calscot

There is an argument that UEFA may have to either be pro-active or less opposed to cross border leagues. The situation they have helped create is killing football across all the smaller nations in Europe and reducing the diversity of cup winners down to 4 or 5 countries out of about 50. The trouble is the appeal of "Atlantic" type league amalgamation might not be that great when you really look at it. Imagine our league joining with Eire, NI, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Netherlands. That would give a rich TV population of about 60m. But can you really imagine people getting exited about Aberdeen vs Oostende, or Linfield vs Heracles, or Rangers vs Norrköping, or Celtic vs Stabæk or Midtjylland vs Dundalk etc, etc? There would be some more attractive games mainly with Rangers, Celtic, Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV and Anderlecht and maybe some interest with Brondby, Brugge, Rosenborg, Gothenburg, Vitesse and Alkmaar, but I can't see it getting ratings and making money like the EP or Bundesliga. Then there's the possibility of all the teams of one country being relegated - especially the Irish, Swedish and Danish, unless some sort of rule stays in place to prevent it. I would reckon the "super-zone" would be recognised as one "country" and the European places allocated accordingly which would put the smaller countries off. Maybe it would need two or three tiers but that might still kill off your local teams. There is also the relevance of the leagues left behind with just one to a handful of teams leaving and the supporters that would rather view these games on telly. It seems too difficult to work.

I used to think that with the greater TV money from the EP we'd be at the top due to bigger crowds, a bigger brand, and intangible stuff like more passionate support, who are not content with mid-table which drives a winning mentality. However, not only is the size of crowd becoming less and less relevant with regards to income in that league, we don't have the mentality in Scotland to pay the prices of the top Premiership clubs who charge two to four times as much as us for tickets when you look at Man U and Arsenal, who also fill bigger grounds. Our brand has also diminished compared to the top English clubs due to our backwater existence in the last decade or more - we used to be a far bigger club and famous name than the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City, but no more. So we'd still struggle to compete financially with pretty much the richest 10 clubs down there, especially at first. You also just have to look at the likes of Newcastle and Sunderland, who fill large stadiums for what can happen despite huge support and EP TV money. Geographically they are the nearest examples to us, although I'm not sure they have the same winning mentality considering they've both spent many long periods in the second tier. Newcastle are also handicapped by a certain owner. However, there have been positives for lesser clubs coming into the EP such as Swansea and Crystal Palace. I think they don't have the depth of finances to challenge consistently, but it shows what can be done. We should be able to convert a decent couple of seasons into something more long term - compared to them anyway. Even looking at the table now you have other surprises with the likes of Leicester, Watford and Norwich. And although Bournemouth are only 15th, that's not bad for them - and a place above Chelsea on goal difference. Stoke are a team I always thought of as not top flight but they seem to have been around the mid-table for ages. Southampton have also had an amazing renaissance. But the long term hegemony led by Man U and Arsenal is pretty secure, with Man City being the new money subsidised inductees, and Chelsea also joining them by generally punching above their weight due to the Russian subsidy. Liverpool are the ones that can't quite hang on to that top status, with Aston Villa are now struggling with keeping their old "best of the rest" position, and Spurs and Everton taking over to vie for that spot. I think there is two occasions we could possibly have wangled a place in the "English" leagues, the first was after we beat Leeds when they were forming the Premier League and the second is when we were booted out the SPL and should have tried to join the Conference and worked our way up there. Our journey through the diminishing Scottish leagues has now done untold damage to ours and also the other club's appeal, and the gap is too huge and the stakes too high for the English/Welsh clubs to be benevolent towards us. The whole Scottish game has been castrated by its own hubris.

20 years ago we would have been big box office, now we're just old news. Our best chance was when we were kicked out the SPL, but instead of taking the chance in the English backwaters we chose to consign ourselves to the perpetual backwater of Scottish football.

I think that needs a lot more explanation for your average, but reasonably smart bear to get the gist...

There is something to ponder. If a "useless" manager can do that with two hands tied behind his back, what praise can we give to all the others who have achieved not much more when things have been a lot more conducive? I like to think we have some history, so why shit on it. You can really see the memes changing in here - eg last year Clark was shit because of the manager, now he's just shit, and the manager is great... It's quite amusing...

So what was McCall? And what were the managers who finished below McCall while at Motherwell? Anyway, as I say, circular or contradictory arguments. With Ally's results, if he was really bad, it doesn't say much for Warburton so far... especially when you figure in the off-field stuff. It just says he's fairly competent in the SC but very worryingly poor against SP teams compared to a rubbish manager with a shit board, disillusioned fans and unfit, mercenary players who couldn't give a crap, had been ruined by the management, playing ineffective tactics...

