calscot

shit, they only won 3 - 2, thanks again, msr Le Guen.

Here's some reasoning I think they used behind the invites for full members: Top 5 countries to increase to four members next two (Netherlands and Portugal to have 2) next 14 countries to have 1. The UEFA rankings are taken from the end of the 2006/2007 season. Spanish members: Top 4 in the league last year and top 4 in UEFA rankings: Real Madrid, Barca, Sevilla, Valencia Italian members: Top 4 in UEFA rankings and 1st, 2nd and 4th in league last year plus Juve. Lazio were 3rd last year but Juventus and Milan were already members and have much higher UEFA coeffs - 133 and 91 to 51. Milan, Inter, Juve, Roma English members: Top 4 in the league last year and top 4 in UEFA rankings. Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal French members: Top 2 in league and top 3 in UEFA rankings plus PSG who are already members. Monaco invited despite having poor seaon but have 2nd best UEFA ranking and have a good historical domestic record. Lyon, Marseille, PSG, Monaco German Members: Already had three members and invited Bremen at 3rd instead of Stuttgart 1st and Shalke 2nd. Fair to say Bremen have been better on average over recent years and have a bigger UEFA ranking. Munich, Leverkusen, Dortmund, Bremen Portugal: Porto already a member and 1st in league and top in ranking, invited Benfica 3rd over Sporting 2nd. Benfica consistently higher than Sporting and also have much better UEFA ranking Porto, Benfica Netherlands: Ajax and PSV already members. No invites. Both these top two last year in league and top two in ranking. Ajax, PSV Greece: Invited Olympiakos who were champs but second to Panathanaikos in rankings. Not sure who has won the league previously. Assume Panathanaikos may be invited as associate member. Olympiakos Russia: Invited CSKA who are champs and top of rankings. CSKA Romania: Invited Steaua 2nd over Dinamo champs. Steaua have much higher ranking and I would guess won more leagues recently. Rapid or dinamo may get associate membership. Scotland: Invited Celtic, who are champs for two years and have higher ranking. Rangers have higher ranking from this year and invited as associate member. Can't really argue here as the timing is bad for us. If they were sending the invites next year and we had won the league, that coupled with being higher in ranking would probably have swung it our way. Celtic Belgium: Invited Anderlecht who are champs but second to Brugge (3rd) in rankings by small amount. Assume Brugge will get Associate membership. Czech: Spara Prague invited as champs and best ranking. Slavia may get associate. Turkey: Fenerbahce invited as champs and 2nd best ranking. Besiktas 2nd in league but better ranking so may get associate. Switzerland: Basle - only 2nd in league but best by miles in ranking - 55 to 10. Probably won the league a few times recently. BulgariaL Levski - champs and best ranking. Norway Rosenborg - no brainer. Austria Vienna despite being second but have best ranking and won the league a few times lately. Etc You can see the pattern and there are some teams who are not champs who get the invite probably for winning the league the most times recently and having the best UEFA ranking. Basically Celtic have won the league last season, the season before and have 5 out of 7. They also had the best UEFA ranking last season although we have now overtaken them in that respect and could be 25 places above them by the end of next season. We're only the 11th best country so not much chance of getting two teams in. They had to choose one, and fair play to Celtic they deserve it at this moment in time. However I think Rangers could be the more deserving club in a couple years time but that's just too late and our hard cheese. However, I think associates will have as big a say but no vote. Celtic will have one vote out of about 100 as the bigger countries' teams are rumoured to be getting 4 votes each. So while it's good to have a vote, it's not very powerful to just have one. In the end, not much difference and when you think about it, the reasoning is to stop dissent against plans for the big countries' big teams while only giving the smaller countries a token say in things. The teams from the smaller countries are probably going to find a conflict of interests and members and should probably really be starting their own pressure group. They are being dazzled by the offer of friendship by the big, rich and famous, but then may pay for it by not being able to stand up for themselves.

I think some people want him to fail not as schadenfreude but to provide evidence that he was personally responsible for his own failure at Rangers. If he was his the main cause of the disaster then it can make us breathe more easily at Ibrox that there is not something endemic still lingering at the club that will cause us to fail like that again and again. It fits in with theories about him not being properly prepared for Rangers and believing too much of his own hype. For me I still think that a guy who can't even pronounce the name of his club certainly hasn't even begun his research. We can pronounce "Parry San Jerman" and "Marssay", so why can't he pronounce "R�©ngers"? It's not difficult even for a Frenchman and it made him look foolish as well as disrespectful. But the point is if you haven't even made sure you know how to pronounce the name of your employer, what chance is there you did any other research at all? The failure at PSG suggests he needs to take a good look at himself and substitute his ego for some humility. And that's probably another reason why some want him to fail, they want him to get off his high horse and show he can be humble. I think some of us want him to actually apologise for the mess he left at Rangers rather than bring out some book with Spiers that blames everyone but himself.

