calscot

While seeing the attraction to the logic, I'm not a believer in the premise you can give 100% all of the time - I can't think of many examples in life where that works. I think it's an idealism that is beyond us in practice. I think cycling is a good example for avoiding trying to that. You have to pace yourself not only over the whole stage but over a long race. You have the ability to give bigger efforts some of the time when you need to or think it will benefit you, and have to just do enough at other times, to save something for the big summit or sprint, or to recover after a big effort. If you give too much when it's of no benefit then you'll suffer just when you need that extra push. Maybe it's different with a game a week but I don't think so, I just think that that means it's hard to peak at the right times, as the body has a cycle that is more about weeks than days. I also think not all games are the same, it takes a different mentality and strategy of effort to unlock a packed defence while protecting the break against a less skilful side, than having an end to end game where you are playing a team closer to your ability. We've won a lot of stuff in the past by being incredibly fired up for the big games while cruising through some of the easier ones.

I just can't read stuff that's written like that... Haven't got a clue what he's getting at.

The guy got four months and it wasn't enough? Just what injuries did Lennon sustain? As far as I can remember his attack was less violent than the one on Mohsni, both of them retaliated similarly, Lennon's attacker got 4 months and Mohsni ended up the one being punished...

Problem is that Warburton seems not to be interested in the big game mentality. Could be a mistake.

How much money is he spending to reverse a fine that was reduced to £1000?

I don't recall his signing being well received...

But due to ambiguity of the Rangers case, the narrative has moved to condemn tax avoidance altogether as "immoral". Obviously that changes when it's not Rangers.

Sounds like, "we can't prove wrong doing but we know they were at it"...

Seemed a reasonable piece without any hate in it at all. Is Fowler a Rangers fan?

Only watched the 13 minutes of highlights but I recall about 5 reasonable chances including the goal, rather than 3: McKay's shot that hit the post. Waghorn's ball juggling that was dinked rather than blasted. Halladay's long ranger. Miller's short range blast at the keeper who made an instinctive save.

There is a strange silence from all those closet tax fascists - not one mention of hospitals or flack jackets...

Got to admit, I think if my name was Windass, I'd have to change it...

Yeah, I never quite got the, "I never tire of listening to Warburton" thing. I think we all will - he's doing exactly the right thing with professionalism and integrity, but the right thing is generally rhetorical, repetitive, uninformative and dull. There will be some gold nuggets in there though, so worth listening for... I've stopped being interested in transfer rumours, since not long after Eck took over. It was exciting when we were actually spending decent money on famous, international players or the young top guns that were setting their division alight - and when the rumours actually had some real basis. However, I can't get remotely interested about some average freebie who has about 1 in a 100 chance of actually signing. I'd rather we kept it quiet and unveiled them once they had signed. With narrow transfer windows, it means their is less substance to any info outside that time. I must admit, it takes away some of the (bonus) enjoyment of following Rangers but is probably a better way to be, as all the excitement in the old days, ultimately led to the bad times. I can also see why it leads to the clamour to play youth, as that's the main remaining way to freshen up the team at at any time.

I think the immorality of the EBTs was the fact the loophole allowed a certain disingenuous "wink-wink" style implementation. The "common sense" argument is that the the payments were not really discretionary, and the loans were not really loans. It's all notional, and that's why the side letters are a bit damning. However, there has been nothing common sense or moral in the way that Rangers have been pursued for this by HMRC nor the way we have been dealt with by fellow clubs and the football authorities, who have been wholly immoral and pretty senseless throughout. Those that ran the club at the time have been slightly naughty boys compared to their evil child catchers...

I think the reasoning for it is very good, and that it wholly protects us from the relevant SFA and UEFA codes. The £500k bonus we were obliged to pay Newcastle if we were promoted, shows a precedent conflict of interest, giving it good reasoning for fiduciary duties.

So you're saying that if a load of UNTRUE stuff you make up WAS true, then I'd be wrong, but as it's untrue it would suggest that it follows that you think I am right! Logic can be fun.

