calscot

As I take an interested in this kind of stuff, I've looked around and skimmed a few scholarly articles. The problem as I said before, is the relevance is low as it's usually about continual heavy drinking, or primarily about the "hangover effect" of having drinking the night before training or a competition/match. For the latter, there seems to be little effect on anaerobic performance but does have an effect on aerobic capacity. How much depended on a multitude of factors relating to the specific person - including how "used to alcohol" they were. However, the conclusions also consistently stated that the effects could last "for several hours after the ingestion of alcohol". So having a few before a rest day does not seem to be highly significant. I found a pretty simple (non scholarly), balanced and reasonably relevant article here: http://www.runnersworld.com/fuel-school/can-a-drink-hurt-my-running-performance

Comedy gold, the straw man strikes again! Or are you working for the temperance movement? I think you're probably getting mixed up with Botox, which is actually the most lethal toxin known to man. You know, the one people inject into their faces... Or do you really think we've destroyed the planet with alcohol and everyone who drinks has massive brain damage? You know, FOOD in high quantities causes a whole load of health hazards: obesity, diabetes, heart disease and even cancer among a load of other diseases. In high doses it is highly detrimental to an athlete's performance - should athletes refrain from eating food? The point is that just because something is harmful in what would be considered high doses, it doesn't mean it is as detrimental in much smaller doses. In the west we have actually evolved to drink alcohol, our bodies are "designed" to cope. A couple of drinks of an evening will leave almost no trace the next day as your liver processes it overnight. You can live a long, healthy life by doing that a few nights a week and studies show you might have a lower chance of dementia because of it. If you look up alcohol with relation to sports performance, there will be very little about having a few drinks before a day off. All the stuff you will find is about drinking the night before a competition or hard training day - and usually that will be about having several units or more. Or it will be about the long term effects of drinking all the time. Even then there is not much caution given for having one glass of red with a meal before a non-competition day. And remember, there is not much real scientific research been done for this yet. Most of it is taking medical research into binge drinking out of context, and mixing it with anecdotal memories of struggling with a hangover. Alcohol can have adverse effects: it dehydrates you, lowers your glucose levels, disturbs your sleep, gives you cravings for unhealthy food, and lowers your testosterone among other things. All this can easily be reversed on a day off. If it's so neurotoxic and destructive then why did the BMC cycling team, celebrate their team time trial win in the Tour with glass of champagne, the night before another stage? It's obvious that getting pissed will not be good for a footballer, but it's also obvious to most people who have done a bit of sport and enjoys a drink, that one night a week of say four pints followed by a day off, is hardly going to be much of a blip on their career radar.

Wow, that really adds to the debate. Maybe you should get him on here to explain his standpoint... But if I was going to choose a manager as my champion, it would probably be Fergie... I think he knows a lot more about winning, and likes a drink himself. However, I usually like to take on board a load of information from lots of sources (including what others on here have said) and think for myself. That way I can actually present my case in a debate...

I can't agree with your last sentence - how do you know it's not beneficial? There are plenty of studies that show alcohol is actually good for you in moderation, and there's plenty to show it's beneficial for mental-health. I also can't see how it says you have a "lax attitude". If it's moderate, can't that be a balanced attitude? I've never known draconian attitudes to ever work in life.

For someone who thinks we shouldn't have players over 25 and that 30 is a pensioner, I can't see why that would be the slightest bit relevant to you. However, there are plenty of players who drank and lasted to at least a fairly average 32, 33. However, you seem to be the only one arguing that our players might shorten their careers due to being alcoholics but that's not quite the issue here. It's obvious to the rest of us that alcoholism is not going to give you a long career, and nobody is advocating it. The point is, that surely if just a few drinks now and again is harmful to a players ability, it would be virtually impossible for a very heavy drinker to get to the very top of the game? But that doesn't seem to be the case time and again. The reason that most of the players we mention are in the past, is not because you didn't have to be fit in the past (which is surely not the case), but it's that it usually comes out after the fact. There could be many top players who like a good drink in the present day, but as they aren't in need of a new liver, we don't hear about it. There do seem to be plenty of drink driving cases though. The main point is that there is no evidence whatsoever that moderate drinking affects a player's ability enough for him to require to be teetotal - people are making it up and I would guess they are people who are not teetotal themselves and have no right to command others to be. And at our current level of the game, like I said, it makes little difference - the level of player we have is the level we have whether they drink or not. If they would have been so much better without drinking then they wouldn't be at Ibrox anyway - it seems fine as long as they play at the level we pay them for. I think we're all agreed that as a professional athlete, excessive drinking is a no no, as is drinking the night before a competition or match. As a sacrifice for your career, drinking should probably be pretty moderate. I also think that for many of us, a bit of alcohol makes our lives more fun, and is good for our general sense of well-being and happiness. If that's not the case for you, then you have the right to choose not to drink - but not the right to choose for others.

