calscot

I think there seems to be a conception that Rangers fans could actually choose who runs our club, but even if it were possible, who would choose Murray (who was sinking like the Titanic), and Muir (the enemy within) over an new guy who offers to pay off the debt and provide front loaded investment? Exposing Whyte as dodgy hardly makes him look like a worse choice than the incumbent dodgy duo, the former who put us in the deep doggy doo doo and the latter who certainly did not have Rangers interests on his radar. There was no other choice, and the choice was not made by Rangers fans. Rangers fans' only real weapon is removing the lifeblood of the club they want to thrive - it's not something to do lightly and even if you do a good job of convincing a lot of them of the reasoning, it's been shown it's difficult to convince the majority that this is an action to take - even when there are so many hating the manager and his style of football. Again, when Green took over, what choice was there? We all knew about his time a Sheffield etc, but with all the shenanigans, we couldn't have chosen another group to run the club if we tried. We did perhaps scare off that American investor but from what we've learned since, it's pretty much moot whether that is really the case. There were a few rallies and a bit of a boycott but it's very difficult to mobilise Rangers fans as a unit, as we see again and again in other situations. So I'm not sure what those claiming they warned us, wanted from the fans then, or even now. When some of them themselves, naively ignored explicit warnings that they needed be me more informative and helpful in spelling it out a lot more for the masses (and use a less condescending tone) if they wanted more people to listen, I can't see how they have much moral high ground - if there really is any to be had in the whole sorry affair.

I think the problem was the message was bit garbled and as some of the specifics (like the title deeds) lacked authenticity, it was easy enough to discredit. I think it showed that Rangers fans were willing to listen and to rally, but they needed more plain evidence and a credible champion.

Sigh, the trolling begins again. I'd rather you didn't reply to my posts as firstly you don't seem be able to fully understand my points, and your supposed rebuttals are pretty facile, and tediously simple to take appart. Secondly your replies always seem to be angry and hitting out instead of any motive of making a decent point, and so replying just results in insults. The last time seemed to end up in you appearing to have a bit of a wobbly, which is when I thought it sympathetic to not continue to reply. This time you have preemptively put your insults in and so surpassed yourself. As I've said before, if you just want an argument, try room 12a. With regards to the topic, I'm not surprised that you think everyone was stupid and you were so effortlessly clever. If you have a special skill, it's being a plodder who revels in tedious searches through tedious documents with tedious language style. Good for you, there's nothing wrong with that - we really need people like that to save us from that tedium and bring us the salient nuggets. However, you throw that usefulness away when you refuse to reference and explain. Hitting people with snidy innuendo and ludicrously referencing Google is the stuff of trolls. Narrowing it down to some long, tedious business documents written in legalese is no better. You say it was all so obvious - yet you failed to convince people, why is that? I even told you at one time the problem was you "seemed" to have great knowledge but you refused to share it, and instead were using the hint of it to put people down. Who wants to listen to that? You didn't take kindly to the constructive criticism, and it shows. You seem to nurse your wrath to keep it warm. You think the fans failed, but with all your knowledge, didn't you fail the fans, and achieve little? You were certainly no William Wallace. So you now blame the fans for not being persuaded by your effective non disclosure. I remember laughing when someone said that you were accurate in your predictions, and had to point out you were as accurate as Nostradamus, given that your predictions were in riddles. You could have been dead accurate but who knows when it was all so vague? The thing that gets me about this, is that in a time where bookish people, into making sense of business documents, could have really shone and been heroes, instead it seemed to turn into full-on revenge of the nerds, which just didn't help. This will be the last time I reply to your goading. Please take it elsewhere.

Shame it's closed doors; there hasn't been a friendly near me for years. There was the Derby one, but weirdly you had to travel from Glasgow so I was scunnered there too...

How much do other leagues receive?

I can't think of anyone we'd get much money for that we don't want to keep... We're at a stage where we want to free the wages of players who are not in the plans so can imagine us quite happy to let those kind of players go for free - and hopefully not having to pay them off.

