calscot

I agree with the sentiment of the piece although disagree about PLG. While Barry might possibly have been a "snake in the grass", I think PLG wrote his own exit visa. A highly regarded manager who lives up to his reputation will never be kicked out of a club before a player, and if he can really manage then he should be able to exert more influence on the squad than ANY player. Without meaning to be sycophantic to Walter, I really can't foresee that problem EVER happing to him. He knows how to manage even the most tempestuous of players. And when he gets it wrong, he holds his hands up. A full revolt must be difficult but should not happen to a manager who has brought in 13 of his own players. As for the great football under PLG, I think it lasted about 2 games, one of which we drew and the other we struggled to win - it then became some of the most dire football since Jock Wallace's second stint. You just have to listen to the interviews to realise Le Guen did not have a clue about how to make Rangers into a force, he never once said anything that made much sense or that agreed with what we saw on the pitch. He was in denial, and a guy who cannot even pronounce a club's name has obviously not done his research. The French have a different pronunciation of vowels but they still have all of them in their repertoire, all he needed to do was imagine the 'a' was an '�©' - 'R�©ngers'. It may sound like a petty point but I think it totally encapsulated his clueless tenure at Rangers. So what I'm saying is that while Barry may have delivered the Coup de Gras in the demise of PLG, it was the manager himself who put himself into a hopeless situation.

He'd have been punted while we kept Gattuso instead!

While Wier had a good season, his flaws are becoming more apparent with age and although I'm older than him, I'd like to see us start play someone younger and faster, with better distribution. Wier will make a great squad player but if we are to move up a level, we need a changing of the guard. Another Carlos would be immense but highly unlikely. Perhaps we need to send him to Aberdeen to be cloned... Dailly, I also welcome as a squad player, although I'd also like to add more quality to the central midfield ahead of him in the pecking order. In fact I'd like someone of high enough quality to change the guard there too- and replace Bazza to help us move up a level. Unfortunately it just won't happen yet. Anyway, I think it's good to keep some continuity of consistent performers in the squad, while bringing in some decent new blood. We obviously had a winning mentality last season that's been missing for a while.

I've no idea whether the stadium will be redeveloped - I was merely pointing out that if you base it solely on his track record then it probably will be. I know all about his smoke and mirrors to divert attention but like I say, let's have real criticism, rather than just making it up to demonise him. I for one think it will happen, as Frankie pointed out, it will bring business to his building company particularly during the credit crunch when other plans may be mothballed due to people not being able to borrow. Whether Rangers will be able to borrow is another matter but it shouldn't be a problem if underwritten by MIM.

As long as that's literal and not some euphemism for something pervy then you're probably right...

Yes, I get those two shady characters mixed up due to the same initials and similar sounding names, although I do realise Maxwell is deceased.

Can I refer the honorary gentleman to the reply I gve earlier... Sky are not evil for their service, it's Robert Maxwell's dubious, restrictive marketing practices that are from the dark side. I take it you really like Microsoft, BT, Tesco, Exxon and Darth Vader too?

Santa Coloma sounds like it could be my Brazilian name...

Gribz we're talking about Buffel, not Cuellar, so don't panic. I think it's obvious Buffel wasn't a good footballer, he was anonymous and hardly contributed in most of his games. I would say that is the mark of a very mediocre footballer at best. If you spent a lot of money for a car and a fortune every year on running costs, what does it say about the car when you never drive it and eventually give it away for free? We were silly before to think that we could get 1M for him with 3 years left on his contract when we should have let him go for free. That has cost us about 1.7M in wages. I think in the real world it's obvious he's not a sought after player when he's worth hee haw, and it's funny that you think a player worth nothing is better than one worth 3.5M. Even Adam would probably bring in about 1M. Gow is worth more at 250k. Barry may have had a poor season by his own standards but his best games were better than Buffel's best and his worst were better than Buffel's worst. The main reason Buffel stuck around is that no-one in the world thought he good enough for them to match his Ibrox wages and he would rather do bugger all at Ibrox than take a wage cut. With only one year left on his contract he obviously sees that it's better to take a cut for one year than try to find a club after three years of not playing. He (AND Gow) are just far too money oriented and part of what is wrong with the game. There may have been a clause in his contract meaning that Rangers would have to pay 400k if they played him, but would you pay a big fee for something you don't really want so you can use it a few times? I don't think so. I'll won't hold my breath to await Buffel's obvious meteoric rise in football after Rangers. I'm just glad we got one more greedy waster off the books.