Who knows? Maybe they would have become excellent accountants or something...

Thing is we can super analyse all the most drunken but successful footballers, and in the end you don't know whether it was beneficial to them at the time or not. Sometimes it's better to burn out than fade away. Part of the point is that if Gasgoigne was tee total, would he ever have played for us? Or maybe he wouldn't have been the same player, and instead being a solid predictable, safe type of top journeyman player. But what we're missing is the plethora of very successful players whom you would expect, at an opportune part of the week - say just after a game, liked a few drinks to relax and enjoy themselves. I have no idea who that would be, but I suspect the vast majority of them. You don't hear of too many teetotallers and it makes news when they are. You can be very professional AND have a drink. Getting pissed mid season or drinking the night before a game seems to be something obvious to avoid, but even then, I think we've all had a few drinks the night before and been perfectly capable in a Sunday league game or some other sport the next day, as well as in our job. I had about a bottle of wine the night before a 100 mile cycle and still averaged my best ever century at 18.1 mph for an averagely hilly route. Some of our support seem to really be becoming a puritan lot when it comes to the players - but without even allowing a player a day off on a Sunday... There seems to be a massive lack of empathy for the players as real people.

If nutrition, conditioning and how much you drank were the most important things for success in football, then the obvious thing to do would be to copy guys like Baxter, Greaves, Best, Gascoigne, Maradona, Tony Adams etc, etc. Maybe the 9 in a row guys are a good template...

Your whole post is a very simplistic and seems counter intuitive to just about everything I've learned in life. Let's even start with Murray, you seem to like to cherry pick your examples. Let's even assume he passes your impossible description of professionalism, is there not other British tennis players doing similar training and abstinence (if he actually does that) to what he does? How successful are they? I don't seem many in the top 100. Why is someone who applies himself to this mythical 100% not as successful as a guy like Gascoigne and many other top sportsmen? What is your expertise or even references in the field of sports and the effects of alcohol that even suggests having zero alcohol is optimal? I think there are enough successful people in the world who drink to prove it's not exactly an obvious inhibitor to success and it's possible it could help. Just look at Hunt and Lauda. The most succesful Nottingham Forest team of all time were apparently ordered to have a drink before each game. Humans are pretty complex entities and knowledge of this kind of stuff is pretty scarce and theories changing all the time - with alcohol often considered beneficial in moderate doses. And we also have to consider the psychological effects. Denial has always made people crave things more and actually seems to tend to make people binge. Even just having a substance to raise your spirits has been seen as beneficial to mental well being for thousands of years and as such is woven into the fabric of our society. Some diets now have cheat days as the thinking is that not only does this stop you going into famine mode, it also stops you over craving things and abandoning the diet, as well as making it far more tolerable long term, as nothing is denied for more than a week. That's because psychologically, compliance is more important than effectiveness of following something "100%". I think your definition of professionalism is very naive and pretty much suggests it's something that is impossible to achieve, therefore we're all amateurs, rendering the term almost meaningless. It seems to me that no-one can apply themselves 100% all the time, and if they try you are likely to get some kind of burnout. The irony is that you don't even do that with an engine. You might think that because they are "professionals" they should be able to control themselves 100% but there is no-one in the world that does that. How many top businessmen or politicians are there that can't control their diet and are therefore overweight? It seems to me, the answer as always and which applies to the rest of us, is in a person's ability. Maybe you can be a better player/employee by living like a monk, but if you'd rather be less successful and have a life, you can maybe choose your level. In football even if that might mean playing for Rangers in the Scottish second tier rather than a regular CL semi-finalist but then that's your choice, you will end up at your natural level - maybe that's Falkirk or Forfar. The question is not whether a player has a drink now and again, or a pack of Monstermunch, or if he's a couple of inches below average, it's about whether he's good enough for the level of your team despite all his habits and physical attributes,. But in the end, there is not much to suggest that living like a monk helps, and there is much evidence that actually points in the opposite direction. We need to stop thinking we're all top experts in football management and training, and then making snap, harsh judgements on all aspects of our players lives - or go out and manage a team and prove we do know better. Lots of managers have tried to micro manage players and failed - I think DA was one of them. Players are not machines, they are human, and that requires a lot more complex handling.