I think both are interesting. McCoist is where we've come from, Neilson was the bar for where we probably should have been in the league. I find it disappointing we weren't the equal of Hearts especially as they were starting from scratch too, only moreso and with a fraction of the money. However, I do see you can't really finish better than first which means sometimes the players do just enough when that's all that's required, and less than enough when it's all over. It does suggest to me we shouldn't get carried away and that there is a lot of improvement to be done. I don't think Rangers teams should be not turning up just because we've won, I want us to have a win every game mentality. Besides they are letting down fans paying a lot of money to see them at least perform with a bit of grit and will to win. I think throwing away an 8 point lead was a bit worrying against a team with a fraction of our resources, although not totally unforgivable - like some think for throwing a 9 point lead against a more expensive side in club who didn't have Whyte as owner. However, the win against Hibs after that showed some ability in the bigger, must win games - something that McCoist seemed to lack. That seemed to also do us some stead in the Scottish Cup and especially against Celtic and that was a result that could suggest we might have a bit more quality than Hearts - although it was basically a draw in a one off game where their manager was already under pressure, never mind the pressure against them losing was incredible. So we shouldn't get too cocky about that either. Winning the challenge cup was a bonus but a winning final against Peterhead isn't worthy of too much praise in my opinion. Just as winning the second and third tier doesn't attract much from most quarters. However, winning trophies is what we're about so NOT winning the Petrofac would take some shine off. Winning the Scottish Cup could be the one really exceptional achievement, but we haven't done it yet.

As I said, that is a different thread. But it is strange how rubbish, rubbish and more rubbish didn't result in much worse results... I think it's obvious that your distaste for the style has blinded you to the actual facts of winning of games which is what we're talking about here. I really was hoping for more relevant discussion on this thread.

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense to me at all. I don't think you understand stats at all. You cannot make conclusions on Warbs Vs McCoist by using data based on other managers. If you don't understand that then there is no point in a discussion. Even weirder, no-one has even argued that McCoist has a high win percentage that Warbs even though it is probably true. If you really want to make your stated comparison, unless I have my figures wrong the true and factual stats are this: AM 72.6% (71.9% without extra time win) MW 71.4% (73.5% with penalties win included) It all depends on how you count the Celtic game. The convention is to count extra time wins but not penalties but I have included the adjustments for fairness and completeness. Stats can be "massaged" but it's all about the premise and justification. If you have a problem with mine then make a case - a real one. I gave a series of stats which were fully objective and fair and after previous unfounded criticism, I have followed criteria from those that criticise McCoist. The last comparison is as apples against apples as I can do. Again the fantastic irony is that your stats are more than massaged, they are totally INVALID for comparing McCoist and Warburton. It certainly suggest to me that you really need to look at the real stats and totally reassess the way you think. You are clearly denying the facts. I'll say again, if people think we've moved on compared to last year because of the full season, I think they are doing a massive disservice to Warburton. Pick a manager at random and you would expect him, with our resources and the backing of the board and a huge number of fans, to do a good bit better than a season where we had three managers, a fan boycott, the board ripping the heart out of the club, and a demoralised staff. Saying he is an improvement over that is faint praise indeed. But using the results of three managers against one, to prove ONE manager has a worse win ratio than the latter, is really surprising. About as extreme a straw man as you get. I do find it really enlightening about how many people have a problem with my stats but can't make even a simple case against them. I personally think if you think you have a decent thought out opinion, you should be comfortable with the facts.

I like the look of him and happy that he'll actually be our player rather than a loan.

I also want to point out that it wasn't all deafness, people listened but who believes those posing as fortune tellers? In this case the problem is possibly a lack of naivety. I know myself and many others believe that to be very successful in business, you can't be squeaky clean. I believe you have to be arrogant, self serving, greedy, ruthless, flexible on morals and ethics, and happy to bend and break the rules if you can get away with it. In business these kind of attributes seem to be actually admired. The point is that ANY successful businessman buying our club has a level of dodginess - including King. Think about so many of our board members going back to when Murray bought the club, obviously including him in spades. Think about Ashley, Diamond, Abramovic and the Glazers. Warning us about a seemingly very rich, businessman is a bit like warning us a top supermodel is a bit of a diva - it's no surprise and it doesn't mean we can't work with them. Abramovic is probably about as dodgy as you get and yet he has been very good for Chelsea, and it could be argued a catalyst in creating a successfully popular league. You may find a new friend has a dodgy past but that doesn't necessarily mean he's definitely going to do YOU over. Ashley is a terrible person and incredibly dodgy, but Sports Direct have been very successful - businessmen most often make money by running successful businesses, even when they are dodgy. There are those that asset strip to make money, but I think the belief was that no-one would do that in a high profile and passionately followed club like Rangers - they expected anyone who did that to be in fear of their very lives. I think it's maybe a credit to Rangers fans that we're civilised enough that those who raped and abused our club remain physically unscathed. So there was actually a lot of acceptance at certain points that both Whyte and Green were dodgy, but the question was, would that be directly detrimental to club or were they just doing a dodgy deal to buy as low as possible, ride the storm and then sell high while, using normal but dodgy business ethics in giving themselves loads of extra shares etc? Or were they just dodgy characters who wanted a bit of fame, attention and a front of legitimacy? Yes they were dodgy, but you could not 100% predict that they would use their dodginess to harm the club. As I said in Whyte's case, there was the question of whether a guy good at cheating the tax man, was a good person to have in your corner against a huge, dodgy tax case? And that leads to another reason for some of the acceptance, which is "ANY port in a storm", and we were in a pretty big one.