Which you seem to think is everything. Show me where you have conceded some blame to anyone else? There you go, you do it here. I accepted from the poor results during administration that he wasn't the level we desired, but that it was hard to blame the manager under the circumstances, his failure was not to be the exceptional man to overcome the situation, and I couldn't see anyone we could attract that could. Of what? I don't do your childish stuff like, "aw diddums". Have some awareness of yourself instead of promoting on to others... Have you actually read my posts? You probably don't even get the irony in the statement above. Like I say, stop projecting. You're saying I think only my opinion counts while asserting you can't be wrong... For me it's not about who's right, there is no such thing. But opinions are as valuable as the amount of thought put in to the whole picture. I'm not sure what your trying to achieve apart from repeating that you are right, I see the point as being able to justify your opinion with rationale, and reason, taking all the factors into account, and as such being compelling, perhaps persuading others that there is more to think about or at least understanding that you've considered everything and have come to a different conclusion. You continually ignore arguments and facts that differ from your viewpoint. I have shown repeatedly, that I don't do that by conceding points and explained counter arguments to others. I can't see where you've done that. Then why all the anger and insults? Why not just give a persuasive argument without it. As for the Whyte thing I remember saying at the time that your style of delivery wasn't helping you. You took that badly and didn't have the decency to keep a private message private. I look in mirror often and can demonstrate that, I don't think you can. I think that would be obvious. You can't judge any performance without comparison. Your opinion constantly loses validity as when applied universally, everyone ends up being shite. Surely there must be some sort of scale? Ah a case in point - that must be the only reason we lost... For me it's a bit more complicated than that. With undisclosed fees I've no idea but don't see the relevance here. It's a different topic. But I'm of the opinion that you don't judge a manager's spending on one purchase. I'm of the opinion that we bought him as an investment that didn't pay off. I await your blame on McCoist for that. More of the, "no, you are" stuff. Please point real ones out and I'll be willing to use other examples for my argument. Based on one fact? But not all the facts. But if it's true then debate it genuinely. Act like me lol try opening your eyes. Other teams are a concern for other teams fans and have absolutely nothing to do with McCoist and his failings. Do you read your own writing? That is NOT a fact, it is conjecture, plain as day! As well as dismissing all other factors including not being the manager for the whole season. Yet you can't see why I don't suddenly convert to your way of thinking? As I said. I like to look at the bigger picture. Hearts were on a high while we were in depression and having the heart ripped out of the club. Isn't it ironic that you have highlighted how bad the boards have been and yet continue to forget about that aspect when it doesn't suit your view? There are plenty of Rangers sides who have fallen behind a team on form, it does not make every manager completely inept. As I have maintained, I thought Mccoist was mediocre and I can't see how being the nearest challenger to a team on fire suits your view better than mine especially when you factor in the club being ripped apart and a miserable support many of whom were boycotting. I have no idea if my opinion is right (please read several times and understand this) but there is certainly a basis of validity. If you can't even acknowledge what I say, how the Hell am I going to be convinced? You can't think of a president - say Le Guen and Smith? The fact is that I was one of the few that predicted that results probably wouldn't improve much based on my views... Well for me the sp. Vs and Ashley would probably be the villains of the piece. Without them, I am convinced that the results would be better, we'd easily have finished second, and had a better chance for the playoffs. In fact I reckon if McCoist had stayed our chances of promotion would have been high. Again there's plenty to back that up as a valid opinion even if you disagree with it. Maybe you should read them objectively first. Your current post is full of that and I've pointed it out. My posts are there for all to see. I'm happy to give reasoning behind anything I say. The tone may get weary when someone like you cannot take an opposing viewpoint. You then get insulting and bullying, and then project that onto me for merely not putting up with it. If you can debate openly and respectfully then show, don't tell, and don't accuse. Just do it. Walk the walk. If you think that's my opinion then you've demonstrated your huge problem. You're arguing against a viewpoint that doesn't exist, even though I've reiterated it many times. You've just shown your whole premis is a poor joke. You give the impression of understanding complex documents, but can't understand my posts in the slightest. It explains a lot... And yet you can't calmly deal with counter arguments. But as you've just demonstrated a characteristic of an extremist in that when someone disagrees with you, you can only see it to be the opposite extreme, no matter where it lies on the spectrum. Like I've said before, substitute the results to someone's son's team, apply your opinion to the father and see if no one is insulted. But again you are obviously showing your anger and intolerance against an opposing opinion. You do realise that posts hang around? Just read them back for God sake. I've acknowledged all facts, and my opinion takes them into account. I can show how you have not. I've also shown that many of YOUR facts are just opinion or conjecture, there's a good example in this post I'm replying to.

