calscot

Man U won the EP title in 96 with "kids", including a 36 year old Steve Bruce. Six other players were over 30 by the end of the season. Five of those seven played 30 games or more. Seems to me that an older head or two is good for a team with a bunch of youngsters in it. Eustace should be judged on what he brings to the team, not just his age. I think people also forget that we're in the lowly Scottish Championship...

Seems to me, that what he's saying is that he doesn't like being told what to say, even if what he has to say from his own opinion is the same as what he has been told to say. What I'm confused about is who is telling him what to say?

Using purely logic and rationale, what makes King able to do it and Murray not? Seems to me that the new company has nothing to do with the old one bar now owning its former assets. If King can resurrect it, then it follows, Murray can also. The puzzling bit for the layman, is who now owns the company? Or can anyone acquire it as long as they take on the debt? Using logic again, if the old company was obtained illegally, it seems the previous majority shareholder would have a bigger claim on ownership than a minority one. Therefore, if King has a claim, so has Murray. Logically again, if it can be done, all it would really take is time, money and agreement from creditors - the sticking point for doing it would be how much it would take to persuade the creditors. There may also be the odd court case for creditor claims to be fully sorted. Logically the creditors would not be expected to turn down £1 in the £1 (except perhaps for the illogical HMRC) and you would expect them to be highly interested in a reduced but significant amount. So logically the question of COULD (not of would) Murray do it, comes down to how much money he has and how much it would take - and I suppose, whether he lives long enough for it to be completed. There may be some technical crap that breaks this logic, but it's obvious no-one has demonstrated the slightest inkling about it.

Depends what you mean - to be fair he did put about £50m in at one point (whether it was his, his company's or bank's is another story). He also spent quite a bit in shares and then sold the lot for a penny on the proviso that the debt was paid off and 5m a year invested in the team, which had a certain intended benevolence about it, that obviously didn't crystallise. However, on the other side, he caused the debt by mismanagement and he did make a lot of money out of Rangers - although it could be argued that if his companies gave value for money then it's pretty legitimate profits. There's also the intangible gains he made in business from Rangers due to fame and prestige of being the owner/chairman of what was, at the time, a highly successful club. It's unclear whether he worked for Rangers for free, as he seems to have made money in EBTs. In the end I think a lot of people agreed that he's probably pretty much broken even. However, his legacy remains hugely negative.

Sorry, you've written that in a way that is difficult to understand what you mean, but will try to answer anyway. I think there will be a lot of players at different clubs in a couple of years time as this pretty normal for any team and far more so for us due to our journey back to the top. I think it's obvious that you will struggle to sign player who can win you the SPL and do well in Europe while being in the lower divisions. You have to do the needs must thing and bring in players you think can do a job at the time and cast them aside later. It's obvious who many of those have been by the shortness of their contracts. Players like Zalelem, Oduwa and Ball will also be gone as will some of the other recent signings who don't make it long term, but that doesn't mean we should be snarky about them. You must see what's happening in a different way from me, you seem to think the players I mentioned plus a couple more will be gone in January, I predict most of them will be with us till the end of the season and some of them will do a bit of a job for us - as they already have. With all that's happening right now, I really don't get the snarkiness.

Started recently and played well. Seems like he's seen as a useful part of the squad. Don't recall him being a first team player before Ally... seems a bit of a twisted viewpoint. Ally gave him his debut and a total of 19 games that season when he was only 17/18. The guy is still only 20, we can see how he develops under the new management, and if his international experience improves him. What has youth signing got to do with it? Ally gave him his first appearances and gave him 31 in League 2 [sic] when he was 17/18. He was then farmed out for experience - seems to have been a great decision. Seems to be getting a game these days and some people on here prefer him to Oduwa. Miller won't get another season, but seems to be well in the plans for the rest of this season, and as more than just a squad filler. He's as good as most SPL keepers, and seems like reasonable backup to Foderingham. Eh, didn't he sign him and give him his debut? I get from that that you must like this player and so want to dissociate him from Ally as it doesn't fit with your inflexible views on our former manager. Reality bites... Interesting how in the list above, Ally gave three 17 year olds their debuts - you know, the guy who doesn't play young players... However my list was an uncensored one of Ally's players - except I forgot Templeton. Those a bit more objective will probably consider all of them as having a role to play in the second half of the season, at minimum as backup squad players. The exception is probably Templeton, not sure he will have a future. Already had his chance in pre-season under new management but didn't really take it. Could be one to go in January but only if we pay off the last 6 months of his contract. I think the conclusion is that almost no-one is likely to go in January. But maybe you're right and about 6 will be paid off... we'll see.

