calscot

Other reports have said their manager is keen on keeping him, and at 700k asking price, surely they can afford him, AND another striker. I would be surprised if he comes back.

PPS I think it could be huge competitive advantage to be known as a club who develops players and groom them for the premiership. If we can sell a player for 10M every season, it will give us the funds to keep our squad very competitive.

PS with all the complaints about our quality, you'd think we'd be happy at bringing in some money to spend. Sometimes you have to sacrifice one quality player to bring in 3 or 4 quality replacements. The knack it spotting the talent before their value goes up.

Can't see how we could turn down 12M and we would never be that stupid. There was a time we could turn down 5M for Laudrup to keep him for one season, but that is gone and we all pretty much regretted that decision anyway. We bought most of our squad for 12M and it would give us another summer of top spending. We're look like we're going to spend another 10M this summer and that would give us another 10M the next, while not increasing the debt and perhaps reducing it somewhat.

Is it not ironic that one of our most popular songs is all about desperate defending and not attacking at all - Derry's Walls? Another is about following your team regardless... We also sing praises of the Queen who could be said to be doing an effective job but certainly lacks entertainment value. Anyway, if football was about entertainment, how come none of us are appreciative when Celtic play free flowing, highly entertaining football? Football is not about a "product", it's about competing. If we have a product, it's a very clever one. We don't have the money for the top components or ingredients, so instead we find another way to make the product effective on a tight budget. So what if it lacks a few embellishments? Maybe we need to give the product time to develop.

Yes, maybe they should have spent it on a theatre ticket where there is a script and predetermined outcome, with no-one trying to stop any of the actors playing well. I'm sure they'd have been well entertained. Perhaps some of them would prefer to support a team like Celtic who attack naively and lose 5-0 before gloriously winning 4-0 at home? Perhaps that's not drivel. However, I always thought people who understand football, realise it's a competition and that both teams are striving for a result at the expense of the other. Entertainment is a by product and sometimes a luxury. If entertainment is more important than a result then perhaps they should choose to watch the most entertaining games on the box, after they've been played, instead of being the fan of a team. I also think you're a bit of an idiot if you go to a highly competive quarter final game in Europe and expect a highly entertaining game - especially if you have watched Rangers before this season. We know what the product tastes like, so you can't exactly pay a lot of money for it and then complain about the flavour. I thought we got a credible result for our first quarterfinal for 15 years. It was the best home result in this stage of the competition and we still have a reasonable chance of making it to the semi. How many would have taken a 0-0 draw in the first leg of the UEFA cup quarterfinal, at the beginning of the season? It might have been drivel, but it was pretty effective drivel, DISPITE it being obvious that the team were not able to play to their usual standards. All the best players and teams have ups and downs in form, but it says a huge amount about the present Rangers team that they can play poorly and still not damage their chances. We played a decent side that got to the final a couple of years ago. We have no right to expect any better at this stage of Walter's tenure.

You cannot call yourself a "supporter" if you boo. It doesn't fit the definition of the word in any way. If you had a speech to deliver and your partner said they'd come along and support you, how would you feel if they booed you at the end? Would you feel they have given you support? No, it's pretty much the opposite of support. I'm sure you'd feel more support from people who didn't like you but stayed quiet. You can boo at your own team if you like at a football match, but you cannot do so and truthfully call yourself a supporter. Not unless you've invented your own language. These people as "customers" may be entitled to act any way they like, but what kind of customers are they? What would you think of a customer who moaned all the time about your work despite the fact you were the most effective person in your role for years, and in the last few years, before you came, your job had been done very poorly? You'd probably think they were the worst kind of customers that you could do without. I'm a customer at the cinema and theatre, and not once have I booed a bad film or performance. It completely lacks any class. Now if I went to a play to "support" actors that I knew, what kind of person would I be if I booed? If you were the most effective person in your job for years, but not from flair, instead from hard work and good organisation that achieve the desired results, how would you feel about being criticised in public all the time? Walter Smith has not had much time in the job and yet his success has been miraculous at a time when it looked like Celtic were moving into a period of domination like our 9IAR era. People complaining at his new team not having flair to me is akin to slagging off a 6 month old baby who has learned to walk very early for not walking with the grace of a ballet dancer. Surely aesthetics are what you add to the structure of anything. You put the architectural embellishments on a building after you have built the main structure. The Chrysler building was just a big, square office block until the very last minute when they finished the top of the building. I say bring back the era of the supporter, but if you're going to be a customer, at least be one that appreciates and understands the product and not one who moans vociferously when everything is not quite exactly to your taste. I think we could achieve far more, including flair if we had 50,000 real supporters in the stands. Like Walter says, you need MORE support when you're playing badly. Come on guys, let's remember what supporting a team is all about.

