you are arguing on the side that he was weaker than Ferguson - being weaker than a player makes a manager weak in my eyes. Advocaat always has problems in the dressing room as he is a control freak and grown men especially with large egos can only take so much of that. However, he seems to keep control of the dressing room for more than half a season while also usually getting some good results on the field. I believe he would have no qualms about insisting on the removal of a ring leader of trouble makers. However, it usually eventually goes pear-shaped for him and like Le Guen, he walks away. McLeish also had problems but he stuck it out for four and a half years. I didn't see SDM taking the "cheap option" there. All managers have dressing room problems - look at Newcastle for a while. How the chairman deals with it depends on the mettle of the manager - or whether he is up for the fight or not. Walter Smith is a much maligned manager and yet he was always in control - and also produced the goods EVERY season he was manager. Le Guen may have been more gifted than him (although I haven't really seen much evidence) but he basically couldn't hack the Rangers job, for whatever reason. You may think I'm anti-Le Guen but I seen him as the messiah when he came, only for him to be exposed as a false prophet. I really don't remember anything special about the type of football we played but I do remember the disappointment of so many bad results. If we were playing well without Fergie then PLG shouldn't have changed the team - captain or not, simple. But I basically think how Barry played is irrelevant. It's the manager's job to get results with the squad he has and to adjust the contents of the squad as well as he can to accommodate his plans. Demoting a captain is a big deal, but you have to be able to do a dirty job and ride the criticism in high profiles jobs. Putting your head on the block goes with the territory. You have to wonder what is better, to punish and be criticised but be your own man or back down and be criticised and look weak. i give managers a lot of respect and don't expect miracles, but when the results are consistently poor and we're not competing at all, then they fall off their pedestals. McCoist may be having problems at the moment but he's still in the hunt for the title which is way better than Le Guen was. You can argue all you like about how the Frenchman needed more time, but the cold, hard conclusion is that he just wasn't interested in having it gifted to him. I think you are doing a dis-service to SDM here with no evidence. It seems more likely to me that Walter put his foot down and asserted his authority, whereas PLG acted like the weak teacher who runs to the head when the class gets out of control. I suppose I give credence to the hearsay that SDM was willing to back PLG if the latter was committed to the cause but that wasn't the answer he got. Ew-woo-oo!

Maybe it's just me but I get the impression (quite often rather than just right now) that some seem to cast aspersions on the club's professionalism for the heinous crime of not playing player X. I seem to recall that the club can only put a maximum of 11 players on the pitch plus 3 substitutes. Perhaps it is unprofessional to sign more than 14 players? BUT it is obvious that more players are needed for cover for the entire season due to injuries, suspensions, form and tactics. However, there is no compulsion to play all of the players and I can't see why or even how they should all get a regular game. The professionalism for a club is reflected by the results and although we're now in second place it's only a couple of points and our total points haul is probably above average. There is no evidence that we would have gained more points by playing different players. The manager chooses the team and is judged on his results. He will take a lot of stuff into account from the vastly superior knowledge he has of his squad compared to a fan (and vastly superior knowledge of football in general). Not only that, we all make pressurised decisions that will take a lot of stuff into account including intuition. Fair enough to try and speculate as to what those factors are, but to harshly judge someone on their decisions when the outcome is far from favourable, to me is a bit bitter tasting. And there is no doubt that groundless, negative judging is being done. To me, I put it down to the modern day obsession with every man and his dog being a constant critic.

Cooper for me too... Laudrup was a legend but I'm too old for him to be the first.

To be pedantic it might be wrong to say the negotiations "failed". You could say they succeeded in concluding a deal was not in both parties interests. If a player is just too greedy or a club just undervaluing them to much then you can hardly say the other side "failed". Rangers really have to cut our cloth according to our income sans Champions league windfalls but players don't seem to be seeing the reality of the situation. Sometimes they can find more money elsewhere but as you see, it often doesn't turn out that well for them. I just hope that both parties are at least in the same ball park for perceived remuneration BEFORE the trials. I get the impression that some players come thinking Rangers are still a rich club that throws money around like confetti.