He did, he had the pick of two teams but I can't for the life of me remember who they are as I'd never heard of them.

I doubt many teams were quaking in their boots at the thought of facing Buffel, ho ho.

I think there are a lot of negative people who need to eat some humble pie. They probably claim they are just realistic but nothing could be further from the truth. WS will NOT be getting less than 6M to spend, and he will NOT be selling all his best players to pay for the debt. I do think his budget depend on the sales of a couple of players like Cousin for instance - but it seems less players will leave than many thought - including Wier. Boyd, Carlos and MacGregor all seem to be staying. Webster has signed on permanently and Wier has extended. So Gow and Cousin are definitely for sale, Buffel is gone, and there are still doubts about whether Darcheville, Hemdani and McCulloch will stay - although the latter has also had an offer of him turned down. I pressume Faye will go back too and the proper transfer of Davis is in the balance. Dailly may stay on for a season and Smith the keeper might leave for the chance of a game. So I think we need a center back, maybe a left back, a right midfielder and an attacking central midfielder. I think that not making too many changes will help the team next season as they will obviously have gained from last season's experience and must be a decent unit. We needed enhancements to the squad rather than radical surgery and although the players we have signed have not overly impressed us, they do look like they might enhance the squad slightly.

You're right - there IS always some miserable git on the sofa at ALL parties... Ha, if we were stoned that revelation would keep us going for hours...

Just don't let Buffel join in the bouncy... he's rubbish at it.

I have a second hand Sky digibox, and my original freeview card now has Setanta on it. So yes and yes. As for outside Britain, it's against your contract but I'm not sure if they would know... Sky are quite strict about it for obvious local marketing reasons but I can't see Setanta checking up on anyone, it doesn't see their bag. However the further away you are from the Uk, the bigger the dish you will need and the dish will need a compatible LNB and be pointing at the right satellite cluster. France shouldn't be a problem but in the Balkans your dish could be so huge it could be tactically bombed as anti-aircraft radar station...

I agree with you Frankie that Ibrox held about 44000 but I think it was 36000 seats with about 8000 standing in the enclosure of the main stand. I just looked at your reference and it says: "A capacity of around 44,000 was considerably smaller than the 85,000 or so that had preceded it. However, the redeveloped Ibrox, with some 36,000 seats," The reason I specified it is that expanding from 44000 to 51000 was more complicated than just adding 7000 seats. If we'd just added seats to the enclosure the capacity would have gone down to something like 39000. Basically room had to be found for 15,000 seats, hence the club deck, lowering the pitch and filling in the corners. Like I said I'm not averse to Murray bashing but only for the real reasons. Have a go at him for making money out of it by all means, but no-one can honestly say he didn't deliver a revamped stadium and training facility. I have no problem if his companies do the next phase of work as long as we pay competitive rates and the quality is high. In fact that may motivate him to actually go out and do it rather than just musing about it, so it could be a good thing. So like I say, on delivering building projects, his track record is very good - it's for other stuff that he deserves the flak for.

Hmm, hasn't Murray's track record been to totally redevelop the Main stand with the club deck, new enclosure, massive new roof etc; to fill in the corners with the big screens; to lower the pitch adding quite a few rows; and to add about 500 new seats in the last year including Bar 72? Hasn't he increased the seating capicity from 36k to 51k while making the stadium UEFA five star? Hasn't he also built a 17M training centre and youth academy? Hasn't all this been at the cost of about 60M? I'm all for Murray bashing but staying objective, if you base anything on his track record, then I think it's pretty likely we'll have a revamped stadium soon... That to me, is not the area where he has not delivered - and in fact the stadium would definitely have a higher capacity if it wasn't for the short sightedness of the people who chose the three stands in the 80's before Murray arrived.

McCoist was more in charge of the team in the cups and Boyd played quite a bit in those competitions. McCoist obviously rates him.

