calscot

I always had the impression that Hibs were about the worst in Scotland for the violence of their "casuals" - The Capital City Service (CCS). Surely strict liability would affect them more than anyone?

I think the big thing the press are missing are that these players were physically attacked for real, apparently some needed medical attention and while it may have been minor injuries in the end, how shocked and livid would you be if it happened to your staff - but then have the massive insult that no-one in positions of authority or from the top positions of the other club, and many in the press would actually properly acknowledge it and properly condemn it? I would surmise the players, the management and the board are seething and not surprised they are incredulous and find it incomprehensible. To them it's not just tiny figures on a wide angle tv picture get a bit of jostling, it was real, adrenaline pumping, in your face, violent stuff with threat of worse, that actually happened to them and probably ingrained in their memory. That is a horrendous thing to happen to sportsmen who have done nothing but play for their club. The making light of such dreadful behaviour is totally subversive.

Looks like an Aston Villa San Martin and a Rangers Raith Rovers.

I had a Viva, but couldn't tell if it was a bronze colour or just rusty. Probably both. Didn't last long, bought a Victor, didn't last long, didn't buy a Vauxhall again... What does Barton drive?

Funnily enough, I think that was also mooted as a solution to the Whittaker problem, a fair few years ago...

I think his vision needs a few compromises... it needs to evolve.

You mean you doubled the value? Although don't actually believe you have a working car with much metal left in it.

While that's true, I think it's worth noting that due to the unique nature of both their supporters, it would be very strange to have Glaswegian Hibs fans due to Celtic being the bigger and more religiously formulated club.

Most disappointing players was Tavenier - defensively anyway. Think I prefered Whitaker who similarly was also a bit dodgy at the back while great going forwards, but a lot less dodgy at the back and could at least head a ball in a corner. I think a big tactic against us next season will be forcing corners and firing them into the six yard box. We need a couple of decent defensive signings to make that a lot more futile. What would Walter do? The conundrum is, what is David Weir thinking? Coincidentally he was one of Walter's answers along with Webster and Ehiogu. In the summer he signed Cuellar, Whittaker and Broadfoot (and Dailly). He did spend over 10m in total that summer for 20 odd players - but that was recouped in full by sales with 9M of it coming for Hutton. I'd really like to see Warbutton address the defence as vigorously.

I don't disagree but already have highlighted the differences here. I'm sure most people with live tv cameras focused on them, feel a lot more invulnerable, never mind if you're also a bit famous which adds to that bravado. Then add in the knowledge of a large police presence in the vicinity (without knowing they were ineffective) and it might calm you down quite a bit (even if it's a false sense of security). Then there's the low chance of deadly weapons and the fact that the chances of the fans being there to actually cause you a great deal harm is pretty low, and it would be easy to be confident of at least keeping your life. IMHO of course.

His last tweet said his decision had been made and contained a Penny Arcade lyric... but it's cryptic. Not sure if I was that bothered about him, but now we've made an offer, I'd hate to miss out on a genuine target.

I thought Zelalem was one of our better players in the final, although still not as good as I'd have liked.

I think we need a zero tolerance and draconian measures on entering the field of play for obvious reasons. It has become a big deal since the 80's and fans are trusted more due to Bradford and Hillsborough when there were large fences. They are really abusing that trust and it has become ridiculous and seemingly tolerated - as long as it's not Rangers.

Don't know about fearing for life, but no matter how hard, cool and indifferent they acted, it must been pretty intimidating and stressful as you don't know if it's going to really kick off at a time when they were massively outnumbered by a load of rampaging nut jobs. Luckily they were in an environment where people are routinely searched for weapons on entry and a large police presence along with the cameras. Although the latter wasn't so effective, it could still be a deterrent to really overstepping the line. People are more reckless if they think there is little chance of being caught.

My Grandpa also used to call London, "the Big Smoke", when my brother lived there. Football aside, I've always preferred Edinburgh to Glasgow...

For them it's a bit like us winning the Europa Cup. Many of us would have preferred to win that and lose the league when we got to the final, than the other way around, given the choice, due to the rarity of the former. Unfortunately, we won neither for well documented reasons.

I used to live there and my Grandpa would always be asking me, "How's things in Auld Reekie?" He's passed away but would be about 105 now, so we're talking much older generation. My mum is in her late 70's and while not using it much, would certainly know exactly what you were talking about and wouldn't be surprised by its use.

Older generations definitely do.

Not sure of all the facts, but maybe they have a point...

