calscot

You were going on about people have panto villains... Very amusing. You obviously have an extreme and narrow view on McCoist and so like many, you problably mistake someone a bit more moderate for having the completel opposite view. THerefore anyone who disagrees with you is "defending" him, when they are merely trying to get the debate out of the hatefest. In this topic, you are taking a guy that Ally played very regularly as a 17 year old in the 4th tier, where he did not bad, and then sent him out on loan for two seasons. He comes back, aged 20, more mature, and shows he's become a decent player and THAT'S your cue to have a go at Ally's inabilities? Incredible, where is the sense in that? In your mind, Ally ruined him and Warburton came along and within a few weeks made this apparent broken figure into a very good player? Really makes sense, right? But as I keep saying, when you apply the made up judgements on Ally, ALL managers start to look really shit - and the margins between the worse manager and a good one seem to be incredibly small. Warburton was "incapable" of improving Oduwa, so now our manager is useless? Hmm. It's also completely ignoring reality with regards to Lewis McLeod. Warburton ticks a lot of the "Ally is shit" boxes, and without the crap from the previous board and the unhappiness of the fans. Losing agianst teams with a fraction of the resources - tick, losing a large lead - tick, not playing many academy players -tick, playing players out of position - tick, criticism for boring and frustrating style - tick, missing out on signing targets - tick, pumped out of the cup by mediocre SP teams - tick. The thing is Warburton is far better manager, but when you compare almost all the metrics to Ally, then he's only doing marginally better. What you're saying is that he's marginally better than the worst manager in the world.

Yeah, it's a very neat and tidy meme - if they do badly they've been ruined by you know who, if they do well it's because they are now being properly coached. Trouble is that it needs to stay in the McCoist only bubble otherwise, it can be applied to every manager and coach. As said, there are players who haven't improved under Warburton, and there are players who have been sent on loan - and they may return better, what would that mean? But you really do enjoy your panto villains.

Ha ha, the irony is positively dripping. You're also at the panto and have just chosen different villains. Who knows why McKay has improved - perhaps it's going out on loan for experience, as many young players do. But we really don't know, so why choose a scape goat or three? BTW Has Warburton got shortcomings as he couldn't get a tune out of Oduwa and other players like Clark or Aird?

I think we can all agree that the media are as an intrinsic part of the problem.

For attractiveness as a city to live in, or probably more importantly, "near", I think Glasgow ranks above Manchester and well above Liverpool. England is a strange country in that there is only one attractive large city and that's London. The rest are industrial and underinvested due to London being highly subsidised - with hidden and indirect subsidies. It makes for a very lopsided country where there is only one real destination for foriegners. Scotland with all it's faults rises above the mainly industrial English cities which are mainly surrounded by large, depressing towns, in massive contrast to the countryside surround the much more pleasant larger cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, which I would also say are generally more cosmopollitan. The unattractiveness our country is more to do with the lack of money and the standard of the league IMO. In the fantasy a Brittish league, and stretching that to say with a larger, merged Edinburgh team in the Premiership, I think we'd attract players more easily than most after money and chances of success are equalised, and so where environment becomes a factor. However, I think you can look to Newcastle and Sunderland to see that just having a large support and plenty of Sky cash, does not automatically make you successful. But then maybe that when it comes back to who would want to live there? It is surpising how they underperform (although Ashley is another factor). You also have to wonder how much advangage our greater support would bring - for money to spend I don't think it would be much, firstly due to the 90m+ from TV which dwarfs gates receipts, and secondly we'd still have to charge less than the likes of Spurs which would even up the disparity in numbers. So it would be all about the 12th man, which doesn't seem to help in the English NE. It's therefore difficult to guess how well we'd do, and you just have to look at Leicester to see that it's all unpredictable.

I think one of our problems with the "zone 14" stuff in our style is that we don't have players with strong shots. I think Oduwa hardly scored because his shots were about as power puff as you can get - even when he managed to get it on target, but others don't seem to have a daizy cutter in them either and we tend to score from just outside the box when a shot is very well placed - but there are plenty of shots saved which look good, but seem to lack pace. Maybe we need Albertz back as a shooting coach...

It's one of those paradoxical things, winning on the last day is certainly more exiting - but I'll always prefer the anticlimatic early wrapping up of the league.

I'd say there's more of a tradition of going for a pre-match dump but it doesn't suggest we should put up pictures of a jobby.

I don't think I'd be happy paying that for someone who is so underwhelming in their background.

The Brentford guy seemed a strange one as Warburton previously dropped him for poor form at one point and also sent him out in loan at another. So unless he eventually changed his mind on him, it seems a bit of going for someone you know, as you know their capabilities and how they fit in the team and system.

I think the problem there is that there is a spectrum of intelligence and if you see the "average" as the median, then half the population are above and half are below. In the lower reaches of the bottom half there will be plenty of people doing mindless stuff. The weird shit is that you wouldn't expect any, never mind most journalists being in the lower regions of below average intelligence writing mindless, bigoted stuff...

Obviously the guy is having a go at Rangers fans for being "uncivilised", but he doesn't know the meaning of the word. I'd say non-violent protest at wrong doers is highly civiilised, and our society would be better if there was more obvious public displeasure at the antics of the reprobates in our midst.

I completely agree with that. For a professional, it should be very easy. The problem is, where are the "Journalists"? Your average fanzine is far more fair and objective. I suppose I've already invoked Godwin's law so maybe shouldn't labour it to use the Nazi example, but I think it's obvious what damage this kind of tripe can do as there are enough people who want to believe this kind of stuff and so it feeds them - not only by reading the tripe direct but because the memes can spread like a virus on forums etc, when you have the type of people who want to lap it up. It's obvious we've suffered great damage from the anti-Rangers bigotry that has been peddled, so I don't see how we can ignore it.

