calscot

For me, when he said this we were at point A, and we want to get to point B - which is self-sufficient, run efficiently and competently with the goal of successfully competing for all trophies, with a reasonable run in Europe at least commensurate with our income. At that point there should be no need for investment or loans by rich fans. The issue is the transition or journey from A to B which may require an external injection of a significant money, and a fixed figure can't be put upon that. As long as we get there in good time, without requiring over the maximum amount that people are prepared to invest, the amount itself is not really relevant, and I infer it has an "up to" qualification. So it's not about how much, it's about is it enough at the time as an ongoing thing? It's the old proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it's tastes good, is of good quality and is filling, does it matter if it cost less than you thought it would? The same goes for the four year time span, it's up to that, if we get there in less then there is no more external money needed after that unless circumstances change. We should be vigilant on our actual progress on the journey, not focusing on how much it's costing a single benefactor.

I would love to have a lot more of no 5... I always think the weird things as that these guys are supposed to be seasoned professionals but have no professionalism at all. If you took a load of young footballers from all sorts of educational backgrounds and upbringings, and without yet having acquired great wisdom of the world, you'll find very few with that lack of professionalism where the equivalent would be to throw games or at least play badly against teams they like, and then kick the crap out of teams they hate, to the point of getting sent off and being detrimental to their own team. Social media has caused quite a few to make incredibly stupid and unprofessional comments - BUT, that's more personal and not quite their actual job - the equivalent of a journo making a fool of themselves while playing a kick-about.

I know it's only a rumour of administration so far, but threat of them going completely under is quite interesting. I think before certain events, I wouldn't want to see a club die, although I maybe didn't have that much sympathy for the Hibs and the proposed merger with Hearts as I thought that might strengthen Scottish football. The game is now beyond strengthening but I'd really welcome having just one team in Dundee which could create a tiny bit more competition and interest in the top half of the table some time in the future - maybe the next generation. Dundee could become a team with 20k supporters or more and possibly able to give as big or bigger a challenge as Aberdeen and Hearts, and possibly make a dent against the tiny minnows of Europe. As I said my sentiments have changed, and before I'd have seen the logic but be a bit ambivalent as it's a bit to far to not care when a club dies. Looking at the lower divisions or abroad, I'd probably feel for the supporters in fear of this, and hope for a revival for them - but right now I couldn't give a monkey's about that particular club. It's also a bit of special case as two biggish teams from a city that size with their stadiums a (hefty but literal) stone throw from each other in a cash poor league, is a just ludicrous situation - they really should at least ground share. I know it's incredibly unlikely as even a last resort there is the newco thing that we did, with a fan buyout like Hearts did - which with reasonable creditors would probably be cheap as chips. Anyway, carrying some left over schadenfreude, administration and a points penalty to keep them down an extra season or more, wouldn't exactly make my heart bleed for them.

Might sound strange but I'd rather we qualified for the cl via the league. Happy to win both...

Eh, I'm not upset in the slightest, just clarifying how I see the thread. To me it's all about discussing the points. Maybe I need to use more smilies...

To lighten things up... ☺

I really don't think the thread is about judgement, it's about people doing something that is potentially harmful to the club and using justifications that are plainly contentious: 1 Why shouldn't I do whatever I want? 2 I HAVE to do this or I'm not a good parent. 3 I started before it was harmful so why should I stop now? 4 I HAVE to have 18 in a row or it's worthless. I really don't think you can expect others to accept this kind of stuff without comment and rebuttal. For me, I'd empathise a lot more if they explained it was an indulgence that they felt too strongly compelled to do, despite the downside, for which they hoped their contribution was minimal. That strikes a chord with me, as I think all of us do that, and it shows a bit of self awareness of the situation. Do whatever you want but don't expect everyone to agree with it or think your motives make sense to them. And if you don't want to discuss personal decisions, you don't HAVE to post them...

I can't see us being less that than Celtic in the long run - we'd find it harder to compete. However, the fans have been loyal and you have to be careful to nurture that and not just hike it up too far in one year.

Sorry Coop, I must have read it badly... PS My replies were supposed to be light hearted and I am agreeing with you somewhat.

Sorry Coop, I must have read it badly...

How much has been spent by all investors - I know it's quite a bit? There's the Ashley loan for starters and we've had losses to absorb as well as loans for cash flow. There's the stadium work and other expenses too. £10m? I haven't been keeping count. Whatever he's spent so far, it seems like the perfect Goldylocks amount - not too much, not too little. Exactly what we need. We will need money each year for at least a few years and that's optimistic, so why would a sane person spend it all now?

I would. Manners and etiquette if nothing else. I also think it shows a certain self esteem and respect for yourself and your club if you can applaud your rivals when there is a good reason. There is something unhealthy about not being able to and says they have a part of you.

