calscot

I think the caveat is that if they improve and we are promoted, get back to the top of the first tier, and they attract interest, then they might be moving on for free...

Are you kidding me? So players can go about pushing opposition hard in the back after the game as much as they like. You don't think that is violent? Try doing it to a policeman and you'll find yourself done for assaulting an officer. Or do it ten times - it's not violent is it? Maybe people at the gersnet dinner should test you by periodically shoving you in the back and see how you deal with it? Actually I don't know how to argue this one as I can't get my head round that a hard shove in the back is not violent... I didn't realise it was an act of endearment by Erwin who was trying to make friends with Mohsni... In fact if it wasn't violent, can you actually explain Erwin's motives? Your opinon of Mohsni is obviously relevant as you do not apply the same codes to the other players who punched and kicked - while outnumbering their victim and with far less justification. Can I start by rebutting this - what relevance does it have? Mohsni was NOT pushed in a football match. It's completely different. When playing a match, you are consenting to some physical challenges - afterwards you are not. It's not even the same thing - where was the ball? Here's a simple on for you. Boxers get away with punching their opponent senseless in the ring. Once the bout is over, punching your opponent is not the same. However, even after saying that, you should not be subjected to repeated, deliberate pushes in the back during a game that are not legitimate or accidental in challenging for the ball. (In boxing its analogy would be rabbit punches or below the belt.) That is what a referee is there for, and I shouldn't have to tell you of all people this. Each one should be a foul and a warning, and multiple times should be punished with yellow card and then a sending off. I can't quote which rule covers it but I don't need to as I understand that that shoving is not what football is about and I also understand natural justice. I know the spirit of the laws. In a game without a referee I know that someone repeated shoving someone in the back will eventually get you a punch in the mouth. That is why it doesn't happen that often in kick about games. None of them if they are guilty which is a good thing that would protect our game from thugs and reserve it for footballers who want to enjoy the beautiful game rather than have a disguised fight. Once you start punishing the guilty and send them off, the illegal shoving will stop. Like I said there is a difference in jostling for the ball and an open shove in the back - which is actually very dangerous during a game especially when a guy jumps for the ball. But then like you say, there is a lot of it in the game as referees don't punish it. Chicken and egg. Wow, he's really guilty then... Moshni could have many reasons not to want to shake his hand, it could be the pushes and kicks the referee allowed the guy to get away with in the game, it could be verbal abuse and name calling during the game, or it could be the way he gloated when offering the shake. It's not uncivilised to refuse to shake hands, maybe not the best etiquette at times but we don't know the circumstances; however, it is totally uncivilised to launch an attack on someone in the back for not doing it. Of course it is. Once again, do that to a policeman and then argue it's not violent. How is it not violent - it's the definition of violence - physically attacking someone. I suggest you watch it again and then try to explain it as a light, friendly pat. What's the difference between a hard shove and a punch - tell me the physics? The only difference I can see is the closed fist - but I can tell you if you want to hit someone in the face and not hurt yourself, the heal of the hand will be more likely to knock them over and also save you grief. Of course you do have to compensate for a couple of inches less reach. If it wasn't violent then why did it beget violence? How is what Mohsni did violent - does the guy have injuries - it looked like playground stuff to me - exactly what you'd see on a playground. The kick was innocuous and although the punch was a good one, the impulse force will have been similar to that of the two handed shove. It's definitely a breach of the peach, shouting at someone can be a breach of the peace, threatening some is a breach of the peace... You are being disingenuous again. I have NEVER seen a shove for a throw in like that, and for me, if it is it should definitely be punished by at least a yellow. Do you even know what football is about? Do you understand human psychology even a little bit? Most of what you are trying to assert when watered down to things that are too trivial to punish, it's usually a bit of equal jostling it's not some guy walking away and getting shoved hard in the back. You are deliberately doing the straw man argument and you're still proving nothing. You should not have to get into a match as some sort of fight all the time, and put up with being pulled and shoved about. You should be able to play football and enjoy it and be protected by the referee. It's what the referee is for but you just don't seem to get that. Football has become one of the biggest cheats' games in the world these days, which has always annoyed someone who plays it honestly like myself, and it all comes down to poor officiating and the culture that that breeds. Many other sports just don't tolerate what happens in football.