So applying typical Gersnet logic, did Barcalona "ruin" him, and "stifle his development" by "not giving him a chance"? Is their youth development by this definition, basically shit?

What you mean like Wallace, Sheils, Aird, McKay, Law, Miller, Bell and Hardie?

I think they've missed the point with the summer football thing. It was supposed to be about moving the league fixtures from the winter to the summer, not extending the season by another 5 games or so. These games won't be on the season ticket - or will they, meaning a price hike? I can see that increasing the revenue but if there is little interest, pay at the gate might be low. The last time we had this it was kicked to touch as we'd just watched a great World Cup and then while on a high were subjected to some really turgid games involving lower division sides. Perhaps our non-involvement in the international competitions will help as I think it's hard to get that interested in a party where you're not invited. I'm sure we used to take a lot more interest in the World Cup when we used to qualify - including watching pretty much the whole competition, because we knew it also kind of affected us. The fact we always went out early didn't douse our enthusiasm as we got caught up in the narrative of the competition and were also attracted certain teams we discovered were good to watch. It just seems like a rehashing of old ideas that were discarded for good reason.

Weird they didn't mention the Brentford DoF connection...

We should never have to go backwards: players move on, get older and where we are now, they are not exactly irreplaceable. If they moved to a club with a higher wage structure, we can't afford them; if they moved to a lower wage they aren't good enough by definition. Where people get wishful thinking is where there is someone talented whom we totally can't afford, but the fantasy is that they are such a fan of Rangers they will come to us on our wage level - maybe Weiss fits into that one. I also think part of it is that we know these players which is more comforting than some guy from the EC or EL1 that we've never heard of (and therefore can't imagine signing) but is just a good if not better.

If Green wins, the law is an ass...

I think the sad thing is that if they are still any good, then we can't really afford them. Right now that even goes for McLeod, although that could change after a promotion and share issue. It seems strange that 15-20 years after £4-6 million seemed like a normal fee for us, a tenth of that is now a lot, while most prices have at least doubled with inflation.

All the best Rangers players these days, seem to be the ones that don't get a game... If you extrapolate the league tables till the end of season, he could be playing the division below us next season.

Can I just point out that there seems to be an impression that HMRC had a decent case and good reason to go after us. Does losing three times in court not pretty much point to them having a pretty shaky and ill-advised case? Remember this must have cost millions, not including the 10 million offered by Murray, and the additional losses by single handedly creating a situation where the company was moribund and open to abuse by criminals which led to a loss of about another 10 million. Does it not look like they have really dropped the ball big time and don't understand their own rules - which is incredibly worrying for the rest of us? Does it not shake your faith in the accuracy of your own tax bill?

