calscot

I think Kris Boyd showed that it wasn't that hard to score a few goals for Rangers last season. Even Marvin Andrews had a better scoring record than Jeffers - and Waterreus and Klos were equal!

The more I hear about PLG, the more I realise that Eck was definitely out of his depth at Rangers. It's like we've replaced an amateur with a professional...

My favourite place in France is Monpellier. Beautiful small city which is really friendly, has a fantastic pedestrianised center with load of squares with fountains and great restaurants around them. It's also just a few miles from the beach on the med.

Are the EPL games included in the new subscription? IO thought it might be extra or ppV...

Depends on how much money you want to give PLG to spend...

I think he was given a chance but was just rubbish for the reserves. If you look poor against Livingstone reserves you're never going to get back in the first team. I think PLG has seen his videos for these games and it's not surprising he wants to get rid. If it was just a clash of personalities and lack of opportunity with Eck then I think PLG would have given him a chance, but obviously he has an attitude problem and is not prepared to graft his way into the team.

I've had it for two years and think the quality is poor. The picture so far has not been in widescreen, which once you've had you can't do without, and the compression seems higher than on the BBC or Sky Sports so there is a lot of edge effects etc and so it's not pretty to watch on a 2m projector screen. The scheduling is also poor with nothing on most of the time when they could be repeating the highlights incase you missed them or what I would like is a programme with say 25min of highlights per game as well as the one with 10. I could then record it and just watch the Rangers one. The highlights are usually on a Sunday evening which is annoying. Surely it should be shown first on a Saturday evening? I'm also not impressed with the commentry and punditry. RTV is virtually left unwatched for me as Ibrox Uncovered is completely sanitised so that no-one is allowed to say anything against the party line. The rest is more for nostalgics or people who want to watch the whole game two days after it was played. They also do young guns but I'd prefer highlights than the whole game again. I'm not prepared to sit for two hours to watch a repeat of a reserve match. What Rangers TV doesn't have is much insight into what is going on at Ibrox and you get more news from Reporting Scotland. One annoying thing is that they only show anything at all during prime time when other stuff is on. I might watch more of the Setanta channels if they had something on during the day or late at night when the rest of the tv channels are boring. But they are off the air during these times. So unless you like american sport, Dutch, German, French and Italian football, Gaelic football and Irish rugby and loads of old Rangers games as well as reserve games, it's not great value for money IMHO. However, I'll probably be resubscribing as I don't want to miss the PLG revolution...

lol!!!!!!

Yep, agree with the last two. Odds in the bookies are related to number of bets rather than real world chances of winning. Supposing you were taking bets on the toss of a coin and 1000 people betted £1 on heads and only 100 better on tails. If you had adjusted your odds to 11-1 on fror heads and 9-1 against for tails then you'll always make a profit no matter which comes up. The odds are skewed but there is still equal chance for each outcome. (It also shows how bookies make more money if the favourite loses). So you reduce your payouts on the bigger bets by making their odds smaller and you encourage people to bet on the less popular by bringing up the odds and therefore cover your payouts if the favourite wins. The trick is to adjust the odds as bets are placed to keep this relationship going between the bets so you always win. However bookies can get caught out if a lot of big bets are put on before they have a chance to reduce the odds and then have to pay out. You don't get many poor bookies. This is also why you can't expect your mate to give you the same odds as the bookies.

Come on gribz - you should know even a yard is exaclty 3 feet and a metre is bigger than a yard. In fact if you had one of those rulers at school with inches on one side and centimetres on the other you should have noticed that 12 inches is almost the same as 30 cm. That makes aproximately three and a third feet per metre, multiply that by 15 and you get 50... They do say that schooling went downhill in the late 80's... To be more exact you should take 2.54cm per inch so 15m / 0.0254(m/inch) is 590.55 inches. Divide that by 12 inches/ft gives 49.21ft or 49ft 2.55 inches.

I had never heard of Boumsong, Rodriguez, Hemdani or Buffel before we signed them...

PS Our present first 24 seems to be: Letizi, Klos, MacGregor Ricksen, Hutton, Lowing Rodriguez, Andrews Svensson, Fanfan Smith, Bernard Burke, Sionko, Namouchi Ferguson, Rae Hemdani, Malcolm Murray Buffel, Novo Prso, Boyd That's 10 Scots plus Namouchi, although Malcolm and MacGregor are likely to leave but the latter could be replaced by Robinson. In a couple of seasons, Ashikodi and N'Gessan should be treated as home grown, too.

It's hard to believe Rangers did not have enough home grown players. How about: Hutton, Smith, Burke, Ferguson, Boyd, Rae, Rae, Malcolm, Murray, Lowing, Thomson and McCormack? That's twelve for a start plus possibly Namouchi... I'm finding it hard to come up with 16 foreigners: Waterreus, Klos, Ricksen, Fanfan, Rodriguez, Andrews, Kyrgiakos, Bernard, Buffel, Hemdani, Lovenkrands, Prso, Novo That's thirteen plus possibly Namouchi and maybe Jeffers and Nieto. Unless there's a load of players I've forgotten we'd have struggled to put 16 foreigners into a 24 man squad last season. Sorry Frankie, but I think your information isn't quite accurate for once!