No, the trouble is when someone insults me for having a broader viewpoint on the subject. However, is funny that a player of the opposition recently said that last season we beat them using greater fitness, this time we beat them using greater skill... As I said, before there are multiple variables in how fit someone "looks", and it's hard to distinguish how much is from each variable. The funny thing is the circular arguments where people don't realise that the more we're better because the players are fitter, it means it has less it has to do with the way we play, as well as the skill and motivation of the players. I think it's a no-brainer that the motivation due to the new board, management and players in the post sp-iv era is massively improved - so just how much of the improvement is left to the way we play? If all we've done is massively improve fitness then we haven't really come very far when considering future games against a higher standard of team. There is only so much extra fitness you can squeeze out of a professional athlete and if your prospective, full-time opposition are doing the same (it can't be too hard - and we must have done it in a few weeks), then where is your advantage? Or is that why we lost to St Johnstone, meaning we'll be found out in the SP? Does it also mean our current tactics are no more effective than Ally's - if the former had the same levels of motivation and fitness? For me Ally was a mediocre manager, following traditional practices, who had the job at the worst time possible in our history. And Warburton is an excellent manager with lots of modern, out of the box thinking, who has come at the beginning of a bright new dawn. I don't think the change on the field is all just down to the sports scientists and fitness experts, on top of the obvious motivational aspects.

The Dons Stadium in MK looks to have pretty good wheelchair facilities with 164 spaces (for a capacity of 30500) with a seat for the carer at the back of the lower tier at concourse level with simple access to catering and toilets. Not sure how it is in the reality of experiencing it, but it does look well planned and every space has a decent view. Entry to the stadium is also at concourse level on one side. It's actually a really excellent stadium all round, with good sized, cushioned seats and plenty of leg room and no restricted views that I can see. Ibrox is immensely impressive in size, history and lots of other ways, but it's starting to seem a bit dated in comparison.

A year ago and I'd imagine that there would be huge criticism of the training, and cries for double sessions on crossing and heading...

Off topic but is there a cure for measles? I didn't think there was... I thought we relied on vaccinations to prevent infection.

I think an ex-ger coming out with this will really rile them up for their match. They'll already be gnashing about last night's result.

As an aside, with no disrespect to you and at the risk of seem pedantic (although that can sometimes be helpful with clarity), aren't we already in the SPFL? I realise they've buggered up what we call our league and made it pretty difficult with the similarity to the silly English terminology, but I think we might need a more consistent use of acronyms. For me I believe it should be SP (Scottish Premiership), SC (Scottish Championship) SL1 (Scottish League One) and SL2 (Scottish League Two). It also gives you two less letters to type... And for England (with the odd Welsh club - and we have an English club in ours), EP, EC, EL1 and EL2. Even though they don't like to call it English as they see themselves as the original. Anyway, not really important, but possibly helpful.

It seems the main risk he failed to assess, is that HMRC would not play the game in a fair and consistent way. Had that been the case, the risk would have been the £10m he offered them. If he can be criticised, I think HMRC can be criticised infinitely more. He's just a lone, slightly maverick businessman, HMRC are an institution that are part of the fabric of our society. They let us down big time. I am far more forgiving of the odd misguided and possibly corrupt individual, than a misguided and possibly corrupt institution.

It has to be said that any guilt implied on Murray over the EBTs, can now (after winning two cases) only be asserted in the context of the apparent "vindictiveness" of HMRC. Take away that vindictiveness and just what did he do wrong? But unless he's arrested and convicted for something, it seems he did nothing he wasn't "entitled" to do, which makes him completely exonerated, right?