I really can't see the relevance. If Mohsni started it with a headbutt then it could be used in deciding his punishment, but having previous guilt does not make you guilty in an unprovoked attack. This is pretty simple stuff when it comes to justice and I'm astounded you don't see. You are prejudging the guy based on his previous, even though it's obvious he was the victim here. You really don't know something so obvious, even though I've already explained it? You do it by severely punishing those who attack (including push) other players when it has nothing to do with the actual game. That acts as a deterent for the perpetrator and allows the victim to walk away from knowing justice will be done. You say you do not do this, you agree with Erwins lack of punishment and therefore you are giving the players NO PROTECTION. Bullies like Erwin therefore think they can do it and get away with - and also know that if the player retaliates, it's his victim who is the one that get punished. How encouraging can you get? Victims like Mohsni know there is no-one else to dispense justice or even future bullying except themselves and so are compelled to react. Bullies rely and feed on the fact that most victims walk away. This is really simple stuff you learn at school - and ironically, the reason it's not stamped out there, is because too many people think like you. Read my previous paragraphs. It's like saying we shouldn't prosecute anyone for assault as it doesn't protect anyone as it's after the fact. I'll repeat it's about having a deterent and punishment for the perpetrator and justice for the victim, neither of which you nor the SFA are capable of. Of course he should be, it was an unprovoked attack. Mohsni has the special defence of self defence which even in just normal morals provides him with a deterrent and justice. Who is going to risk pushing him next time? Oh yeah, I know, the guys who take advantage of the ludicrous rules to get him sent off and banned while receiving no punishment themselves. How stupid is that? As I said, your attitude is what bullies live off of. I not sure how sheltered a life you have led but a lot bullies MOs are to call their victims names, provoke them, and when that doesn't work - shove them in the back as they pass. They either want to see the victim walk away intimidated or to do something meek, which gives them and their mates the excuse to get stuck in. They only tend to do one on one when they are much bigger than the victim or when the victim has a record of never fighting back or doing so meekly. These victims are repeated abused in this way as the bullies are never punished. The one almost sure way to stop the bullying is to really hurt the main aggressor. You might get a kicking from his mates but it can mean that they leave you alone after that as no many people like getting hurt - especially most bullies. (Of course it doesn't work with total sociopaths or those who like pain.) Of course this wouldn't be necessary if the bullying was treated as serious and properly punished. You nip it in the bud and these fights don't happen and everyone grows up with less physical and psychological scars. In this case it's for grown ups - the fight would probably have not happened, but even if it did then if the book was thrown at Erwin, and all before him, it would be far less likely to happen in the future - and so more players would just walk away knowing the attacker would be severely punished. It would also mean throwing the book at Mohsni if he attacked anyone - with an even more severe punishment for previous.

I disagree, there was no provocation to gang attack Mohsni and no justification for it whatsoever. The civilised thing to do would be to restrain Mohsni - even more-so as their colleague started the whole thing. If it was my mate, I would not be cowardly joining in beating up an outnumbered guy for hitting back. I would, however, be involved in using the greater numbers of force in stopping it. There is a massive difference between a one on one, than a gang attack - and it wasn't a square go, Mohsni was attacked - and he didn't get his mates to gang up and beat up Erwin - were the other Rangers players just as provoked? I think you need to mentally put yourself - or even better your son, in Mohsni's position. I think you'll see it a lot differently. To provoke it he'd have had to be attacked them, or at least be the instigator. How can defending oneself, even in retaliation (which is a form of defence as a deterrent for further attack), provoke a beating from multiple guys? That doesn't make sense to me.