Colshy you forgot about 1974 when Yugoslavia put Scotland out on goal difference by beating Zaire 9-0 - the Zaire Manager just happened to be... Yugoslavian. Scotland had a great team that year and had already put out one of the favourites in Czechoslavakia. They had also played Germany off the park in a friendly, soundly beaten England in the home nations and were unlucky to only draw with Brasil. They were the only unbeaten team in those finals and had a very good chance of winning it. So... brazil(5) italy(2) uruguay(2) argentina(1) czechoslovakia(1) england(1) france(1) germany(1) holland(1) hungary(1) scotland(1) However without the dodgy linesman it should have been Germany in 66 making it: brazil(5) germany(2) italy(2) uruguay(2) argentina(1) czechoslovakia(1) france(1) holland(1) hungary(1) scotland(1)

We seem to do better with a few Scots in the team to inject a bit of passion so I would hope our manager would check out any decent Scottish international who comes available not least because they are usually quite cheap and fit in quicker. No "adjustment to the pace" needed nor language tuition. If they are genuinely not good enough or don't want to play for us then you can dismiss them out of hand.

I was about to write the same. Apparently he doesn't publicise his charity work.

We're all part of one "in-group" or another to different degrees. Some are more extreme about it than others. Wearing a jimmy wig and kilt and getting a bit pissed doesn't sound so bad, attacking English people or anyone for that matter is right out of order. The positive thing about the TA that part of being in the "in-group" is to be very friendly with the locals...

And they weren't attributed with the role model in my post...

Is that why I think that most Rangers fans are not really sectarian? I think some buy all the anti-Fenian/Catholic and FTP, stuff as they think that makes them a better Rangers fan which makes them belong more to the "in-group" as they are against the "out-group". For the same reason they become pro-royal family, union and protestant faith. I think deep down most of them don't care one way or the other about most of it but they like football, like being a football fan and like to belong. I think that if we can dissociate the religious and political aspects from the football club, all you will have left is football rivalry - which will probably be just as nasty and violent but is less likely to spread into other parts of peoples lives. And we will no longer be called sectarian or be threatened with bans from Europe. But I think this is just a pipe dream. But I've a feeling you'll probably disagree with every word I say...

Thanks for quoting my post it clearly shows I said "Some people['s]... role model must be..." If you read it properly you would see it was also a bit of humour. What's wrong with the first two comparisons anyway? In the Goodies, TBT was a UJ wearing royalist who was a big tory supporter... Ian Paisley is a proud Ulsterman, Unionist and church going protestant... I wouldn't like to be compared to them as I'm none of that but why should you be so offended? The third guy is a bit of a pratt but some Rangers fans are no angels.

A racist crime does not require the wearing of a football top. You are jumping to conclusions. If the guy goes around attacking anyone with an English accent - then I'll agree it's a racist crime. But appart from that, the socialogical principle I've been using EXPLAINS racist attacks rather than masking them. I think most this is your opinion rather than a fact and again the principle explains a reason behind the social issues rather than masking them. It gives us a better understanding. I think Scotland has sociological problems including racism but I think that people (including the first Minister) not supporting England is not really a part of it that concerns me. Nice bit of inverse snobbery there. I've explained my interpretation of the principle as I feel it applies to football fans, if you want to call it something else then feel free to do so, I think the phrase is fairly descriptive of what I was talking about. Cammy are you trying to get a point across or do you just like finding new ways of insulting people? I've been to Ibrox many times as well as away games and I never said anyone was this... You've a cheek to compare me to Graeme Speirs - the guy that quotes people out of context from Follow Follow, when you do the same!

I doubt these institutions sing anything to delibrately antagonise anyone. I don't think the same can be said of Rangers fans - do you? The ironic thing here is that in my opinion it is Rangers fans [not all of them] themselves that see it as antagonistic! I think the colours of the UJ have a lot to do with Rangers fans flying it. If it was green, white and gold I don't think you'd get any in the home crowd at Ibrox. Possibly, but my experience must be different, I didn't know any kids in Assembly or the BB's or Church who were actually happy to sing GSTQ (although I don't actually remember singing it much at all - even in those places). Most kids hated assembly completely and only went to the BB's for the games and football. I didn't know many kids who enjoyed going to church either. But if your theory is correct, how come ALL supporters of Scottish teams don't seem to sing it? Surely many of them have had a similar upbringing? I do rembember singing lots of hymns at assembly, at the BB's and at church but I don't hear any of them being sung at Ibrox and some are far more rousing than GSTQ. And after all, many are supposedly proud to be protestant christians.

Well maybe it's just the people who seem to think I'm attacking them and calling them "Big bad Rangers fans" or "not good enough to be Scottish" when all I'm doing is trying to apply a sociological principle to explain certain types of group behaviour. That really does go WHOOSH!

I agree it's not there but if you read my posts it's implied although here I would say the implication is that I think [most] Rangers fans that sing it generally do it to wind up the Tims rather than any great love for the Queen (although I do think many like to think they love the Queen as that's what they think Rangers fans are supposed to do). I have no direct evidence of this but it is my belief before you ask me how I know this. I will catagorically admit that I do not think ALL Rangers fans do this and some actually do love the queen. if that helps clarify things. If you wanted to argue on that semantic point you could have done so and I'd have retracted it and clarified it. I can't be too explicit all the time as my posts are long enough at it is! To be honest I think you do understand what I'm saying and I think you'd be hard pushed to make people believe that a high proportion of Rangers fans love the queen so much that they often spontaneously break into the national anthem. If the Tims found themselves a sense of humour and started joining in, it would soon die out.

I'm sorry but that's the second post you've made where the logic of it is completely lost on me...