First bit is pretty much from the ministry of the bleedin' obvious... But saying "no money" is a bit meaningless in the context of this player. None of us are sure how much we have the ability to pay, our new board have deep pockets, so it's entirely up to them. However, things have changed considerably and we now want and desperately need proper value for money. In the context of the current Scottish game, I think our board and fans are being far more realistic than yours. Time will tell. That's for them to worry about, not us. They also have a business and a club to run as best they can, and I can't see how they can afford to be too unrealistic. That doesn't mean they can't reject the first offer, but in the absence of another bidder, they have to start to weigh things up if there is an improved second offer.

Maybe it is a type tapping up but it's done in a perfectly legit way and so I can't really see the problem as long as they haven't spoken to the player. As for the bid, you do realise that post Bosman, a player has a basic price tag which is the amount of wages left on his contract - therefore he depreciates as time goes on, which is reflected on the balance sheets? That price tag only changes when he is considered underpaid for his ability and/or if there are two or more parties interested in a bidding war. When there is no bidding war then the effective bidding comes from the seller and prospective buyer as to who values him the most. If Hibs think he's more valuable to the team than the Rangers bid, then they are right to not sell him. Pretty simple business stuff and not something to get agitated about. That's Hibs' business and of no real interest to Rangers - bar how much it would take for them to sell the player and whether that fee is in the best interests of Rangers. You seem to keep missing the point that the price needs to be right according to BOTH parties, not just Hibs. You're saying the guy is worth 12 grand a week? Would you offer that to him to sign a new contract? You can value him at any random number you like but I can't see any rhyme nor reason to it. You really need to qualify that. I can see him being on more than about £4 grand a week at Rangers which puts my valuation on him at about £200k. But what do I know? I'd be very surprised if the fee went over £350k which would put his wage at about £7k for a Scottish, second tier player. You can want as much as you like but I doubt Rangers would pay that. What you're really saying is that you'd rather turn down less than that from Rangers even though you will lose him to us next year while playing a player to whom you have just admitted that he's vastly underpaid and you are stopping him from earning an amount closer to his worth... Good luck with that. I think your board will see more business sense than that - eventually. Unless of course in the event some English club (or Celtic) thinks he's worth 12-15 grand a week. It's hard to be a supporter without being confident and optimistic about your chances, although spouting it on a Rangers site is hardly "quiet". Fair enough, but it's what happens on the pitch that counts, so be careful not to get too cocky. Same goes for us - although I do think objectively we have far more reasons to be cheerful.

Your statement is so strangely worded and illogical that I don't even know what you're trying to say. You seem to be saying Rangers are offering money for the player therefore "have no money"? What does that even mean? The only logical interpretation I can make is that you may be saying that Rangers have no money, therefore they are putting in an offer they know will be refused and subsequently look like they are trying to buy the player, when they aren't, to look good in front of the fans without actually spending anything. Now while I wouldn't argue against that that was a tactic of CW, do you really think the current board would risk stooping to that? The Rangers fans are pretty savvy at this now, and just wouldn't swallow it. It would be a high risk strategy at a time when the board are asking the fans for trust. Can I ask on what you're basing your "no chance" part? It could be true there is no chance - it could be the asking price may be quite a bit more than twice the actual value of the player - I agree that is very likely, but with your previous, "no money" assertion it looks like you think you are privy to Rangers finances. Could you expand on that and give your sources? In the end I get the impression you just don't really get the buying and selling thing when there is no fixed price. An offer that is lower than a seller wants does not mean the buyer doesn't have enough money to pay more (although it can mean that but most of the time that is not the case and so you can't logically infer this), or that he has "no money". It really sounds like you've been on a Hibees site and as Rangers have made an offer that is lower than you'd subjectively like, so you are jumping to false conclusions and casting aspersions to make yourselves feel better about it. Maybe he's just not as valuable as you think. Rangers can get him next year for free, but are interested in getting him a year earlier. How much do you really think that's worth to a club, on top of his signing on fee and wages? Do you really think he's worth an extra 14 grand a week? Hibs also have to work out whether it's worth an extra 5-8 grand a week (the money they could lose), to keep a player who wants to leave, for another year - unless they are very confident of a better offer from elsewhere.