Which you seem to think is everything. Show me where you have conceded some blame to anyone else? There you go, you do it here. I accepted from the poor results during administration that he wasn't the level we desired, but that it was hard to blame the manager under the circumstances, his failure was not to be the exceptional man to overcome the situation, and I couldn't see anyone we could attract that could. Of what? I don't do your childish stuff like, "aw diddums". Have some awareness of yourself instead of promoting on to others... Have you actually read my posts? You probably don't even get the irony in the statement above. Like I say, stop projecting. You're saying I think only my opinion counts while asserting you can't be wrong... For me it's not about who's right, there is no such thing. But opinions are as valuable as the amount of thought put in to the whole picture. I'm not sure what your trying to achieve apart from repeating that you are right, I see the point as being able to justify your opinion with rationale, and reason, taking all the factors into account, and as such being compelling, perhaps persuading others that there is more to think about or at least understanding that you've considered everything and have come to a different conclusion. You continually ignore arguments and facts that differ from your viewpoint. I have shown repeatedly, that I don't do that by conceding points and explained counter arguments to others. I can't see where you've done that. Then why all the anger and insults? Why not just give a persuasive argument without it. As for the Whyte thing I remember saying at the time that your style of delivery wasn't helping you. You took that badly and didn't have the decency to keep a private message private. I look in mirror often and can demonstrate that, I don't think you can. I think that would be obvious. You can't judge any performance without comparison. Your opinion constantly loses validity as when applied universally, everyone ends up being shite. Surely there must be some sort of scale? Ah a case in point - that must be the only reason we lost... For me it's a bit more complicated than that. With undisclosed fees I've no idea but don't see the relevance here. It's a different topic. But I'm of the opinion that you don't judge a manager's spending on one purchase. I'm of the opinion that we bought him as an investment that didn't pay off. I await your blame on McCoist for that. More of the, "no, you are" stuff. Please point real ones out and I'll be willing to use other examples for my argument. Based on one fact? But not all the facts. But if it's true then debate it genuinely. Act like me lol try opening your eyes. Other teams are a concern for other teams fans and have absolutely nothing to do with McCoist and his failings. Do you read your own writing? That is NOT a fact, it is conjecture, plain as day! As well as dismissing all other factors including not being the manager for the whole season. Yet you can't see why I don't suddenly convert to your way of thinking? As I said. I like to look at the bigger picture. Hearts were on a high while we were in depression and having the heart ripped out of the club. Isn't it ironic that you have highlighted how bad the boards have been and yet continue to forget about that aspect when it doesn't suit your view? There are plenty of Rangers sides who have fallen behind a team on form, it does not make every manager completely inept. As I have maintained, I thought Mccoist was mediocre and I can't see how being the nearest challenger to a team on fire suits your view better than mine especially when you factor in the club being ripped apart and a miserable support many of whom were boycotting. I have no idea if my opinion is right (please read several times and understand this) but there is certainly a basis of validity. If you can't even acknowledge what I say, how the Hell am I going to be convinced? You can't think of a president - say Le Guen and Smith? The fact is that I was one of the few that predicted that results probably wouldn't improve much based on my views... Well for me the sp. Vs and Ashley would probably be the villains of the piece. Without them, I am convinced that the results would be better, we'd easily have finished second, and had a better chance for the playoffs. In fact I reckon if McCoist had stayed our chances of promotion would have been high. Again there's plenty to back that up as a valid opinion even if you disagree with it. Maybe you should read them objectively first. Your current post is full of that and I've pointed it out. My posts are there for all to see. I'm happy to give reasoning behind anything I say. The tone may get weary when someone like you cannot take an opposing viewpoint. You then get insulting and bullying, and then project that onto me for merely not putting up with it. If you can debate openly and respectfully then show, don't tell, and don't accuse. Just do it. Walk the walk. If you think that's my opinion then you've demonstrated your huge problem. You're arguing against a viewpoint that doesn't exist, even though I've reiterated it many times. You've just shown your whole premis is a poor joke. You give the impression of understanding complex documents, but can't understand my posts in the slightest. It explains a lot... And yet you can't calmly deal with counter arguments. But as you've just demonstrated a characteristic of an extremist in that when someone disagrees with you, you can only see it to be the opposite extreme, no matter where it lies on the spectrum. Like I've said before, substitute the results to someone's son's team, apply your opinion to the father and see if no one is insulted. But again you are obviously showing your anger and intolerance against an opposing opinion. You do realise that posts hang around? Just read them back for God sake. I've acknowledged all facts, and my opinion takes them into account. I can show how you have not. I've also shown that many of YOUR facts are just opinion or conjecture, there's a good example in this post I'm replying to.