I think it's nonsense to say he controlled the club - absolute tosh. He didn't seem to have much power compared to Walter Smith. To me what happened was that Le Guen was half hearted, weak and floundering and had little respect left at the club. The difference was that Ferguson was still respected. I'm convinced SDM would have backed Le Guen had the Frenchman shown some cajones for the fight and the longterm as well as an ounce of evidence that he could do the job required. He showed neither and buggered off at the first difficult hurdle. You don't sack a captain, legend and popular player like Barry and totally disrupt the team for a manager who is likely to either quit or be fired by the end of the season. Walter Smith came in and had no trouble with the dressing room or in getting results and he easily got shot of Bazza when he'd had enough of him. Le Guen may be a great manager elsewhere and a great man, but at Rangers he was pathetic in so many areas - and looked like his heart was never in the job. I'm glad Barry stood up to him because we got rid of him before he took us into the doldrums and then likely deserting the ship like a rat.

Very intelligent and circumspect article. Good job . Elsewhere on that site it says we're after Celik - with a name like that, surely not!

Davis is our captain and considered one of our best players and so is very hard to drop - although wasn't there complaints on here that he wasn't getting a run in his preferred position and that he would automatically play brilliantly there? In the modern game a team also needs a defensive, central midfielder which is why Edu or McCulloch get a game. Bedoya and McKay don't seem able to adapt to that job - whereas Bartley does. However, both of them are supposed to be capable of playing on the wing - so why did Aluko beat them to that slot - as well as Papac and Wallace? I can't imagine both of them being bought for only being able to play Davis' position. Players have to be versatile these days. However, squads sizes are there for coping with injuries and suspensions and that's when fringe players get their chance. People are always going on about "competition for places" well it seems to me that's happening with Bedoya and McKay not competing well enough. No-one outside Ibrox knows the full reasoning but then that's how it should be...

I think it looks cheap, old fashioned and amateurish. They should take a leaf out of BBC's book: bbc.co.uk, which takes tablet pc's and phones into account and has a fresh, modern look which is quick to assimilate. It's also not a great time to start using Flash for video as loads of people now have those crippled, Apple style devices that are not capable of playing them... Ironically they've got an app for that but not one for Android. However, the video automatically plays which is really annoying both for the inadvertent noise which can be embarrassing and when you have a download limit. The ad banner at the top is particularly cringe-worthy and makes it look like they've used some FREE webspace provider. Pathetic. All round poor job in my eyes.

Another thread of why isn't such and such getting a run in the team... Sometimes I wonder if people realise that you only get to put 11 players on the pitch and that every result counts - particularly so at Rangers. There is very little room for experimentation and when we have that luxury in friendlies, the fans call it meaningless. If you pick any player, it means another doesn't play and I've already seen threads complaining one player wasn't getting a game and then when that player gets a run someone complains the guy he replaced isn't getting a game... It's not easy being a manager and I'm sure all the armchair experts on here could be managing a big club if they could be bothered but there is a lot more to it than the computer version. The manager sees all the players on a daily basis and his job is on the line every time he pens the teamsheet. Fans of every team complain about the team picks so EVERY manager has "baffling choices", yet they get paid millions a year - so why aren't those fans showing their nous by working their way up the ranks? There has to be a reason that the likes of McKay isn't getting a game whereas the likes of Aluko goes straight into the team. McKay has had a couple of chances and the fans weren't impressed, Aluko had a chance and completely grasped the nettle putting in the kind of performances that earns him a regular start. McKay must either be not fit enough, not showing enough in training, not show the right attitude or not fitting in well. It's easy to say we've wasted money on players but just because you look at a player and think he's good enough to sign, doesn't mean he will play well for you. Players are human and very esoteric in that sense. There are loads of players that have not been given much game time and then punted. They rarely make a big name for themselves elsewhere. Ironically we did have a player who was getting picked much to the chagrin of the fans. That led to him losing his confidence and had to be sold as the fans were on his back. He's now a £9M player playing for Liverpool. Compare and contrast with the fans favourite sob story, Alan Gow... There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but to assert the implication that you are "more professional" than the management team when you couldn't get a boot polishing job at Gayfield Park, never mind Ibrox, is egotistical in the extreme.