Craig, you really are missing point after point and seem to be deliberately being obtuse to this. I'm not sure if your just stuck on being "right" or you don't understand morals - or anything that I say. This is really simple stuff. I agreed they were "allowed" But you don't seem to understand that that doesn't mean they should, or that's professional. We're all allowed to do I immoral things within the law, but it doesn't mean we should, and if people are suffering it's time to look at changing the law. I also agree the morality is subjective but I think most people agree that people should generally act fairly, but that means an institution of society should be a paragon of fairness. Corruption within the rules is possible and that does not mean it's acceptable. So the question is whether they abused their powers which calls the second question about should they be allowed? You might think there's nothing to be said but it says you can't think beyond, "rules are rules". You don't think that's an incredibly poor attitude? You don't think abuse and possible corruption within the rules should still have an avenue for complaint? So is there "nothing more to be said"? So you can see this for Murray but not for HMRC? The point people are making is that HMRC made a poor choice. A poorer choice than Murray as they had better alternatives than him. Their choices had worst repercussions for even just themselves (ie the amount of money they brought in), than Murray's own for himself had he defied LBG. There is a point there, although, some of the rules they have used seem to give excessive power that is out-with what I would guess most people would find acceptable. Backdating punishments on people that didn't know they were breaking a rule, to the extent they are bankrupt, and you won't hear many saying it's fair. Backdating a change in the rules is just plain stupid. But as you've shown, for me there is a case for there to be guidelines for the fairness of applying the rules, someone to ensure it's followed and an avenue of complaint. I'm no more precious than you have been, and I'd say less. I was merely asking you to apply your own style of judgement on yourself. I tried to pre-empt this by saying it was semantics, but to no avail. You do know that pressure is force divided by area? Therefore you can use a moderate force on a small area and create a very large amount of pressure. Apply that to the right place and it can be very damaging. I have no idea what you're on about. You can pressure people without breaking laws or rules. It's what business is all about and I shouldn't have to tell you that. You seem to be arguing against your own point here, and for mine. That wasn't even being questioned. I could be wrong, but I think the evidence they did act illegally is the stuff they gave to the RTC website and the BBC. Maybe it's not illegal, but it must be against some rules somewhere. But it's just another huge black mark against HMRC that shows that they were not acting with integrity or for the greater good of the tax payer. In this case, they seem not to be fit for purpose. Tax need to be fair, and seen to be fair, or tax avoidance and even evasion becomes difficult to condemn.

I will contend that without the big tax case, most of the culprits listed would not have been able to damage the club. While Murray, played a bit fast and loose with the tax, he had lawyers and accountants convinced it was ok. If HMRC had accepted the 10m offered which looks to me like about 40m more than they got, his legacy to the club would have been reasonably benign. He could have waited a few years and then sold to the current board members, once the SARS case was over. As for Muir, without HMRC, there would not have been the same pressure to sell quickly, he was making sure Rangers were servicing the debt and LGB would be making a decent profit in interest while it was paid off at what seemed about 3M a year, leaving six years minus a Kingco takeover and share issue. Make it 10 years with the tax debt. HMRC to me was definitely the key stone in the whole affair.

It's also been explained ad nauseum that just because you have the "right" or "entitlement" to do something, does not make it always make it moral or even expedient to do so. "Rights" can often be used in a way that are unfair or inconsistent and resulting in situations that not for the greater good, sometimes calling into question whether these "rights" have a validity, and should possibly be revoked, or updated. "Rights" can often be abused and therefore can be flawed. All this comes into great question and focus when it comes to the actions of HMRC on Rangers. For me HMRC have shown that there needs to be reform in the way that they work, and amending of their rights, especially some of those that are not applicable in other areas of the law such as statute of limitations and back dating of rule changes. It seems quite a bit of the stuff that those in "Rangers ties" perpetrated were also within their "rights". Doesn't make them right or in any way condonable. Some of the things that happen in business that seem to be legal but highly immoral, should perhaps be made illegal. Isn't that a bit out of order? People make decisions under duress (or coercion) all the time, it seems perfectly plausible they forced his hand seeing as they had his major company by the financial balls. Forcing maybe a strong word, but that arguing semantics. LBG certainly had the power to make Murray's decision to sell a lot more beneficial to him than to ignore them. But the fact that they are able to this with impunity, coupled with human nature, suggests that it is highly possible. We believe it with BBC Scotland and some journalists, why not HMRC? However, it could be they "picked" on Rangers to show an example of what happens if you mess with and subsequently stand up to the tax man... They certainly acted illegally, either to prejudice their case or something more sinister, which is very suspicious when considering their motives, and in that regard we don't know whether their Celtic-minded allies were just useful idiots, or like minded helpers.

Don't normally pay too much attention to Celtic results but with the headlines of Aberdeen going top with a game in hand, I find myself in the unusual position of rooting for Aberdeen tonight. That also comes with an ambivalence that if Aberdeen win the title, it will intensify their sense of self justification of voting us out of the league - albeit the irony that it will be completely lost on them that deliberately eliminating a rival to win something, is the very definition of a hollow victory and tainted title. Continuing the reservations about a possible Celtic meltdown should Celtic fall even more than five points behind while faltering in the Europa league against what looks like reasonably strong opposition, I'm a bit wary that Deila will do so badly that he'll be removed, and with an eye on what our Warbs is achieving at Ibrox, a search for a manager of the required quality ensues. As we are still behind them significantly in the wage bill department which might be reflected by the quality on the pitch, I think I'd really like them to keep their manger until next season. It's not that I fear a level playing field (which is currently highly pitched in their favour), it's that if they find a more comparable manager to the quality of ours, then their greater spending power could prove decisive over the piece, until our increased funding from th3 top tier, and hopefully some European money, kicks in. Of course, this is all based on the presumption (or confidence) that we'll be promoted at the end of the season and continue to impress on the field. In the meantime, the current contrast in our fortunes is providing some pleasant amusement. I wasn't so aware of how poor they were becoming.