"Realism" has always been an excuse for trashing your own, and also used extensively by pessimists - and funnily enough they have been shown in scholarly articles to be less realistic than optimists. But it also ignores certain boundaries of decency, not in just the words but in the venomous way it's delivered - I think that itself shows a deficiency in rationality. Are you so brutally "realistic" with your son's ability at everything? I'm also trying to be real myself here - by taking everything into account - the high probability that you laugh at that, could show your reality is severely lacking. Just because you see your reality in your way, doesn't make it definitive. I don't think some of the stuff is realistic at all, it's just far too extreme and likes to ignore facts, mitigation and counter arguments. In fact it's so extreme, it laughs in the face of it... Again your realism falls off the rails and I infer from that you think only your view or those like them can be legitimate. I'm not defending his tenure as such, which is the big mistake you and others make. I'm defending him and the team against what I see, after some extensive deliberation, a very overly extreme and negative viewpoint that seems not only harsh on McCoist, but also the team and club. I probably didn't see as much as yourself as I didn't have BT sport as I do now and was boycotting Rangers TV, but I watch games and available highlights. I do remember full games where people were saying we were outplayed and the opposite looked true, as did the highlights and results. It didn't make sense to me at the time, so forgive me for not giving such stuff much credence when I didn't see the game. That seems to differ with the meme that McCoist's teams were less fit than the opposition... Most games I saw, I would say we had the upper hand, and I can't recall the exact ones but there were quite a few where we were dominant and played some ok stuff. Name a game where throughout, we couldn't string three passes together, or where every third pass was a hoof forward? Yep, you can't. That really does you no favours... just makes you sound like you find it impossible to see it from another point of view - that you could respectfully disagree with. In YOUR opinion. There is NO apples vs apples. Not one, sometimes you have to look at the circumstances and make adjustments. Surely you can see that? But I think you've shown you can't. Even then, before Ashley really started stirring things up, even though there was a huge cloud over the club compared to now, up until the early November, McCoist had something like 17 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses in all competitions. MW something like 17 wins and 2 losses. The year before it was something like 17 wins 1 loss. And what you are doing is comparing apples in a season with a cold, wet summer and an early autumn frost, with one with ideal weather conditions. As I keep saying, with an extreme opinion it's up to you to show extreme differences, even if the comparison is possibly dipped in McCoist's favour. It's like claiming you are a good runner and your rival is utter shit and then complaining as he pips you at the post, that he had a slight head start. Perhaps McCoist had easier games but it shouldn't matter a jot with the "black and white" (as in high contrast) metaphor put forward.

Judging by your previous effort, your poking would be full of its own holes... I can't say I can really comment on his leadership except to what I have seen and heard. It's probably not been great but then leadership is a tenuous quality and different people react differently to different styles. How is Mourinho's leadership this season? Again it's ignoring what's happened behind the scenes, and my first concession that McCoist wasn't the man for the job, was in the first season during administration, when I said that while I don't know if there was someone available who could have risen above the turmoil, McCoist showed that that was not something he had in him. But the point is that at the end of the day, it's the results that count.