Sky are worse than Microsoft for their attempts to control everything in satellite tv and make all the money themselves. If it wasn't for freeview we'd all be paying a fortune for basic packages. You cannot go out to any shop and buy a satellite dish and receiver box to watch Sky. You have to purchase it through them and you only get a decent one if you take out a big subscription. You can't buy a box with a hard disk recorder in it - you can only "upgrade" to a Sky+ box - BUT if you want to use it to record or watch two different channels you have to pay Sky �£10 per month! Or buy a premium subscription. It's even difficult to use two recievers to watch one channel on one and record the other - as Sky force the manufacturers to all use the same remote - so if you change the channel on one it'll change the channel on the other! I went for the free view option and they give me a crap box that ONLY had composite and rf out. I therefore had to buy one second hand that had RGB out. If it was open to everyone we'd be able to buy one with RGB, Component, S-Video, Composite AND Rf. And HDMI would be becoming the norm too. To get HDMI out you have to subscribe to sky HD which you can only do if you take out a premium package so a minimum of about 50 quid a month. You also cant reasonably choose your channels you have to buy them by the bundle - and they only get interesting at about 25 quid a month. They also charge you extra monthly to view your channels in another room! There are many other problems with Sky but this taster hopefully shows you that they are deliberately restricting the market to make them as much money as possible and leaving the customer with huge bills and little choice. On top of all this, you HAVE to have a land line which would cost me another 10 quid a month for something I don't need or want. Setanta have almost been a saviour as I'm only paying 10 quid a month in total, can record on my hard disk recorder without paying any more and can cancel with one months notice to go back to paying nothing. Sky's marketing model just does not agree with me logically or ethically and the only reason I have satellite at all is that BBC were showing the football a few years ago and living in England I needed Satellite to get BBC Scotland. Sky maybe better quality picture (I think Setanta have too small a bandwidth meaning they use high MPEG compression) but is it worth an extra �£500 per year? I'd rather use that money to upgrade my Home Cinema System... So Setanta may have a couple of idiots on the board but they are by far the lesser evil in my eyes.

Got to be said I hate Sky which is way overpriced and the system is far too proprietary - so I welcome an alternative like Setanta at a reasonable 10 quid a month. I haven't paid Sky a penny since they installed my sat freeview system on a one off payment and I hope I never do. I don't even have to have a land line anymore which saves me about �£130 a year for something I don't ever use (700 minutes per month on my mobile and I have mobile broadband). You can even get Setanta on digital terrestrial which means you actually get to be able to buy the receiver box that you want even with things like free "sky+" and HDMI out. Can't believe anyone is championing an evil company like Sky... The more competition from companies like Setanta the better a satellite system we'll get at much better prices. Please, please SPL, don't go to Sky!

The bad news is that Setanta's subscription will probably go up...

I think to fill in the corners with 6.5k seats, new cantilevers would have to be put in to hold up the roofs of all three stand as the "goalpost" supports would have to be removed for an unobstructed view. This would be very expensive per seat but if the capacity could be filled, worth it in the long term. Digging down is also a very expensive option per seat and causes some problems such as less space around the pitch, less light and most importantly, drainage challenges. There is also the possibility the roofs might no longer cover the front rows - a la Celtic Park. The light problem may be reduced by the hiring or buying of special lights in winter which someone rumoured was going to happen. Not the most environmentally friendly option, but better than replacing the pitch once or twice a year. About 500 seats could be added by emulating the Bar 72 club from the Govan stand on the two smaller stands. But that might already be included in the 6.5k. I personally quite like the idea of knocking down the three old stands and then building something like the Sapporodome with a pitch that moves in and out of the stadium. That would provide an immense venue which could be used all year round for a variety of events without the Scottish weather interfering. However the extra income would have to go towards the building loan rather than the team.

That's one good thing about Lafferty is that he's only 20. With him, Fleck and Furman on the bench, the U21 rule won't be so much of a drawback. Naismith helped in that regard last year. I think Lennon needs to go on loan as he hasn't had a game for about 2 seasons. He's a good prospect but well down the pecking order now.

I don't know how good Gow would be in the first team but then I don't know how well I would play for Rangers - does that mean I merit a run in the first team. The only predictor of future behaviour we have is past behaviour and in that sense, Gow showed no more potential or pedigree than Adam - in fact less so. However, the irony is that if Gow had played as much as Adam and to the same standard while Adam didn't get a chance, some people would be slagging of Gow and going on about Adam getting a chance. We can't give everyone a run in the team without it affecting the results, therefore players have to take their chances in the reserve team and on the training pitch. Gow obviously has had plenty of chances there but not taken them. Like I said, if he had more of a pedigree then there would be more of a point, but I think that would happen naturally.

The transfer window has a long way to go and you'd think it would be gratifying that we'd already spend 6M on three players. We also seem to be tying up players whom we don't want to leave. If we hadn't signed anyone yet and not made efforts to keep MacGregor, Cuellar, Webster et al, then we'd be arguing over how much money we were going to spend if any at all. It maybe says something about the signings, that we are not excited by them, but part of the problem is that they are all in the one area and we all feel we desperately need more quality in defence and midfield. I think it's going to be a long summer and I agree with Frankie that we can't really assess the squad until the window has closed.