Seems to me that outside the big 5 countries they are only inviting ONE club from each league. Celtic just happen to be the Champions of the SPL... Nothing to do with marketing or perceived status. Undoubtedly Celtic fans will see it otherwise.

Oh yeah, it's not initially the interest from TV companies we need, it's interests from potential subscribers which makes the likes of Sky take notice. We need Scots in their droves to cancel their Sky Sports subcriptions and take out new Setanta deals.

We'll need to keep it up for a few years as that's when I think our tv deal runs out - ie 2011.

Totally agree Ian.

If we're offered 9M for him next summer then I don't think we could turn it down. Our net spending was around 10M this summer and we had to borrow most of that, increasing our debt to a less comfortable level. But with that 10M we have pretty much rebuilt our squad to a very high standard so another 9M could bring in a decent right back as well as a few more players required for key positions which would take our squad up a level. It would also allow us to use the CL proceeds to reduce the debt again. Remember, we can only spend like we did in the summer while the debt is low, and so need to keep the debt low most years for emergency treatment such as we've just performed. However, if we don't sell Hutton, we still need to try and get top dollar for a few of our fringe players who don't fit in our plans as well as some new guys who may not have fitted in. Buffel doesn't seem to be the right kind of player for the way our team is now playing, so getting him back to fitness and playing well in the SPL could net us a couple of mil. Whittaker is struggling, and if he's still that way by the end of the season we may have to try and recoup as much of his 2M fee as we can. If Smith comes back to full fitness and skill level then it maybe time so say goodbye to Papac for 1M or so, however, I'd like to keep him as he's been totally solid. Burke is another who may need to be moved on but his wages are now prohibative for other teams as is his very poor form and terrible fitness record.

Can I also point out that when England won the World cup they did so by employing the 4-4-2 formation while everyone else was still using 4-3-3. Was that anti-football? It's the Italians who started using similar formations and tactics to Rangers, are they the parents of anti-football? I would actually say that Rangers are playing a very Italian game of defending deep and then quick counter attacking. It seems we are also getting very Italianesque results. We've wisened up, so why are we being pilloried for it?

My main point is, how can you accuse Rangers of not playing open, expansive, attacking football when it seems to me that it was Barcelona's pressing defensive tactics and huge periods of keeping the ball without doing anything with it that stopped us from playing that type of game? If Barcelona had played like Celtic, we would have seen Rangers playing far more attacking football. So who is to blame? Ultimately Rangers played the way they did because a team with far more resources forced them to. So I say it was the Catalonian team that played the football that made the game less attractive. If they had played similar to Rangers then the game would have been far more open and exciting. If Rangers had played the same way as Barca with the same skill level, we would have been watching a very boring game like many of the Milan derbies where the ball is mostly passed around the defenders for long periods with most forward balls coming straight back when the midfield get closed down and goals only coming from a combination of a mistake and bit of genius from a world class player. Like anything, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I'm sure the likes of Hansen would have enjoyed Rangers defensive masterclass. The only thing Barca really did that was "beautiful" was pass the ball around the midfield - Rangers could do that all day against the likes of Gretna but would we come away with a win? Probably not. Barcelona flattered to deceive and on the night lacked flair and flamboyance needed to break down a less technically skilled side. Not many Rangers fans complain about the likes of Dunfermline's tactics when they grind out a draw with 10 men behind the ball. Most Rangers fans are annoyed at the Rangers players for being unable to break down a team with a fraction of their talent and wages. Barca don't really add much to the beauty of the game unless they play a team who can't defend well, to suggest that teams should do just that or they are playing anti-football, just puts Barca into the same catagory as the Harlem Globe Trotters.