Shouldn't he be completely let off as it's the kind of stuff you get in a school playground...?

This the % share of the total audience. It adds up to 200% as there are two teams in every game - while we were involved in 43% of the total audience, so were the teams we were playing. While some of the money should be based on league position, it makes sense that there should be an allocation for the number of games you play in - like in the EPL. This is especially true when the 15th team for prize-money is featured in the most games - and also has to take a hit due to moving of those games to a less desirable day and time, which can affect income. It's not only affecting us, it affected Hibs, Hearts and most of the Championship teams. It seems like all the SPL teams do is scam our fans out of their money and then treat them and our club like shit. I really hope we boycott their grounds when we get back as otherwise, we'll have taken an undeserved thrashing and then said, "Thank you sir, may I have another."

The problem is that when they don't show Scottish football they don't lose enough subscriptions as too many Scots and others interested in SPFL will still subscribe for the EPL. We have very little leverage. Every Scottish football fan that subscribes to watch the EPL inadvertently damages our game. I really doubt that, and expect FreeView and FreeSat to be the most popular platforms to watch telly in Scotland - mainly because they are free. But in any case the problem with Sky's subscription model is that you can't pick and choose very much and so you tend to have to buy the sport as an all or nothing thing, and it's pretty steep. So just because you already have Sky doesn't mean it's a given that you'll get the sport. As a Rangers fan, I think it's cheaper to go to the games than watch them on the telly on your own - if you live locally and don't watch the rest of the sports package. That's why I won't get SKY, it'll cost me about 700+ quid a year to watch something like 18 Rangers games, and I'm not interested in the EPL or the vast majority of the rest of the stuff included in the package, including the land line.

I can only think the reason for this is that HMRC are using Rangers as a high profile example and basically telling everyone - just pay what we ask or we'll litigate the hell out of you; even if we lose, you really can't afford to fight us and we'll likely put you out of business. It's good for the tax coffers but totally circumventing the law, democracy and general fairness...

Found this tax expert view from Accountancy Live quite interesting (from October last year): The ‘Rangers employee benefit trust (EBT) case’ (Murray Group Holdings [2014] UKUT 0292) has been – is still being – fought with some ferocity. On appeal to the Upper Tribunal, HMRC spent six days on its legal submissions, presenting (though unsuccessfully) a long list of reasons why the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) had misdirected itself in law. The case is presently moving forward to the appeal court in Scotland, the Court of Session. The FTT decision at the outset of this case was a majority one only – with a carefully, and at times rather passionately, argued dissenting minority view. Whether one was attracted by the majority or the minority approach, there is a certain sense now, as the case proceeds to the appellate court following a pretty firm rejection of HMRC’s appeal by the review tribunal (the Upper Tribunal), that wider issues are perhaps coming into view. In particular, it seems, the court’s respect for the integrity of the function and process of the specialist Tax Tribunal: the Upper Tribunal itself noted previous House of Lords’ guidance that decisions of expert tribunals should be respected unless quite clear they have misdirected themselves, and that appellate courts ‘should not rush to find misdirections in law simply because they might have reached a different conclusion on the facts or expressed themselves differently’. Some might even be persuaded of a ‘constitutional’ angle – whether the judicial function is seen to be exercised without favour when the executive agency bears down heavily, in this case for a third time. - See more at: https://www.accountancylive.com/employee-benefit-trusts-fallout-rangers-case#sthash.iREzyOI5.dpuf

I think part of it may be the focus on season tickets and it's a bit of a delicate situation after the last few years, with people saying they've been put off by the team. The team is not yet ready, you don't want to put these fans off by potentially watching a couple of bad performances while we're trying to build a new squad. That for me, seems to tie in the close door games. The board basically want to unveil new dawn, and the team needs to be ready for the opening night.

I think people completely forget that if you ignore the management change, the club is in a totally different situation and mood than the last few seasons. The spvs have been chased out, and we've gone from a board trying to bleed the club, to one trying to breath life back into it. That alone should show itself on the park and it's been obvious that our form has been worse during the biggest upheavals. The players have gone from collecting their cheques while they can to one of being part of a bright future of the club. It's like a great storm has lifted and the sun is peeping through. I think that will reflect massively on the attitude of the players. With Warburton, I personally think we have a manager that can take that attitude, and new broom, and run with it, to create something good for the fans and hopefully a lot of success for the club. Our hands have been tied and our muscles atrophied, now they've been released we have some muscle building to do.