I'm a part-timer but then I live about 450 miles away... If I was in Glasgow I'd definitely be there so don't rub it in!:uzi:

I think it was 35 for season ticket holders. �£40 is a lot but it is a UEFA quarter final - how many of them to you get to go to? The ironic thing is that we want the club to spend more on players but they need the money coming in first. Forty quid means that the gate receipts should top 1.5M. The reason that EPL teams have more money than us is that they charge about 40 quid minimum for a ticket as well as getting more from sky - whose larger English customer base pay more than we pay for Setanta. In the end, pretty much all the club's money comes from the wallets of their fans. To be a rich club you need a lot of supporters with deep pockets.

A bit of luck gong our way and I could see that happening. The team seem to be coming out of the end of a bad patch -where they still did the job. Peaks usually come after a trough and the Celtic performance was definitely one on the up slope.

And some people in England like me... I've got my Sky set up as if I'm in Scotland... The ITV4 option is great for those Bears south of the Border who don't have my kind of set up.

It will definitely be an expensive year for those that go to all the games - although still far cheaper than the big clubs in England where I think it's about 40 quid a game minimum - so you're talking a couple of grand a year for them plus a lot more travel. For Rangers fans, some may be complaining about the quality but their definitely getting the quantity for the money - and the results.

I think we're due another good home performance and the lads should be confident after the Werder and Celtic home games. Bar the Lyon game, where the circumstances lost us more goals, and a blip against Hibs (ok - and Partick), we've been pretty much impregnable at home this season. I would bet on a clean sheet tonight - we've had four knockout ties this season and all of the home legs have been shut-outs.

I can't see Walter telling the opposition his plans, so it's all there just to keep them second guessing . I think the formation will be 4-2-3-1 but the players will be given licence to go forward in numbers. I think they did that at home against Bremen at home, but obviously had their licences revoked in the away game. Davis, Ferguson and McCulloch can all be very attacking so it's not going to be the most defensive team in the world despite Darche up front on his own.

I can see his point but the organisers have their own rules and the wild cards are deliberately not to do with rankings. The top 50 get in automatically due to their ranking and so Monty should play well enough to qualify or keep his mouth shut. The wild cards are by definition, ad hoc choices using whatever criteria the committee seem fit. Sour grapes to me...

I think it will be 2pts. There desperation and home advantage may stop us winning but we'll still be able to defend well and stop them scoring. I think Strachan will be far more defensive as he won't want to lose five times in a row, which will stop us scoring. We won't want to lose either so I can see a couple of boring stalemates with two teams playing 4-5-1. But I'd bite your hand off if you offered that now.

Agree with Jonc and also disagree that it's ok to dive. If he did dive then I hope he gets told to cut it out. People may call it part of the game, but I'd rather we were the people who didn't do it. I don't think I'm wearing blue tinted specs as I think I'd say the same about the same incident for another team - but maybe wouldn't spend so much time defending the player. I really think a "dive" is a totally different kettle of fish to that incident.

I assume he'll have to wear a Phantom of the Opera mask?

I wouldn't drop Thomson; due to injury, the guy has fresh legs and has been excellent since he came back. I'd rather replace Dailly considering his toe, but if he's ok, the team that played against Celtic would do me fine. Don't know if Papac is also fit, but thought Whittaker had a really good OF game too. His best for a while. Broadfoot has really taken his chance and must be loving keeping the former Hibs right back out of his natural position. Is Adam suspended?

Is it different commentaries on STV and ITV4? It's nice to have a choice. Couldn't stand the English CL commentator who was always so negative for Rangers, and seemed partisan for the other side.

I hope you're right... I'll predict 1-0, Darcheville. Then a 1-1 draw in Lisbon.

One thing we don't really have these days, is a really big name player. But perhaps that helps as the opposition defenders have no-one in particular to look out for...

I'd like Roma, Fenerbahce, Barcelona and Liverpool to win. Unfortunately no chance of all English teams losing...

I hear the bbc were also doing videos of a new breed of flying penguins...

I think there are three sticking points in him coming to Rangers. 1) Celtic would find it hard to sell to us direct as their fans would likely start a boycott of home games or something. 2) The price, they would want a profit and we thought he was too expensive the last time. 3) His wages, they just wouldn't fit in our wage structure where he'd get a maximum of 20 grand a week. I think all three point to the reason why he could see the Premiership as the next step in his career. Even a struggling team like Birmingham would have more of a chance of getting him than us.