Yes my point is to strip back some of the subject that ignores the objective. I don't think he was a that good manager, and conceded that in his first season, but I see evidence that does not make it compelling that he was "useless" as is the meme. What I don't get is why people like yourself get so agitated when that point of view is put across. Funny, once again you question my use of facts, and you state something that is PURE CONJECTURE AS FACT. He couldn't possibly get out because he wasn't the manager for the season. Or is resigning just another failure? I also don't think he had 10 times the budget, and it ignores a lot of other issues that makes the efficiency our budget less than effective no matter who is the manager. I don't believe that for a second. Hearts did NOT have the same circumstances. We had similar circumstances to them this year but NOT the year before. I really shouldn't have to explain why and it's alluded to in previous posts in this thread. Also they did not "wipe the floor" in my opinion. It seems I think differently from you as you seem to ignore certain variables - as is your prerogative, but without acknowledging them, your opinion is missing something.

It's hard to believe that when you blame him for absolutely everything. Reality factor says that can't possibly be true. If you don't believe there was an effect due to the board, Llambias, the fan boycott, and the media crap, then that's your opinion, not fact. It is not unreasonable to think it has a large effect especially when you look at the coincidental results. FFS grow up and man up. People have different views and share views, it doesn't make one view the only valid one. You seem to struggle with that. You just can't help the weirdo crap can you? Man up and deal with the fact that not everyone agrees with you. Shit happens, happened to Celtic. Wasn't good but it also again wasn't as extreme as people like you like to think - also McCoist did NOT have the full backing of Whyte. You really think that's a worthy argument. What was that about the bogeyman again? You really don't think he's the bogeyman? Try to avoid the straw man fallacy. No, that's called "an opinion". Not all of it in my opinion. Like I say, there are plenty of teams who play worse and don't win much. Their fans don't tend to act like you. That is pure speculation. He was in second place and had already defeated Hibs and SP teams. The results went downhill after Llambias arrived and it was noticeable. That's when McCoist resigned. It went far worse after he left, and about the most successful Scottish Manager in the country available, actually did worse - AFTER Ashley and Llambias were ousted. It was his successors who failed a promotion through the play-offs. They had enough tools to do it. In your opinion. You are really stretching it now. Again with this weird shit. You are obsessed and so, so ironic on many levels. Really, read things back and look at the difference in style. Can you not just deal with actual debate? At worst I'll disagree with, at best you might be able to persuade me otherwise - although that's impossible to do without actually seeing other's viewpoint. Just keep saying it and maybe you can make it stick... As I recall you responded to me. Where's the "virtually without exception" that was soooo important? As said that's your opinion, live with the fact that not everyone will agree. Not many people who win all the time think they are utter shite - you are being absolute you all the, "he had more money" is irrelevant in that context. I really don't know what your motivation is to be so agitated on your soap box. My motivation is that I see some stuff as overly extreme and disparaging to Rangers, I think it's reasonable in that context to defend the club against anything derogatory that seems to me to deny the facts.

He can probably still do a job at the level we're at, but you'd have to hope it's a bit part as a player in the SP. For the coaching aspect, he does seem to be one of those players whose football intelligence is greater than his physical ability, which along with very good fitness and work ethic, raised him up a level during his career. So maybe he's a good fit there. I think when he left us the last time, he had one or two decent seasons left in him, but he came back after that expiration date, and he's been uninspiring, although still contributes a certain amount. I agree that one thing that could really improve us is a prolific and clinical striker who is a couple of levels above the current ability of Miller and Clark, to play between / in front of Waghorn and McKay. We need someone to convert a higher percentage of our chances, especially when they are more limited in number against even just the better sides in Scotland. More-so, for European ambitions. At the moment we seem to generally get away with the profligacy due to the sheer number of great chances, but that's in the second tier. Thing is we'd have to discover such a player as all the ones out there are, by definition, out of our price range.

We know that, I'm not sure it's so well known down south. But I agree that it's all usually a bit complicated with many aspects to consider.

I missed the bit about no-one chasing McCoist which is a straw man argument. There are plenty of managers who have done far, far worse than McCoist and been given jobs for lower clubs than before. You can't get someone's signature who doesn't want to sign. McCoist obviously doesn't want to start again with Clyde or whoever, and he's probably fed up with the whole management thing for now. But even to pander to you demonising him, he obviously likes his money and he'll earn far more in TV than for a lower league team. That he's not being courted (in public), does not prove he's not wanted. Even being considered a success as an OF manager doesn't get you high class offers, just ask Neil Lennon.