I think you may have led a sheltered life. A hard push in the back is the staple of the bully. And the sad thing is they get away time and again with it because of people with your strange attitude. Are you talking about Erwin? I suspect not as you are showing no consistency whatsoever. The breach of the peace to me, is down to the guy who starts it - your arguments don't even make sense when it comes to cause and effect. There was peace and then it was breached by Erwin. He would have been immediately arrested if he had pushed a policeman like that. Do policemen have more rights?

I see this as a Weir signing rather than from Warburton. He improved massively before under Davy so I can see him at least being pretty solid, now he's back under the same guidance.

Seems to me it shows how popular a couple of Scottish teams are when, in the SECOND TIER in a country of 5m they get the same as a top half of the top tier game in England who have 11 times the population. The fact that Rangers and Hearts received about 200 grand between them from TV compared to about £140m for the two clubs you mention for the same viewing figures is mind boggling. Your viewpoint does seem to be coming from a funny angle.

Just had a look at that one squad from Man U from 94-95 and found the following playing at a decent level till at least 37: Bruce 38, Irwin 38, Schmeichel 39, Ince 38, Hughes 38, Giggs 40, Walsh 38, Kanchelskis 37, Cole 37, Scholes 38, Beckham 38. (Don't know exact dates so could be out by one year.) That's a whole team... Doesn't seem that unusual. Looks like we can reasonably hope for two years out of the guy.

How about Ryan Giggs playing at a much higher level than the SPL? For Eustice, I think we're thinking more like 37 for his shelf life with one season in the Scottish second tier.

I'm not sure what to make of Eustace and it's certainly not the most exciting signing but putting it in some perspective we have lacked leadership in the last few years as our record shows, Jig wasn't really up to that task. By way of comparison, that Man U "kids" team everyone likes to use as an example of what clubs should do (even though it's never been repeated), their captain was Steve Bruce at 34-35 years old. Other slightly older "kids" in the team were Schmeichel 31, Palister 30, McClair 31, Hughes 31, and between all 5, they played an average of over 35 games each. I don't remember the last time I met a guy in his twenties that I thought had top leadership skills - they seem to get more immature by the generation, or maybe I'm just getting to an age where they all seem like silly kids. People tend to mature a lot more by their 30's and I'd rather have my team's captain on the wrong side of that landmark birthday. However, playing much beyond 35 is pretty exceptional even these days, so it does seem a short term proposition - yes he could go on like Weir but that's not guaranteed. On the other side, being in the second tier means we can't attract top candidates and so maybe a more temporary fix is necessary for now to get us to the top again, while developing our team and squad elsewhere, with a few older heads passing down their knowledge and experience to develop the youngsters. You've got to hope that by being able to play and be highly rated in the English championship for the last couple of years should mean that he's got a couple more years to excel at the much lower level we're playing against. I'm heartened by the good stuff I've heard about him today, but still a bit worried about his fitness for a whole season.

Feel for the guy he hit, but can you imagine filling in your insurance form - previous claim: yes, driver at fault: yes, how much was the claim settlement: £6million... Add to that, age: 23, occupation: footballer, car: high performance... It's hard to imagine him being insured again.