It has been amusing to find some Barcelona players and fans are criticising Rangers’ tactics, in the game on between the two clubs on Tuesday. Some say Rangers played, “anti-football,” seemingly due to how well they defended. Now it seems very strange to me, to criticise a team for performing an important aspect of the game to the highest of standards; however, after analysing the tactics of both teams, apart from sour grapes, I can’t see what the complaints are about. Put it this way, if Barca fans can complain about Rangers’ resolute defending, then can't Rangers fans conversely complain about the accomplished Barcelona defence? After all, Barca players were closing down Rangers players rapidly as soon as they got the ball, and didn't allow Rangers to play the open, expansive, attacking game that they would prefer. So, would it have been a more entertaining game if Barca had stood off the attacking Rangers players, giving them loads of space and allowing them a wave of attacks on their goal? I say this with an obvious hint of sarcasm. There is also the point, that Barca very skilfully passed the ball sideways and backwards for long periods in their own half and midfield, denying Rangers players much of the possession, without creating more than a few chances for themselves. Isn’t attractive football about going forward and attacking? Keeping the ball in the middle of the pitch denies both teams attacking opportunities. Basically, the way Barca played meant there were very few chances for either side. So the question is, "Is it Barcelona who are playing the anti-football?" Or is it just some of their players and fans are strangely upset, when a team doesn't just lie down for them and instead, actually make it difficult for them? I can’t see how you can complain about a lack of goals when your own team defends very aggressively, and also play keep ball for two thirds of the game - over 30 yards from the opponent’s goal. I'd like to expand on this and put it to you, that Rangers were the team who played tactics more conducive to attacking football. Let’s compare and contrast the both teams tactics on attack and defence. Rangers sat well off the Barcelona attacking players in midfield, giving them time and room to control and play the ball easily – very good for flowing and attacking football. In contrast Barca defenders closed down Rangers players quickly and allowed them no time or space to get the ball under control and either run with it or pass it well, basically strangling Rangers in possession. So who would you say allowed more attractive, flowing, passing and attacking football? I would conclude that Rangers did. Further, in attack Rangers moved the ball forward quickly at every opportunity going straight for goal as much as possible. In contrast Barca spent most of the time passing slightly forwards, sideways and backwards, and although they had twice as much possession they had less than half the scoring chances. I would therefore conclude from this, that Rangers played a much more attacking game going forward while Barca were cagey and defensive on the ball. The ultimate conclusion must be, that Rangers play the far more positive football while Barcelona play the much more negative football. QED. That might not make sense to some, but the real point is that there are many aspects in football which contribute to the result, and each aspect requires skill, energy, dedication, motivation, determination and sometimes a bit of luck. There are two teams trying to win, and both have do so by simultaneously having their attack overcome the opposition defence, and their defence gaining the better of the opposition attack. For both teams on Tuesday, the defences were better than the attacks, resulting in a 0-0 draw; both teams were responsible for the scoreline. Whatever tactics were used to this end is ultimately irrelevant, and the fact they were totally different adds to the diversity of the sport. However, maliciously disparaging your opposition for defending just as well as your own team, and for not letting your team score or win, is to me, senseless, and possibly the real, “anti-football”.

It's got to be said that Celtic were outplayed overall last night. It was a bit like watching Rangers v Barcelona except on a much lower skill level for both teams. Celtic had more opportunities to score than Rangers but Benfica had far more than Barcelona and could consider themselves unlucky not to have had a few. I was disappointed with Celtic as I like Scottish teams to do well and especially so when Rangers are doing the best. They seem to have lost something in the last few games as they were almost outplayed and lucky against Gretna, played off the pitch by Rangers and then dominated by Benfica. That's good for us in the league but takes some of the shine off the current Scottish feel good factor. Maybe Aberdeen can top it back up again. I think the factor that is being exposed is Celtic's lack of strength in depth. I've been saying since the transfer window closed that we are much better in that department but most of the press has had the opposite view. Miller may not have been the best striker around but Killen and McDonald look to be a downward step when a "blue chip" quality forward was desperately required to replace the Scotland player and possibly bring the best out of JVOH. The antipodeans were good squad acquisitions for the SPL long haul but not quite the ammo you would expect for a robust Champions League challenge. Celtic fans laughed at our signing of Darcheville and Cousin, and even Rangers fans were dubious about the latter given the Gabon international's recent track record before flitting to Scotland. However, Walter has shown he can spot a player, with both strikers looking like excellent additions to what is now looking like a pretty strong portfolio of forwards to choose from; so strong that the SPL's top scorer for two seasons isn't getting a look in for the CL. Another irony is that, after Celtic fans condemning Walter's European tactics despite their obvious success, Strachan has copied them - but like that antiquity, the VCR, his facsimile is of far poorer quality. He just hasn't brought in the correct type of players to suit the system and a sudden big change in tactics surely disrupts the squad? The surprising and excellent three points against Milan now look very important to keep Celtic in the hunt for their now slim chance of qualifying – and at least for the UEFA spot. We have to hope they at least get the latter to allow them to help the Scottish coefficient as well as Scotland’s reputation in Europe. When Scotland and both the Old Firm are doing well, it causes the rest of Europe to take notice and give us more respect – this was evidenced by Barcelona readily accepting the draw at Ibrox. I think that was heavily affected by recent results by Scotland against France and Ukraine, Celtic’s late win against Milan and of course Rangers great 6 game unbeaten run in the CL this season - all using similar tactics to Tuesday night. They knew what damage a Scottish team could do to them, despite dominating possession: and so decided not to risk it. I’m sure Cousin’s late chance also gave them a stiff reminder. That kind of respect could earn us a few more draws against higher quality sides.