Sorry, you said there were fans berating other fans, it wasn't true... I'm no expert on bringing up kids but I've never experienced, read, watched or seen allegories where giving children everything they want is a good thing, or that possibly learning a bit about principles, disappointment and compromise are bad things. As Calvin (and Hobbes) dad keeps saying, "It builds character." As I said, make the choice you prefer, but be aware of and acknowledge the possible down sides first. There seems to be a lot of people so busy with self justification that they miss the point that it is exactly that, a free will choice.

"Pontificate", come on, really? Can you not show some open mindedness to an alternate point of view, even if you ultimately disagree with it? Like I said, I do believe it's everyone choice but to me they should be fully aware of the choice they are making and why. If you are finally comfortable with the choice, then you should be comfortable with other point of view. I already showed that I get that people are compelled to sets and series and we do all sorts of things for our own reasons. I get that what you are doing sounds like a fun project and nice to do, but when you tell me I wouldn't understand, because I don't have kids about, emotional interests and family vested interests, then I'm really losing you, I'm not a lonely hermit on a desert island. To use it to say that I wouldn't understand without kids, why emotional interest means you HAVE to buy him a new football strip every year, then it becomes a bit surreal. I know a lot of people with kids who wouldn't understand that in the slightest and I don't think their kids suffer too much because of that. But maybe you're saying that because I don't have kids, I see it more rationally and objectively... However, I'm sorry, I think it's nothing to do with having kids, it's a sentimental gesture you have made to yourself which is only fully understandable by you, and only by you. There's nothing wrong with that, we all have our own interests, passions, personal projects and motivations - but it's not some kind of rite of passage that I've missed. It's about distinguishing wants and needs but sometimes indulging our wants. You don't have to change plans but shouldn't you know the reasons why? The answer is that if NOBODY buys the merch then the pressure is very high on Ashley to improve the situation - even for his ego. While there is enough of a trickle, his big headedness and mean mindedness means he can probably just leave it as it is to punish us. Now you can ignore that reason, over-rule it as less important, or somehow justify it by thinking that one shirt doesn't make much of a difference. But I think you should at least know it and acknowledge it. I agree, but like I say, I'd personally prefer it if people made the decision with a fully informed conscience and were comfortable enough with their decision to be able to discuss it openly, and realise that their reasoning might not be convincing to others or just provoke discussion on it. The "why not?" argument could not have been more disappointing.

Who's berating whom? You don't think everyone is entitled to express an opinion? Can I point out that when you are doing something that is potentially harmful to something or someone, it's no longer just a personal matter. This affects a club people love and you seem to be implying that it's OK for you to tell them what to do...

I didn't think I was judging, merely putting forward an alternative perspective. Of course you can spend your money on what you like - doesn't mean others are not allowed an opinion on it. I really don't get the attitude of "how dare you judge me for doing whatever the hell I want". Equally Ashley can also assert his contract if he likes and do what he wants. Does mean I have to think it's good or right or beneficial to society, or not be able to point out its flaws? But to answer your question, no adult should just "spend money on what they like" as with all due respect once more, it's just not a mature way of thinking. It's what children tend to do but adults don't. As we grow up we learn to moderate our behaviour to take into account to the consequences and think about that first, as well as using our conscience. We should weigh up things and then make a conscious and thought out decision that we think is the best one under the circumstances. Freud called it the "superego". It's not new, it's pretty established - the phrase used for it for many generations is "spoilt brat". I didn't invent it and I'm NOT saying any of your kids are, or even sure that that extreme is relevant here, but I do find it surprising that the concept is new to you. It seems obvious to me that when kids ALWAYS get what they want whether it's things or treatment, they don't learn the value of things or develop as much empathy for others. You just have to watch Super Nanny to see what a lot of parents are doing wrong. Can I point out that you can spend the SAME amount of money on kids with Lion Brand, so spending the money itself on kids is not the issue here - it's whether the buying what you want because you want it is more important than the consequences. Maybe in your case it is, but it's always worth stopping and thinking about it first. None of what I've said was a personal judgement, it's about looking at it from a different viewpoint, and then working out if you see it the same.

Disappointed we won't be able to get close matching Hearts' total from last season in arguably a harder league, with us instead of St Mirren. Hopefully we'll amply surpass them for the promotion year. I think we're a better team but we have a couple of weaknesses that affect some of our results which need fixing before we're given a sterner series of tests next season. For me it's the regular switching off in defence and not taking our chances. Other things to work on are accurate long balls and headers at both ends of the pitch. I'm sure MW has it all in hand...