As I started going to games around 1980, being a Rangers fan, I've had the tradition of usually having a seat - I remember my first games being in the Copland Stand while the Govan was still a framework. (Shortly before then I remember a funny bit on telly when the govan was just a building site with a fence - the ball went over and a skinhead picked it up and ran away with it, Archie McPherson naively opined, "I'm sure the ball will be returned.") So I've only ever sat in the four stands of Ibrox, including the old, uncomfortable, wooden ones in the mains stand with jammed knees. People must have been smaller when they built it. I never experienced the enclosure. The vast number of seats always made me feel Ibrox was far superior to other SPL grounds - and grounds in England and elsewhere. Pittodrie boasted it was all seated but it had a load of cheap benches, as did Wembley, so they were no contest, and also I thought it was pretty good that Ibrox allowed some people to stand - I think it was about 9000 they crammed in there. Even at away games at Rugby Park, Tynecastle and Easter Road, I preferred to be in the stand, although as I visited Rugby Park a fair few times I also used the terraces quite a few times, due to price - for the first game there, I even arrived really early when the stadium was empty and mistakenly went in the away end and had to ask permission from the stewards to allow me to jump onto the track-side and then back over round the fence into the larger home end, when I realised that's where the bigger numbers of Rangers support were to be housed. My worst experience of standing as a boy was a cup final trip to Hampden as I was in the front of the South enclosure which was dug down over four feet, and so my eyes were barely above pitch level. The police also were a bit harsh when they told me to get back down when I climbed up to try and see a glimpse of the team lift the League Cup in the main stand. The best places I've been now for comfort are Wembley and Stadium MK where you get a really comfy padded seat, plenty of leg-room and a good view - however, the experience is lessened with no Rangers team to watch... although I did once see a really crap performance from Tore Andre Flo for MK Dons.

The only time a one-trick pony is inneffective is if his one trick is predictable and easy to counter, while he has no alternative skill. Then players learn to nullify him, which happens more easily when you play teams 5 times a season. It's always good to have at least 2 tricks as then you can keep them guessing. An example comes form badminton where the preferred serve is a short one, but you have to do the odd decent long one now and again or your opponent just shuffles forward and kills your serve.

We have other spending priorities - cost of keeping seats: £0; cost of safe standing: £100 per place. 15 years ago we'd have done it quickly, now it's a luxury item on the agenda.

Seems to me that with the position we're in, Warburton seems a pretty good fit and about the best we could expect in the circumstances. I'm struggling to understand the criticism especially when by all accounts he seems to tick several boxes of what people have been asking for for a few years. He is into developing youth and playing attacking football. He doesn't think he knows it all and is determined to learn more. He is capable of innovation and is not restricted by convention. He can get a team promoted from a league where he doesn't have huge resources compared to rivals, he can do well in a league where he has much less financial resources than others. He doesn't need huge budgets to succeed. He speaks well and portrays a fair bit of dignity in his manner. He has skills from outside football. If he ticks the (perception) of "not playing players out of position" then it will be Bingo, full house.

I've said that for years although I would think it would be more difficult to do, the younger the players are. You can't expect an 18 year old to leave his home, family and friends and move to a completely different country and culture where they don't know anyone. To do so to play for the second tier would hardly be an incentive and even in the Premiership, it's not exactly football heaven. As usual we'd have to pay a level of compensation in their wages to entice them resulting in our usual position of not getting good value for our money when it comes to wages, and also attracting those that are more interested in what they can earn rather than achieving excellence.

So if you had a kid whom you saw was pushed by a bully and he kicked him and punched him once back, you'd find that excessive and punish him severely, but you'd reasonably OK with a gang of five kids, who are friends of the original attacker, simultaneously kicking and punching your child, and wouldn't find that at all excessive?

Can you even slightly justify this? I get the flying headbutt thing but you are completely contradicting that viewpoint here. Your moral compass seems to whizz around to whatever agenda you have against this player. As you have shown, your own actions on the pitch actively encourage retaliation as you wouldn't punish a clear case of assault. Players should be protected from this but you would be derelict of that duty to them. You seem to get some of the letter of the law but totally missing the spirit and I fail to see any sense of fairness.