Just to explain the contradictory part is that the warnings were from THEM. They are generally a combination of hate, idiocy, lying and twisted propaganda. They could tell me it's Tuesday and while they would be right, it would not make any bearing on my perception of what day it is, or even convince me they usually know what day it is. Whenever they are right about something, as far as I'm concerned, it's merely a coincidence, or if I give them some credit for intelligence, a nefarious double bluff. Whenever they come out with their shit, yes I go selectively deaf. When Rangers fans come out with similar stuff, yes, my ears are already closed and it may be lost in the noise. People giving the warnings from our side, obviously did not understand their audience.

I find your post contradictory. Like I say, if we believed, took to heart and acted on every negative thing we hear from them and the press and other detractors, and sometimes even our own board, then we could not possibly be Rangers supporters. We would have to believe the club is toxic, evil and now dead. We'd shun it like a pariah. Slagging Rangers fans for not falling for every bit of criticism, accusation or warning or whatever, really is a bit of an oxymoron. Like I said, the main problem is the signal to noise ratio.

He's a case in point, he was right about some things and wrong about others. He had nothing concrete. Also, not many were sure starving the club would have been constructive at that time. Just because you smell a rat doesn't mean you burn down your house...

That would be a different thread. This one is purely about results. You might have been very dissatisfied with the performance level of a pension and think it was terrible, awful, the worst, and so you move it to one that looks like it performs fantastically, has great customer service and seems really promising for the future, and you may then seem incredibly satisfied with it. But what happens if you decide to just look at the raw figures and find the difference in the pension payments are just a bit better than the one you though was really, really terrible, and nowhere near as much as an improvement as you thought and worse than another one that's cheaper to pay into? How would that affect your performance and satisfaction stats personally? No-one is disputing that the football philosophy and style hasn't improved massively and the team are enjoyable to watch most of the time (but not all the time), but that doesn't mean you should take your eye off the bottom line and just assume it's a lot better than it really is.

I mistakenly presumed all big clubs had gone hybrid years ago... About 25 years ago I was studying and a few of my flatmates were doing environmental engineering and as football fans they were telling me about related stuff - especially putting rubberlike fibres into the soil of the grass to help it bounce back instead of compacting into ruts and divots etc. I'm sure they mentioned having fake grass interspersed with real grass then too.

As I said, this is kind of contradictory. If they knew anything of what was to come, they'd have been happy. The fact they weren't happy will always make it more difficult to believe. Warnings were also given about King and others on our board... Not many weren't sceptical of Green but there wasn't much concrete or unambiguous information forthcoming, or actually anything more constructive that could be done. A lot of it comes down to innocent until proven guilty, but unfortunately the latter in these cases is obviously too late. The fans were between a rock and hard place, they had to invest in season tickets or the club could have gone forever.

I recall the signal to noise ratio for the negative information on Craig Whyte was particularly low. There was a large amount of innuendo or plenty of stuff coming from untrusted or hostile sources. Rather than deafness it was more like the difficulty of discerning anything with the any clarity. Johnston himself did not have the trust of fans and seemed to have an axe to grind. Ironically our enemies were also no more on the ball about it, as they would otherwise have kept schtum about him, quietly awaiting the damage to come... I remember myself saying early on that although he seemed like a big tax dodger, we couldn't really know whether that was an asset or a liability when it came to fighting a big, dodgy, tax case... It depended on whether he was fully on our side or out for himself. Ironically in retrospect, Dave King was maybe a better fit there, but was otherwise engaged fighting such a case.