Ironically from the team that scored with an arm...

I think those players were given a decent chance to prove themselves but have been less successful in doing so compare to others who are now making claims as our first choices. I still think there will be a bit of rotation in the cup, and the teenagers will need monitoring to be wary of burn out.

Can't see the problem with giving the minimum these days - if they want to do the same then fine, and it will probably reduce the chances of trouble. I think it's traditional for clubs to give a sizeable amount as both clubs would not have filled the terraces or stands otherwise, so it was necessary for commercial reasons. These days, we'll have no problem filling Ibrox for a Celtic game when we can fill it for a St Mirren game. I think they'll find it a bit harder due to the bigger capacity and of course the number of pretty shitty restricted views, but as they are so obsessed with us these days, they could easily sell out the place to their own fans. So I say go for it, and it will making selling of season tickets less complicated.

I kind of get the impression that for this, and the lateness of halving his wage, his possition is: "I was always willing but the board didn't sit down and ask me till now." Hmm... more than a bit lame. In the end he worked more for the money than all of the last board and he made the difference for securing 5 SPL titles. Probably makes him more value than the likes of Klos and Numan who for a while took an even bigger wage for doing nothing too. Dozens of others you could add to that list, including Advocaat's last season where he was "promoted" to DoF. Doesn't excuse it, as he's hardly the worst offender, but probably the most disappointing.

I think that's a disservice to Warburton. I think he's exceptional and much better than anyone we've had in Scotland for quite a while. I think to be shown up by him is a bit like being shown up in the gym by Superman - nothing to be ashamed of.

Firstly, it's an awful lot of words as you seem to misinterpret me very easily, and I see the volume has made no difference in that regard. I've always got a lot to say as I think about my points, and try to give detail to my thinking. I also seem to have to continual explain stuff that I should be able to take for granted that the other person should know. Anyway, I didn't suggest that at all, I was asserting that there wasn't enough time to do more than marginal gains, and that any subjective viewpoint needed to take into account other variables. I never denied that there was the possibility they were fitter, I denied the assertion that it could definitively all be attributed to McCoist's training. If you want to think that then that's up to you. You are wrong. I was pointing out that assessing fitness of professional athletes by watching them play is a very subjective measurement. There is a difference between subjective and objective measurements. You might look at two rocks and think they weigh about the same (subjective), but to be definitive, it's better to weigh them (objective). I have no idea where you get that from. I explained it twice and in other posts. I did not make a definitive assertion with specific cause and effect that needed evidence. Pete did. You are accusing me of doing what Pete did, when I didn't. I was saying that without evidence you cannot be definitive and gave other alternatives. It's not the same. I don't even have to see it to know it can be a factor. For the umteenth time, how do you know when someone is less fit or not trying as hard? The point is that when there are multiple variables you shouldn't jump to conclusions. I showed a willingness to accept it with evidence. Ah we agree. If I made it look that way, then I would say that was down to the power of persuasion of my argument. And of course I am going to have belief in what I putting forward. It is up to the reader to decide. I think you are also doing me a great disservice in that I pretty much leave room in most of my arguments to suggest I could be wrong, but only with evidence or a very compelling argument. I really don't think you read me properly - maybe you don't have time, but you've also previously accused me of dressing up opinion as fact where I had to point out that not only had I used the words "in my opinion" but you should also do a count of clauses like, "I think", "it seems", "maybe", "perhaps", "it comes across" etc. You're now arguing against Pete, not me. You must skip my posts as although, yes I say stuff like that, but I explain in detail why it doesn't make sense. I can't see how that is insulting. People don't always make sense, although I'm always asking them to explain stuff. I tend to call things nonsense when I've already shown reason for it and then it's repeated. But I suppose If you think it makes sense that a team failed because the manger allowed one meal out at Nando's and that he laughed at a training session, then that's up to you. To me it doesn't make sense. I think you're also missing the point that Pete started it by saying I had my head in the sand - and without any explanation or reasoning to back it up, but you didn't have a go at him. Oh I do, and I try not to overdo it but it gets tedious when so many people make it so personal instead of dealing with the points. You're not supposed to retaliate (I can't even imagine why you even thought about that) - it's feedback, not a naked insult. You're supposed to challenge it in your head, ie think about it's validity and why I said it. If you then think I'm wrong, you can always explain that to me. Or maybe you'll conclude, that perhaps you were a bit harsh, and maybe apologise... It's not about defending McCoist, it's about defending criticisms that don't have much rationale or consistency. It's also calling out people for making up any old stuff to disparage people as some sort of running game. Is that really what we want on here? I've done it for lots of people, but Ally bashing is the most prevalent. I think that's a bit idealistic and impossible in the real world. No manager achieves that all the time, there are always player who don't work out personality-wise. However, not many managers have had to deal with what McCoist has. I've said from the moment that we went into admin that Ally was not an exceptional manager who has the ability the players play well despite the goings on, but I didn't think we could definitely say that many other managers could have done so. And again it's not what I'm disputing, it's the implication that McCoist's training was shall we say, "useless" for the meme on here. It might not have been optimal, but I doubt it was outlandishly bad. I think YOU have to explain that to ME. I gave Pete the respect of painstakingly explaining why I thought he was in the wrong - and without misinterpreting anything he said. He didn't give me the same respect - with a one liner, concluded by telling me I had my head in the sand - and gave McCoist no respect either. If you want to talk about hypocrisy, I think your post showed a lack of tolerance towards ME and you should heed your own advice about looking at yourself.