This is the problem with compulsory payments. It's hard to believe a commercial company who are reliant on "voluntary" subscribers would take the same stance as the BBC.

I don't quite agree with you here - I think while reporters will always have there own opinion, they should be able to be professional enough not to let that interfere with good reporting. If a young, gallus footballer not old enough to have gained much wisdom or philosophy can just go out and score (or at least try to win) against the team he supports, a mature, seasoned and well educated wielder of the pen or typewriter, should be able to write something without having to twist the truth to some nefarious agenda and put some objectivity into his work. And that's the point here - we are not talking about a wee bit well thought out and respectful opinion to colour the written piece, we're talking Goebbels style propaganda using lies, fallacy, exaggeration and systematic omission to attempt convince the reader of a completely false representation of the truth, and motivate them into hatred of one football club and its fans - and with what looks like an intention to harm those targets. For me, it's not that we disagree, it's that we find the very fact of that extreme agenda which could probably be described as a campaign, despicable and would still find it so if it was about another club or any other subject matter. THe problem is that real journalism doesn't exist, it's now all "yellow" journalism that has got out of control, with reporters obsessed with their own importance - but it seems to sell and so their employers encourage it. However, I think the modern day internet user is far more savvy and understand what going on and are well versed in terms like "click bait". That's why their market is shrinking with media like this forum taking over. However, that probably just makes them more desperate and instead of learning to adapt to the market, and adopting a plan B, they just do plan A, "better". But this is not in a good sense of the word. Better here, means more extreme.

We need a total crash of interest in English football for there to be a chance. Our only loophole could be starting in the Conference or lower - but even then why would lower EP teams and top EC teams vote for future competitiion that could push them down?

Edit. it was a retweet by him, but still foolish. As a Tim, it is not surprising he can't see the difference, between being on the side of those in the right and against that of the nefarious, and being pro-Rangers. The madness ingrained on the Celtic mentality is fully shown with their incredibly strange, strong allegiance to a dispicable man who treats so many people so shabbily, and their twisted obsession with this legal battle, when it is obvious it totally bogus by SD, no matter which club is involved.

I really don't get you, you seem to be implying dB said it was a ringing endorsement - maybe it's me but I can't find that reference. You also seem to be completely missing the point that English's only defined criticism of the song in his tweat is that it is a "dirge". No mention of it being a terrorist song which in the context of his attacks on Rangers, and his own staunch defence of his impartiality and integrity, is a pretty nefarious lie by ommission. For me that was the point dB was making - that contrary to what you'd expect he does actually occassionaly mention Celtic stuff, BUT when doing so, shamelessly diverts people's attention from the real issue.

PS If you want to see what it was like 50 years ago then watch Mad Men. The way women are treated in that is pretty horrendous - but maybe more in context to what happened at a football match 30-40 years ago, than pointing the finger at modern day Rangers fans.

I'm not saying that women should be flattered - and I think we should be civilised enough these days for it not to happen. But it's a fallacy to say it's all men and framing it as some kind of heinous sexual assault for something 30 years ago and pointing the finger at Rangers fans is totally out of proportion. A pretty apt analogy for it, is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but there is a problem here where heterosexuals only see offences from the other gender and so negatively generalise that gender. You put a few men into a huge crowd of women and they will likely suffer a few minor bits of attention that could be an annoyance. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it’s "people" at fault rather than blaming one specific gender as “the common denominator”. All I’m saying is it happens to men also but pointed out that there is less offence taken and so less complaint, so much so it’s dismissed as nothing or laughable. That isn’t a very balanced viewpoint and unhelpful in moving society on. That's poor behaviour, but as I said, this could easily happen if the tables were turned. Maybe less likely, but most of us have been there and laughed it off. I agree with that, and also that they can be of either gender.

I think there is more of a market for a branded beer - wine and whisky are more of a connoisseur thing with a bit more discernment of the product over the marketing label – unless it’s cheap plonk. Whereas a decent lager and IPA could sell well. Usual problem is who would sell it in the west due to the rivalry thing.

I think you have to be a quite unattractive guy to never had you bum pinched by a woman. Can't see how it's a male only thing. One of the differences is that men are flattered and see it as trivial rather than be disproportionately offended. I also see a lot more misandry these days than misogyny - try finding some kind of club that doesn't allow women, it's very difficult. Try finding one that doesn't allow men - they are everywhere.

Have Rangers done a beer - if not, should have done it decades ago. I remember fans calling McEwan's "Rangers Lager". I suppose our own beer wouldn't have gone down well with our sponsors - no problem now. The RST could do something that's not quite Rangers branding and team up with a micro-brewery and start with small batches and see if there is a take up. Just make it a good one, and keep it reasonably priced... Trouble is you'd need to get an alcohol sale license - but then you could use someone who has one, including mail order from the brewery. Maybe some pubs might also be interested in stocking it.

M&S are excellent when they do the 25% off everything offer once every few months or so. Waitrose similarly but less interesting stuff to choose from. Costco have a permanent 25% off and have some very good wines, but you can get bored quickly as the choice is limited. As for Lidl Burgandy, haven't tried any or really seen any yet. Would be happy if they chose to stock a £15 Meursault or Montrachet. However, with regards to the reds, they are well priced, and while they are reasonably good, you get what you pay for somewhat...

Given the timing of the contract, the complaints we've heard about the service, and the current board's reasonable tract record so far, I'd be inclined to give the board the benefit of the doubt and suspect they are not the ones in the wrong here. I more likely to believe the contract was another bad value for money one, with a financial benefit going to certain individuals, and the work not implemented to a satisfactory level.