I should maybe explain that producing in the stats I was attempting to pre-empt previous complaints of "slicing and dicing", so the first one is all the results of the managers. But then there is that accusation of "apples and oranges comparison", so then limited it to the Championship season. Then I was thinking people might consider including cup games as better for McCoist so did league games only. But then there is the anomaly as the leagues had different teams the previous year and so excluded the differences in the top teams as they are more important. But then I thought I better be complete by removing the change in the bottom teams. So the final comparsion is as apples vs apples as you can get here, with no "slicing and dicing" for the respective managers' results. Then for interest I realised there are some cup games where there were teams that both MW and AM both played and as a couple were SP teams I thought that could be relevant and so added it in for those two managers which also increases the size of the data samples. So ironically this version of the stats is about as best as I can do to take into account Craig's criteria. Of course it's impossible to do complete like with like in this kind of thing EVER as no two games can ever be exactly the same test, and in this case there is change of personnel in the opposition as well as a different number of games against each team and probably different home and away scenarios. But it's better than just making up an unsubstantiated subjective view and interesting to compare it to your assumptions. The irony is of course, that complying with Craig's criteria, McCoist comes out well in front. As I've acknowledged, this does not mean Ally is better, but it does question the meme where he is useless and we've come a long way - purely results-wise. As I've pointed out, it makes the meme possibly suggest that Warburton isn't good at at all, and all praise is a bit like complimenting the competitive dad on the Fast Show thrashing his young son at squash - except for the lack of a thrashing. It's more like him pipping him 9-7 at say 3-1. I would say I'm useless at F1 and Jenson Button is rather good but you'd find it pretty impossible to fairly and justifiedly compare us in some way to make me come out in front. But again that digresses into the whole McCoist thing where the point is that we need to look at the results objectively and not allow the dislike of a manager and his team's playing style to obfuscate what the real progress we've made is - in terms of winning games. This is why I also put Nielson's stats in too, as I think that is a very relevant comparison. I would discount the challenge cup as they didn't seem to treat it seriously, and they were knocked out of both big cups by Celtic - which while nothing to be ashamed of, is the one ace we hold. However, as Ally takes flack for having a larger wage bill, we must be as consistent with Warburton. But the thing I was disappointed with in the stats is that it showed the most likely scenario suggested by the stats, had, Warburton been manager last season and had no effect on their results against other teams, would be for us to finish second, which is the same best fit from McCoists results. Conversely, allow McCoist to manage this season without Hearts and the best prediction for the stats is to win the league - again the same result. Now the stats also suggest Warburton would have more points for both seasons - especially when you factor in the draws, but the actual placings completely contradict Craig's "facts" that Warburton was more successful in this sense than McCoist. Again it's not about McCoist, or detracting from Warburton, but instead it's about not getting too carried away with "massive" improvements which result wise - Celtic game apart, are not quite yet realised. There are definite large improvements the case of the style of play, and the hope for the future, but in the end it's all down to winning games and where you finish in the league, so the improvement in play needs to count for more. The take home I get from these stats is that we have to do much better than Hearts did last summer, and build on our excellent possession play to turn it into more wins than we currently do. It may kind of sound obvious but it's not quite what people are generally saying on here. We need more of a step up in quality.

Completely agree! I've tried the ignore function, but as I've highlighted before, it means I'm constantly disparaged behind my back, so need reciprocation in this regard from SBS. Any handbags I swing have been merely in response, intended as a bit of a deterrent, since trying to rationalise has repeatedly failed.

No, I'm being objective and consistent. In this sense you CANNOT have mitigation (or "excuses" as some would have it) for one and not the other, and it brings subjectivity into it. I personally believe a club being ripped apart by a nefarious board, a manager who is compelled to resign (and playing a couple of games after that), a fan boycott, morale at an incredible low where players are reputedly feigning injury, and a pessimistic future to be stronger mitigation, than a club on a high, with happy fans turning up in droves, a morale boosting win wining of the league and a cup tie win against Celtic, with a surprisingly bright future ahead. You have the right to analyse that differently. I think Warburton will agree with me (because he has publicly done so - and because I think he is fair minded). For me, to avoid that kind of discussion that few are able to do on here, it's best to keep it about determining our ability to win in all circumstances - which also means that the manager is only part of the equation, albeit a large and important one. I'm only including McCoist's from last season as I believe the results after that are incomparable and therefore not valid - like apples and chickens.