I think the thing with the Scottish players is that they enhance their game by playing with a lot of energy and heart, and being really up for a game. That's what makes us a team that on the day can beat anyone. However, when they lack that bite, it is very noticible and their form drops dramatically. The likes of Hemdani is more consitent and while good, is never inspirational. He never takes the game by the scruff of the neck, it is a very quiet game he plays. He helps us not lose, but he rarely helps us win. If Barry's on form he dominates the midfield, if Boyd is on form he scores a hat-trick, when Hutton is on form he owns the line and ravages defences. When Barry is off form, our midfield can be anonymous - even with Hemdani in it, when Boyd is off form he contributes very little, when Hutton is off form we get skinned down the right and the opposition get cross after cross in.

PPS Going on a 5-4-1

PS I think it was a 4-5-1

Yes, Eck was a master at playing players out of position. I think you can get away with 1 or 2 but not 4 or 5.

Hutton is fantastic when he turns up and plays his top game, unfortunately he doesn't always do that. Same goes for Ferguson, Thomson, Whittaker and Boyd. Funnily enough it seems to be the Scots boys who contribute to our best displays but also our worst. They all need a to be more consistantly near the top of their game.

I thought Ball was one of our worst signings of all time. What a waste of 6M when we could have had Numan for a couple more seasons instead had we not insulted him with such a huge wage cut. Vanoli and Hughs were also never anywhere near good enough to play against Man U.

Ball was terrible, Lovenkrands was inconsistent and didn't give 100% as well as greedy, Klos is probably past it now and so no better than MacGregor, Arveladze was fantastic for Alkmaar when he left and we should have kept him and played him in the middle but is probably past it now. I think Arteta has matured and would play far better with a more robust midfield - say Ferguson and as he was lightweight himself. Never quite settled at Rangers though. A pre-injury Mols would be fantastic but he went downhill rapidly. At their peak I'd take Klos, Berg, Arteta, Shota and Mols. Maybe Lovenkrands if he gave a lot more commitment and the same for Moore. The latter two would also need an ego bypass...

Getting crowds will be long term project by aiming at the kids. Most locals around here already support the likes of Arsenal and Spurs as well as the usual Man U fans. The rest support teams like Luton, Watford and Northampton. However, the flash stadium helps attract the kids and if they start getting doing well and winning a lot, I'm sure a bandwagon will form for people to jump onto. I'm not so fond of them since they bought up a municipal park and then got the police to kick a bunch of us off it. We'd been playing there fortnightly for years. We've found somewhere else now though that suits us, via a couple of other places.

It's a damn shame not just for him but for Rangers and Scotland. Just look at how well Hutton is doing now when in most people's opinion he was a lot less talented than Smith.

One wonders what the difference in attitude in the USA would be between F.T.P. and F. the President??? I wonder which they would see as more serious? And what would be the reaction to booing their national anthem and flag? Most countries would be appalled by such behaviour but not only are Celtic getting away with it scot-free, they have the arrogance to say that it should be encouraged as part of their heritage because it's not religious!!! There is also the interpretation that FTQ could be racist against the British people.

"Defender of the faith" is a very ironic title as it was originally given to Henry VIII by the Pope for heavy handedly using his army to suppressing the Protestant reformation in England. Well that's what I've heard anyway. But since Henry VIII told the Pope where to go so he could have a divorce, the monarch of England has been the head of the Anglican Church, which is a "quasi" protestant church. You could say that being against the Pope is political too, as there has always been political infuence from the Vatican on anywhere with large numbers of Catholics. The political situation in Ireland seems to me to be highly based on Catholic unification of the island of Hibernia. In fact, that would explain why the religion and politics is so mixed in with the OF rivalry.

I'm all for compilations BUT: I for one hated tapes - they were pretty rubbish in quality, usability and durability. I loved it when mini-disc came along but it was very quickly superceded by I-pods. I also hated the quality, usuability and durability of VHS and loved it when DVD recorders came along, and now I use an HDD-DVD recorder. Can't wait till recordable HD-DVD or Blue-Ray becomes mainstream. Analogue tape has always been a poor technology and I'm glad to see the back of it. The next two things I'd like to consign to the bin are video-interlacing and over the top mpeg compression. A less lossy video compression would also be welcome. Oh yeah and the 4:2:0 colour model. Even 4:2:2 would be far better but 4:4:4 would be great. Less lossy compression than MP3 would be good too.