Good time to stop or you're going to relegate him to the bench... But seriously, you now have a full house, the full set, the royal flush, the suite, to me it's logical that that's it... The trouble with things like that is that it can take over rationality and become obsessive. I remember when I was 14 and buying a second hand copy of the first album of a band I liked so I'd have all of them. It took all my paper round money and more, and it was pants and I thought, did I really need that just to have a set? It was an epiphany - I then thought about the vast amount I'd spent when about 11 years old on Panini stickers, just to fill the album - and having no money for anything else. Then I started seeing kids with collections on programmes like Blue Peter in a different light and saw how much tat they collected just because it fitted what they were interested in - like rabbit ornaments or something, and they'd have a really lame favourite. And I realised that people can get obsessed with having a set or continuing a tradition, even when it's not good for them or their savings and a lot of the time they don't even like some of the individual pieces much. I think this is one of those times when it's not good for us and we should just take a deep breath and relax. Missing a few in a series won't really affect us in any tangible way - it's all psychological. Besides, I'm sure that if we get our income back in a few years, the club could easily be persuaded to reproduce kit from previous seasons, with all the money going to the right places. I also think you could by the Lion Brand or the other one instead - and when you look back in future decades you can point to that and remember when you stood up for what you believed in and wouldn't give a parasite of the club another penny. For me, that's a better memory than a full set. Those LPs I mentioned have been in my mum's loft for about 25 years. I don't want them back. My Panini book has been burried in a land fill for another decade... It's just not that important.

I didn't see any fair points - out of the three main ones he made. Dave King said he'd spend £30m, he did not say he'd spend it in the first or second year. KJ's take on that shows a complete lack of intelligence. He can ask that question in three or four years time. It does not HAVE to be asked now. When talking about our enemies, it's not mere sound-bites, our whole situation and the way we have been constantly been treated is a testament to that. It's a clear fact, that all Rangers fans can see, but those doing the kicking constantly saying it's not happening or it's just our own fault. We need acknowledgement that the board's eyes are open on this. KJ is disingenuous here as he knows what has gone on and is still going on - but he's doing the Tom English thing where the latter tried to assert that the BBC was "accurate" in its reporting. Lies and propaganda. Lastly, King might at the time think that Rangers wages need trebled to compete properly, but this is a fluid situation and it's been shown that with a good manager against a weak one, less is needed. However, I have no doubt that within a few years we will have trebled our wage bill, but also in no doubt it won't happen in one season. We have to bring in income streams to pay for it first and that will not happen overnight in our first season back in the top flight. It needs to ramp up more naturally, just like any business. KJ again shows a lack of self awareness in his own piece by preaching that we can't go down the road of spending out-with our means and then totally contradicts himself here to make an erroneous point. To me it's very dumb piece that is purely there to give certain readers a bone to gnaw at after more cowering headlines about them making a dog's dinner of the season. It seems to me that DK is delivering the goods with aplomb - some of it ahead of schedule, and in that context I really can't grumble about how much money he's spent on doing it so far.

Never understood the NEED to have the latest top, ANY Rangers top should do. When I was young, where I lived, nobody had that luxury and as someone without kids - so with all due respect, it comes across as a bit like spoiling them and not teaching them to appreciate stuff. There is also an ethical lesson here that to me is a more valuable gift to kids than just indulgence in owning the latest stuff...

I'm glad our lot rarely do disrespectful stuff like that, and you'd think because of that we'd be less unpopular and they'd get a lot more stick... But one of ours defends himself against an unprovoked assault and gets gang attacked and there's witch-hunt on him, including from some of our own. Or another tries a trick move, or one celebrates in the middle of the pitch...

Likely one more home league game (potentially two or none), which makes up 5.5% of it... A couple of home games against Celtic must also be worth something. Doesn't seem too bad and reasonable compared to average in the EP - whose clubs could afford to make it cheap due to the £90m in TV money - chop £100 off for 30k and it's only £3m, a drop in the ocean for them, but now significant for us. I think that might be the thinking in Germany and Spain. However, as the EP have 95-99% full stadiums (except Aston Villa), it's not so compelling.

The other clubs were stupid in their own lack of integrity. If they want to win stuff by artificially nobbling the dominant clubs (as if that is winning) they should have found reasons to punish Celtic severely. There's their EBT, the soft loans, the fake land deal, thie listed school etc to work with. Or they could have gone all Penn State on them. Instead they turned an already slightly interesting toss of a coin competition into a predetermined non-event which has killed all outside interest in our premier tournament. Teams are boasting of competition for second place as they have contrived for the best clib to play in lower divisions, how sad and pathetic.

Sorry to hear about your son in hospital, Craig. Hope he's on the mend and doing well. Sounds like a very stressful time even without the move too, so hope it all goes smoothly.

Even if you think so, you can't with any credibility, use McKay being a good player as "proof". It just doesn't make sense, that's the point. There's just no need to either. If you're so sure he's shit, why the need to continually convolute some illogical "proof" from contradictory "evidence"? Can't we just say that McKay has become a very good player without the disparaging, irrelevant and illogical references to McCoist?