If only... It's so easy to argue against it, you need to look a bit harder. Every club has a load of youth players, some make a tangible contribution, most don't. By your logic, EVERY club has failed in the development of most of their players. The point I've shown you is that if you pick and choose your players you can see a player do better at one club than an other, including Rangers. Your view is that when you specially pick your players, Rangers are rubbish, but when your own logic is used to say that Rangers are good, you dismiss it and refuse to answer that. You seem to be able to say where it is and that it's never at Rangers. The examples are there to see, Wilson does well at Rangers goes on to Liverpool and does badly, you blame Rangers. Adam does quite well at Rangers, breaks into the team, doesn't quite make it and the fans don't take to him, does better elsewhere and you blame Rangers. A player like Naismith, does well with Kilmarnock, goes on to Rangers and becomes a star, but you say that's not possible at Rangers. That is your opinion and there are many people with opposing opinions to that. I've only seen him play for Scotland and wasn't particularly impressed. It was also under PLG where he went from promising to no good. As I've pointed out and you refuse to answer, there are players who have gone up in value after playing for Rangers, or just been pretty decent. We have, after all, won a shit load of trophies. What have Blackpool won again? I suppose that depends on what number you put on "plethora" and ability for "top", but without doing the numbers, I would say that the amount of decent players coming out of the academy is probably well above average for Scotland. You go on about Ajax, but don't use common sense or logic, where it is well known that the Netherlands have one of the best grass roots systems in the world, while Scotland's has gone downhill and crashed in the last 30 years. That is a massive factor. I'm not saying our youth system has been brilliant or world class or even as good as it should be, but again you select your examples and colour your arguments to show Rangers to be somehow the worst in the world, whereas the evidence suggests it has more likely been a bit of above average and for ambitions as a top club, in need of improvement.

You are asserting that if a player leaves for a low amount, then the club were rubbish at developing him, if his value rises, then the club are great. We developed Wilson into a potential 5m player but he left a bit early, went to Liverpool and his value dramatically dropped to be a freebie for Hearts in the second tier. Under your own logic for Adam, that makes Rangers far better than Liverpool at developing players, so why your inconsistency? It suggests you spin things against Rangers as usual. Can you explain in what way I'm spinning? We sold them for a far higher value than their other clubs, under your own logic that means we developed them better than anyone.

The question is - would Ajax have a better academy if it was based in Scotland and they had our revenue to spend? You can only work with what you have...

You can spin it any you like. We sold Wilson for about 5m - but unfortunately, didn't receive the whole sum as we obviously did a lot more for him than Liverpool ever did. We also must have done more for the likes of Boumsong and Cuellar than their previous or subsequent clubs.

I think some of the stats stuff like that could be useful, but we have to be careful of that we're measuring the cause, not the effect. For instance there are stats that say that people who own a bicycle, live longer. The interesting part is that it holds true whether they use it or not. The conclusion of the research of this asserts that this is due to the fact that people who think about their health have a high instance of bicycle ownership. The longevity doesn't only come from cycling, it's the fact they do many things that they think will improve their health. Therefore just buying a bike and leaving it to collect dust, will not make you live longer. So you have to actually test that whether prioritising strikers going into the box, increases your goal count, as that may not be the primary variable and changing your game-plan to do this could perhaps be counterproductive if you keep losing possession trying to get in the box, while not taking good opportunities to shoot that present themselves.

That's because I shouldn't have to for someone who purports to be a knowledgeable Rangers fan. I thought you might remember most of them, or at least be able to look it up but it seems you're struggling to name any. I'll help educate you - at the start of the 2011 season, players potentially worth £1m or more: Bougherra, Jelavić, Wallace, McGregor, Davis, Lafferty, Naismith, Whittaker, Aluko, Ness, Wylde. Bougherra and Jelavić were sold that season for more than £1m and Wallace was just bought for a sum exceeding that, so no-brainers. Ness and Wylde were young players who showed potential getting a run in the best team in Scotland at the time, and went to Stoke (Prem) and Bolton (just relegated to Championship with parachute payments), which suggests they could have fetched £1m fees. The others have proven their £1m+ status by their wages at high status clubs, and/or subsequent sell on fees. This was a team that outperformed Celtic before the shit hit the fan, despite lack of investment by Whyte. You specified five year period doesn't quite allow "a lot further back". But even then, a lot further back, we weren't exactly a selling club, quite the opposite. A lot of people have fond memories of that.