That's pretty fallacious is it not? I'm not the one making the assertion. This is so simple that it's tedious to explain. I could say I can jump higher than you (or absolutely anything or any bullshit), you say show me the evidence and I say show me the evidence I can't and you fail. All we need is a test but without it you can't really say it's one or the other. The point is once more, watching players is subjective, putting them through tests such as for V02 max, endurance and speed, are objective and will give you a more relevant answer. Even then, like I say, motivation is a huge variable when deciding the efficacy of a training regime. Eh? Where did I do that? I asked him if he was some kind of fitness expert who could tell a person fitness merely by watching them. That would be a pretty amazing skill. Most fitness experts would prefer to put someone through a battery of tests, before they give a conclusion, as they don't have that skill. That's the kind of evidence I'm talking about. It's already been done, there will be records, but we don't have access. Where did I do that? I'll explain again, Pete was being definitive about the fitness and damning the manager, I gave my OPINION of an alternative possibility. My assertion was I don't think that ANYBODY can tell the difference between an "unfit" professional footballer and a player who can't be bothered or who won't go that extra mile. I pretty much asserted we were both NOT know it alls. I really don't know where you get your logic from. Maybe you should deal with the points instead of just getting insulting. See above. There is evidence there. We don't have access to it. It's like you saying Froome is on EPO or something and telling me to disprove it with evidence. My argument would be that there is no evidence that he is beyond some people saying, "he looks like he is." Get the similarity? My main counter argument stems from some reasonable knowledge of fitness (which I think I've demonstrated without asserting I'm an expert) combined with common sense and anecdotal evidence. You don't go from very unfit to very fit very quickly. It takes a lot of time and effort - especially for a professional athlete who is trained by professional coaches and sport scientists. But even watching games, it's obvious these guys were very fit, and all professional sportsmen will put a reasonable effort into that - nobody pays top amateur sportsmen to keep fit, and yet they do. If any of the players were well below fitness they would not still be here as they would be considered unprofessional. There are plenty gone, but I don't think you can infer that was the reason. It seems you're being deliberately antagonistic and adding nothing to the debate - you're only going for the man and trying to elicit a response - I think that's called something. I've pretty much explained myself before this post and you've chosen to ignore it. Maybe you need to read a bit more carefully before pulling your hair trigger. Funnily enough you seem much more affable and open minded to most other posters including loads that don't take any time at all to explain any of their reasoning. My responses might not have been the most affable either but how are you supposed to be with people who are using trivial pieces of nonsense to insult a previous Rangers manager, while actually devaluing the work of the current one? Do you really believe Mark Warburton's "magic" comes from banning laughing, golf, Nando's, and merely giving double sessions of fitness training every day? Is it just that McCoist couldn't do glib things like that and MW is just doing what any clued up fan would do? I personally think it's a bit more complicated than that. So much so I'm not able to explain it as MW is a genius compared to my foolery when it comes to football management - I don't pretend to know all the answers or declare it's simple stuff. But I can recognise when people are way over simplifying to suit an agenda against someone they don't like.