It was 1994 when Chris Sutton signed for a British record £5M. Not long after that we were spending £4M on players. The British record paid is now £50M. It follows that spending £2M now would be like spending £200k in the mid 90's - let's be conservative and say £400K. It's peanuts compared to England currently and in relative terms to what we used to spend, which is why we're not getting the same relative quality as before. Basically inflation has been massive while our income has not changed and money is much tighter with the overspend and tax bill looming over us. For me, we *should* be blowing the budget on a £2M player as that's the minimum of quality we need. If we can get bargains of the same standard cheaper as well then we should obviously go for it.

To be fair on Ally, Barcelona would be like Gordon Ramsay in his own kitchen doing Ready, Steady, Cook after taking away the truffle from his very expensive 11 supplied ingredients but still allowing him to use most of his store cupboard and walk-in fridge. For Ally it's more like cooking from a piss-head student's kitchen after removing the mince (the only meat) from his 11 supplied Tesco Value ingredients with a pretty empty cupboard and mouldy fridge to fall back on. Even RSC veteran Ainslee Hariot would need *something* to work with.

Heard he missed a couple of sitters which seems to happen a lot for him. So while he scores a few, he doesn't seem to instil total confidence in the fans.

Players are often typically worth the remainder of their wages for their contract (or maybe upped to what they've been offered for a renewal). Miller on 20 grand a week for 20 weeks makes £400k. Sandaza can't be worth more than £100k at a push. Of course the selling club can ask whatever they want and the ultimate value is what a buying club are willing to pay to complete a deal.

Is there such a manager? When was the last time the OF had one of those that was successful? The most successful OF managers in recent decades generally have had loads of money to spend. Walter is up there without much money to spend but he was highly criticised for his team sheets. Just who are we comparing McCoist to? He's 4pts ahead and looks like he's heading for 96 pts. Not to be sniffed at. Walter had to be cheated out of winning all four championships in his second spell, won a load of cups and got to a European final where he wasn't given a decent chance due to the fixture pileup. I'm all for these mythical great managers who balance team sheets with sides that play fantastic football while having a production line of world class youth players - all on a current Rangers budget, but just who are they? And would they come to us? Loads of manager do well in one place and then rubbish when they move - PLG for instance. So is there any guarantee even if we could bring such a guy in? And you say it would be cheaper???

I'd argue it's a pretty silly song to sing at a football match - and really doesn't make the slightest sense unless you're from County Down - and even then it's still a bit of a strange song. In fact it's one of the weirdest songs sung at Ibrox which completely misses the point of supporting a football team. Can we not just ditch that kind of crappy baggage? All it does is make us more like them.

Got to say I'm in with the "less is more" crowd. And dark text on light background is definitely easier on the eye.

How about the Kilmarnock v ICT game? It ended 3-6...

I must admit that I thought our fans had a terrible attitude when we started getting flagged up to UEFA and that's why we eventually were banned from attending an away game. We should have been clever and just cleaned up our act. However, most of our fans realise that what they are doing is at best a bit naughty and so given enough threat will start to behave. In contrast, the majority of their fans AND their club don't think they are doing the slightest thing wrong and I really think that denial is going to bite them big time - and it's already starting to nibble... I can see them going into meltdown with UEFA because of their defiance. The poet justice is that if they hadn't grassed up Rangers fans, they'd still be under the radar. They really deserve all that's coming to them.