If you read what I actually say, I made the point that you cannot make exact comparisons about any of this. All you can do is try your best to compare with the data you have. Because you don't like the results it seems you want some way of recreating the exact same conditions for both managers. This is impossible and it's a real stretch. As I've said many times, just play fair. You are incredibly quick to ignore differences when it suits your argument. I could spend ages trying to find the games where the players and the managers were the same but what is the point. Even if there was a significant amount of data, if you didn't like it, you'd start going on about the weather, a different ball or whatever... Again, I think this is a massive stretch. McCoist is shit, Warburton is a genius, but because the stats are close, it must be because other teams have spend more money... I'm sorry, it's a totally intangible argument and not something that can be measured, and ignores the much more obvious difference which is the absence of Hearts. But as I say, if you were right in your opinion, it would not make more than a dent in what should be overwhelming stats in Warburton's favour. I believe you have found much, much stronger arguments of mitigation that you don't like, "laughable". They tell a part of the story - but yours and many other's opinions are not compatible with the story. I think the stats show that is not relevant. Ally was ahead in the league of every team that Warburton had in the league. Swap St Mirren for Hearts, take away the effects of Llambias and the resignation of Ally, and you will have your Championship win. You are arguing about mitigation, but looking at it objectively it only shows that this part is as irrelevant as Ally winning League One - both that and Warburton's title wins were far easier than last season. As I said, you have NO consistency and an obvious agenda. Both got to the final, Ally lost to a 2nd tier team while in the 3rd tier, Warburton beat a 3rd tier team while in the 2nd tier. Now considering your views on Ally's lower league wins, surely this is also irrelevant to you? I'm sure you would point this out if it was the other way around. I'm the only one here treating both managers equally and swap it round and I will make the same points. Ally was in a semi-final when he resigned. Didn't get the chance to play it against Celtic. Only difference here is that Warburton beat Celtic in a semi on penalties. Great result, good on him, but it's hard to compare when Ally didn't get the shot. But this it gets a bit damning for Warburton, as he lost the most important single match since 2012 against a team that are not much better than the team Ally lost to in the Challenge Cup final. I said MW's biggest difference over Ally was to win the important games, now I'm not so glowing. As I've said, that is not what this thread is about, and it's clutching at straws for the actual subject matter. This is about ability to win, winning less games but playing nicer football just suggest flattering to deceive. For this thread, it's all about effectiveness to win - which is why it's win rates. Ability to get a draw is not something that is good for Rangers. An incidentally, I have not found MW's team good to watch since the Celtic game - which was brilliant (if ultimately not that effective). There is a few things I don't like about the way we play as I don't fall for the meme that merely playing the ball on the ground is attractive - there is more to it than that, and I believe in the judicious use of the high ball. I also appreciate the aesthetics and effectiveness of good defending. Maybe that's your problem - you make an opinion and keep it in the face of contradictory evidence, then switch to another one and do the same thing. Personally, I'm pretty sure I've been pretty consistent - I've said Ally's results have been just about passable in times when there is no massive, off-field crises, without being admirable. I said he showed he was pretty average in that it the poor results were understandable considering the circumstances, but a quality manager should possibly stem that collapse. The stats really bear this out, when you consider that Warburton's are also considered passable while being similar, despite having an easy time of it in comparison. Not only that, but Warburton also has had this failure, although his issue has been the comparatively tiny, milder one of complacency after winning the league and beating Celtic in the cup. Again you are being strange here considering I have repeatedly pointed out nobody is arguing that McCoist was a good manager. The question is, is Warburton "infinitely" better than him at winning (as the memes suggest) or are we blinded by nicer football? The answer is obviously no - there is no "gulf" in effectiveness here. This is the point, Warburton may be a lot better than McCoist but the stats don't show too much difference. Maybe they will improve. Had we won the cup then I think that would have been a huge trump card for MW, but alas we didn't against a second tier side and so the same criticism of Ally must be applied consistently. I agree with you here, but after losing the final and looking a the stats, I'm less optimistic than before. We can play the most beautiful football in the world, but unless we are winning some of the three main Scottish trophies (especially the SP) and making inroads in Europe, it won't count for much. You can't slag Ally and Celtic managers off for winning one horse races and then overly praise Warburton for doing the same. I do think he'll come good, and with a very supportive board, he has the perfect platform to do it, but then I always look at the positive and don't just get stuck into people blaming them for everything.

Total rubbish. All stats count in some way if they are valid. You are just dismissing the ones you don't like, that's not how it works. You need to be objective. You have even shown a lack of objectivity in your argument by ignoring the SP and EL stats - because they don't suit your argument. No consistency from you. You have made up your mind and will twist everything to fit. Ha, ha, very funny. See the first post. You know the one with stats that the whole thread was about? Have a look, I don't think you will like them and so will obviously dismiss them in multiple ways. At least we agree there. I find that a strange statement considering no-one has said that. To me, the really weird thing is people asserting Warburton being a genius and McCoist being an idiot which looks a very strange viewpoint when you look at the stats. Even worse, people, including yourself have tried to hard to twist these facts and rubbish the stats without any valid argument, when surely if you were even slightly right, it wouldn't need any of that, the stats would just be obvious in favour of your assertions?

Adjusted the stats to include cup final.

The way the finances are now, a British Cup would be a complete irrelevance. Like us having a new, extra, Gaelic cup with NI, Ireland, and the left over Welsh teams.

If down the line we were able to get in the EP, the £100m from TV would make price rises a drop in the ocean, and it would be better to keep it cheap and have full houses. We could even expand the stadium and fill it. 60k would be a decent 12th man.

Amazing thing is this will be the 13th match against them in two seasons...