The point is that for something like a tax system to keep the hearts and minds of a nation, it should be benevolent rather than appearing malevolent. Whether the latter was intentional or not is irrelevant, appearances are important. They have "entitlements" to go after tax but the citizens and companies in a democratic country should also be entitled to expect that to go with a responsibility towards their well-being. The decision should not be based on purely monetary considerations for HMRC in isolation. Like in all laws, there is a spirit which is more important than the letter. A tax man only caring about the amount of tax he can rake in at the expense of the subjects is NOT a picture of a healthy, democratic society and government. This is especially so when you consider we're talking about tax avoidance, not evasion. We're also talking about the application of rules that are NOT considered fair in other parts of our society. For instance, would it be fair for Rangers to retrospectively charge season ticket holders a fee for use of the toilets at Ibrox, back date it ten years and then fine you and charge you interest for non-payment, leading to the bill crippling you financially? When applied to normal life, it's just ludicrous. My post was based on the assumption that we won and HMRC admit defeat or are refused further appeal. I expect if you were put under house arrest for 4 years and your health suffered as a result, and you were then found innocent in three trials for the same crime, you'd expect compensation. That option might not exist but perhaps it should. If we win, then the current system is obviously highly flawed and not fit for purpose. As I said, tax is a delicate matter and innocent people and companies should not suffer badly in its hands. HMRC should be designed to sort it out quickly and decisively. They should put their case together as quickly as possible and withdraw when they lose - unless there are very exceptional circumstance where the public would greatly benefit. In this case they severely wounded a national institution and the collateral of severely wounding the national sport. What they have done has been horrendous and it looks like they didn't have good reason to do so. The game will take massive amount of time to recover, if ever, and there has been extensive cultural schism highly exaccerbated which will only get worse, once we are back in top flight. The ill thought out HMRC actions, have had a massive negative impact on our nation. People say SDM played hard and fast with the fate of our club, but at least he was pretty much in the right. HMRC have done the same and also played hard and fast with our fragile national sport and by extension, national pride, and they seem to be totally in the wrong - and using an unfair and possibly immoral ethos as mentioned above. Murray is a boisterous schoolboy in comparison. I think people are really missing how irresponsible that a government institution has been. If ever there was ever a time to play a softer game to protect the good of the nation, this was it. I can imagine a bit of sweeping under the carpet and the more that is done, the more likely that corruption and malevolence is at the core. In fact there is already a lot of smoke in that respect, with refusals to investigate the leaks and to provide the tally of the cost of the action. In fact I think the RFFF should offer to pay the costs of counting this tally and see if they still refuse. I suspect that the cost excuse is erroneous and disingenuous. HMRC have not acted in an obviously open way that suggests innocence - not in the slightest. I realise shiftiness doesn't prove guilt but it highly raises the suspicions. I can't see how it can be ignored in the context of a hidden agenda and as I say again, the tax system not only should BE fair, it needs to be SEEN to be fair. In that respect HMRC are plain as day guilty as charged.

That four years and the fact there are two appeals again questions the integrity, morality and motivation of this HMRC department. The tax system should not punish the innocent - and an innocent company is in liquidation because of this. It seems to me that the crown should not be wasting time and money on a unwinnable witch-hunt. They should have bowed out after the fist tribunal. If the second appeal has indeed failed, then that means HMRC have lost THREE times and heads should roll for this; it's completely unacceptable and a total waste of tax payers' money. It shows complete incompetence and lack of judgement and was totally irresponsible. Lawyers would be sacked or demoted for this kind of stuff. Should the Old Co not be "entitled" to huge compensation for this? Really, the message they are sending is, "We are such a fair system that if you don't pay what we demand, we will put you out of business - even if what we demand is completely wrong and utterly outrageous." What kind of way is that to run a country? I think for every one of us and hundreds of thousands of other Rangers fans, it sends a message that you just cannot trust the tax office.

I really don't see the relevance of this. Under 20 years ago Man City were relegated to the THIRD tier, but that didn't stop them coming back and winning the EP.

Yeah, sometimes proposals can seem obviously a good thing, until someone with more experience points the flaws...

I think it's 12 for the semi and 18 for the final. The stupid rule is that of sharing half the gross, but they can sleep in their own bed, it should never affect us again.

Could do with someone giving a case for and a case against...

The other clubs certainly don't want diversity of winning clubs - they reduced the contenders from two to one, making the league the most boring and predictable that it can possibly be. They obviously have no interest at all in what could be remotely considered "good" for the game.

I think EP clubs will show more interest once he's made us successful in the SP AND the CL or EL. For now, he probably too big a risk for the likes of Liverpool.

The Welsh teams have the excuse of being historical as they joined the FA and FL before UEFA even existed. There are six of them and they joined the English system when they were founded. The Welsh national league was not founded until 1992. Scottish teams could also have been part of it but travelling was too expensive in the 19th century and so all those who were members of the FA resigned and joined the SFA and the SFL. Travelling was so expensive that Queens Park declined to attend a replay of an FA cup semi-final in London. There is the same historic significance for Berwick Rangers being in the Scottish leagues.

I wonder if the Falkirk camp were "split" on our penalty claim... Thing is a decent "reporter" should have questioned Houston on this and other decisions. For me it was a foul: the player did not "nick" the ball, he just deflected it slightly, and was never in control of it. Law was always going to get there first but was tripped as part of the tackle. At minimum it was one of those that is a flip of a coin, and as such not really controversial or a game changer. Even calling it a game changer is laughable, they may have defended reasonably enough but we still had plenty of good chances on goal, scoring actually looked inevitable - the only thing against us was the clock. With a few 50-50 decisions in our favour or the odd crap decision against us reversed and we'd have probably scored a couple more earlier. The better team won with no help from the referee.