Craig, I really am getting tired of telling you I agree. For the last time, in caps, I THINK WARBURTON IS A MUCH BETTER MANAGER THAN MCCOIST. What the stats show is that you seem to have the opinion that Warburton is a little bit better than shit... I seem to have a much higher opinion of him than you do. Craig, please show a tiny bit of consistency. You've just gone on about Warburton winning the league by having more points, McCoist was in second place reasonably solidly. You cannot objective conclude that he would have achieved anything other than second place, which would put him in the playoffs. Considering he showed he was as capable of beating Hibs as we are now, better at beating Falkirk, Kilmarnock and St Johnstone, and had beaten a decent ICT team, also having beaten Motherwell in his previous game, while in the 4th tier, everything points towards the likelihood of us being promoted. There is no object evidence that I can see, or you have put forward, to suggest we wouldn't. You obviously don't think so, because you don't WANT to think so. We weren't great but we were the best in the league after Hearts. There are no facts to suggest this season is different in that regard. Irrelevant stuff snipped. For consistency in your own arguement this can't be relevant. McCoist lost a final to a second tier club while in the third tier, Warburton won against a third tier club while in the second tier - I believe you call that "comparing apples with oranges"... Your analysis not mine. More snip. I never said they tell the whole story, they each tell a part of the story. I've already said there is qualitative stuff to consider BUT the considering the objective stuff makes you challenge your preconceptions. You don't have to change them but they should be compatible. Yours clearly aren't. There's nothing like valid statistics that are incompatible with people's beliefs to bring out the "stats are crap" opinions. Stats are invaluable if you know how to treat them. As I said I'm not defending anything except logic and rationality, you just seem to emotionally attached to your opinion to be able to see any objectivity. If you're views were correct, we'd be looking at more obviously matching stats. To make a realistic viewpoint, we need stats based on reality, not fantasy. The whole premise of your argument is just not real and in sticking to that irrational agenda, you are missing the whole point. Again, I am not defending McCoist, I have said again and again I don't think he was good enough for Rangers, I first said it half way through his first season; however I reserve to keep my well rational-led opinion that results wise he was mediocre - you will not bully me otherwise - if you have a compelling argument then I will listen and perhaps change my mind, but you haven't been close. The stats are fair and I challenge anyone to show otherwise. The fact they are more compatible with my opinion and that you are once again attacking them as they don't suit yours suggests a lot - but doesn't mean I am right. However, since you are not taking reality into account of yours, if you are somehow completely right in your opinion, I can only suggest that it's coincidental. For me it doesn't really matter whether McCoist was mediocre or rubbish per se, I'm glad we now have Warburton. What does matter is rationality of thought and I will defend my opinions if I have enough evidence and logic to back them up. However, it does get tiresome when I'm constantly attacked for an opinion I don't have - as I said many times, people with extreme views like yourself, mistakenly believe that someone with a moderate view has the extreme opposite. People with extreme views also don't like inconvenient facts and stats. I will say last time, I'm NOT defending McCoist, but if you think fair and valid stats are an agenda to do so, then you should perhaps question your own thinking.

Craig, it's not a fact. McCoist resigned before he had the chance to have us promoted. Due to that, you're conclusion is completely and utterly invalid and you really need to think about that. The stats show that the most likely scenario had McCoist continued in the same fashion, despite the difficulties caused by the board, would be for us to gain second place and be promoted by beating Hibs and Motherwell. It's the best fit prediction, although that doesn't mean it would actually happen. That is something we will never know. The stats are about what we DO know. Basically you are once again making it up, and trying to pass off very personal conjecture as fact. I really don't want to get into a debate about a total fallacy. You obviously cannot think objectively on this subject - and therefore it's not surprising you don't want to know about objective stats. According to some sources McCoist had a negative net transfer balance for three seasons and one season where no money went out and no money came in. Warburton had a net positive balance. I'm surprised you think that the old board was as supportive as this one, to me THAT is black and white, but you also ignore other factors and it's smacks of making excuses. There is no doubt Ally had a harder job on his hands with many factors and even on a level playing field your opinions would mean that the results should NOT be comparable in slightest. However, this is NOT what the intention of this thread is about. It's about looking at cold, hard facts. As I said their validity is up for debate, but I think I've been very objective and fair. Each part of the stats paints an objective picture, what you interpret from that is up to you. So I'm surprised at the difficulty people have in accepting them and discussing them as such with consistency - except that they don't fit in with some of the very strong memes. The thread is not intended to be a McCoist thread, it's about cutting through the hype examining our improvement in the ability to win games.

I disagree, the results stats are cold, hard facts, Transfermarkt is using certain assumptions to ascertain a basic starting point for the value of players. I agree the stats are not the whole story but I think it's interesting to sometimes look at them in isolation to question our subjective conclusions.

You really are a card mate, you talk about facts and point to one of your posts where your first line is totally untrue. Your mistruths and lies are so tedious, I can't even imagine what your motivation is for them. I must admit agree with your half a brain synopsis. You certainly seem to struggle. I really think you should look up the word "trolling", really. You're lack of self awareness is astounding. I never mentioned the CL so, once again, have no idea what you're rambling on about. Instead of constantly come on with your tedious insults and whacky interpretations of what I write, I invite you to actually partake in a reasoned debate. That is what this forum thrives on.