ONE Jewish player in the same modern day where after Rangers have had teams full of Catholics. The point is that Catholics and Celtic have a well known history of anti-Semitism. The last example was when a Celtic fan protested against Jews by running on the pitch at Ibrox. Now you may answer that it was a political protest about Palistine, but then why did he wear a T-shirt of the Pope ââ?¬â?? surely that watered down any political protest and turned it into a religious one? But then Iââ?¬â?¢m not denying Rangers for a time had a sectarian signing policy. It is You that is denying Celtic also had one, albeit not to exclusion due to choosing from a minority, whereas Rangers chose from a majority. We accept the sectarianism at Rangers and are trying to correct it. Celtic only deny everything. No, I typed 30 instead of 20, on my keyboard the 2 and 3 are next to each other. But donââ?¬â?¢t let intelligence get in the way of pedantry. No it was a very small minority. There is that except that the reaction was way beyond a player reneging on a signing deal. You donââ?¬â?¢t get death threats for that and Iââ?¬â?¢m pretty sure he received sectarian abuse and called DOB etc. Celtic had a chance and have ever since to show that they applauded Rangers for signing another Catholic but they have always shown that they donââ?¬â?¢t actually WANT Rangers to sign Catholics and are still banging on about the signing policy more than 20 years after it was abolished. I doubt many people know much about itââ?¬â?¢s meaning. Itââ?¬â?¢s biggest meaning to most people is probably, ââ?¬Å?Celtic fanââ?¬Â. After all, Catholics playing for Rangers are not called Fen1ans or abused at all. I would say itââ?¬â?¢s an anti-Celtic song more than anything. However, as itââ?¬â?¢s a contentious word it should have been removed before the song was banned. ââ?¬Å?Up to our knees in Celticââ?¬â?¢s bloodââ?¬Â, while not being much different in tone would, it seems, not be sectarian and I suppose Celtic fans would have been happy with that? Actually I doubt it. Of course itââ?¬â?¢s nonsense to try to compare who is worse than the other. If you have two prolific thieves does it matter who steals the most? You still have to punish both even-handedly for each crime you catch them commit. You canââ?¬â?¢t let one off because some people perceive them to steal less than the other. If you deal even-handedly and punish their crimes, the worst one will automatically get punished more often. However, Celtic fans disagree with this and want immunity for themselves and a witch hunt against Rangers. Rangers fans mostly want ALL teams in the SPL to be treated equally and fairly. Rangers FC did not and could not reject Catholic supporters. If you were Catholic and wanted to support Rangers, who could stop you? No-one can ever stop what is in your heart. Rangers signing policy may have caused Catholics to choose not to support Rangers, but with Catholics mostly choosing Celtic over all other football teams in Scotland, I donââ?¬â?¢t think it made much difference. Catholics may be offended by Rangers anti-Catholicism but surely there must be many Protestants who didnââ?¬â?¢t support Celtic due to their discrimination towards non-Catholics as well as being anti-UK and pro-IRA. The latter two would put most British people off ââ?¬â?? except Scottish and Irish Catholics for some reason. You either acknowledge or you donââ?¬â?¢t. If you do itââ?¬â?¢s 100%, if you donââ?¬â?¢t itââ?¬â?¢s 0%. Rangers have been campaigning against bigotry at Ibrox for years so you are dead wrong. However itââ?¬â?¢s hard to take extreme action to punish your own fans without alienating them. UEFA allowed Rangers to take a hard line while being able to deflect the blame onto UEFA. To be honest itââ?¬â?¢s probably been very good for Rangers as itââ?¬â?¢s stopped the silent majority taking a blind eye and making other non-bigots take a look at themselves and what they are singing. It took extreme efforts and punishments by the government to properly make drink driving very unpopular and condemned by most people. These days, people are against drink driving due to the dangers to everyone, not because itââ?¬â?¢s illegal. In my opinion both clubs should forget the past and start promoting themselves as non-political, secular, Scottish based clubs that are fully inclusive to all races, religions, nationalities etc. However, while Rangers seem to be going that way and may succeed in this, I really canââ?¬â?¢t see Celtic even contemplating it ââ?¬â?? and I have doubts that they could actually survive it. Without their Catholic fan base, where would Celtic be? Whereas, Rangers could actually INCREASE their fan-base with more Catholics. Those are mostly gone and Celtic fans are still howling about Rangers.