On the street I can't really seem much wrong with Mohsni's actions which, if they were on the street, pretty much seemed reasonably proportionate - especially in Glasgow where you could expect a lot worse, I really don't see the logic in the only acceptable response being exactly the same as the original attack. In fact it makes it sound pretty childish and resulting in a pushy, pushy contest. It doesn't seem a great deterrent to stop a bully. Punching them in the chops seems far more effective and shows others you're not to be messed with. If someone kicks you is the only appropriate response to kick them back? I really don' t get it. What if they hit you with something? The only thing you can hold against him is that he's a professional footballer and so should be able to overcome the normal response while in his place of work. However, you should not be subjected to unprovoked violence in your place of work, and employers and professional bodies have a duty of care to their employees to protect them. This includes severe punishment for violently attacking someone. Retaliating when you're attacked is perfectly normal and natural, attacking someone for little reason is not. It is therefore inappropriate to play down the attack because it was not the most likely to cause bodily harm. The point is that it is incredibly likely to cause a fight and escalation, and is therefore a pretty severe crime to do so. What the bully is playing on is that he can provoke something and then laugh his own offence off as "just a wee push". It's a bit like the IRA creating a small explosion but luckily for us, not harming anyone, and then the authorities laugh it off and treat it like it was nothing and let them off with it. Or is the appropriate response to blow something up in Ireland to make it even? Reading some of the opinion, I find it easy to understand why bullying is so difficult to eradicate - people pick on the victims instead.

Seems to me that this decision completely vindicates Mohsni's actions: When there is no justice by a higher power you have to dish out justice yourself. If people can attack others without punishment how do you deter them from doing it? The only reason you can give for walking away is that the authorities will give you justice. It shows the complete thing is a stitch up by the SFA who have no sense of morality whatsoever. Put these actions in order of severity with severest first: 1. An unprovoked attack on another person from behind 2. Being the victim of an unprovoked attacked and hitting back at the attacker 3. An unprovoked attack simultaneously by 4 or 5 people on 1 person For me it's obviously 3, 1, 2 with 3 being extremely heinous and 2 being almost acceptable, but the SFA think it is 2, 3, 1 with 2 being the worst by a long way and 1 being perfectly acceptable. They also let off a few guys that perpetrated number 3 with no punishment whatsoever. Really weird shit from the country that brought the world the Enlightenment.

You are looking for celebrities rather than sporting heros. The fastest man in world over 100 meters cares far more about getting faster than how entertaining he is when doing it. The entertainment comes from the experience of watching the fastest man in the world. No they absolutely don't, which is why they are so successful.

When you "try to be entertaining" they are completely exclusive. Try something like shooting at a target with an air pistol where the goal is to get the most points. Now try and do it while being entertaining - are your scores better or worse? This multiplies much more when there is another team who might not give a crap how entertaining the game is and are using your entertainment tactics against you. They may also make you less entertaining which means you must try harder to bring up the entertainment levels. You can see how absurd it gets. To be the best, you concentrate all your efforts into winning, any of that sacrificed means your are less effective at winning. That is just not true. Not in the slightest. The most successful clubs CAN be the most entertaining as they have the most skillful players, which also allows them a level of room to showboat somewhat against lesser sides who are still skilful. It's just nonsense. There are plenty of clubs that have been considered to play the nicest football - I remember a Norwich side about 25 years ago, but they don't become super Giants like those two. These kind of clubs are huge because there are success, not because they are entertaining. The entertainment comes from vicariously watching your team being successful. Again, obviously not true. How entertaining have Barcelona been against Rangers and Celtic in this century? That's how teams play against us every week. You seem to forget there are two teams on the pitch. No, you have to beat them all, all the time, which a most players find is much harder than they think. In a two team competition, every dropped point is damaging - there aren't two rivals to take points off each other. Each team treats you like a cup final where they at minimum want to limit the damage and maximum cause an upset. They don't give a crap how entertaining the make the game or the manner in how they do it. Style should come from playing with excellence, it shouldn't be goal in itself as it distracts from excellence. It is the attitude of dreamer who will ultimately be a loser.

I thought we were talking about the "real world"? You might not have noticed but the entertainment business is not very related to the real world. It usually entertains us by faking everything. There is a difference between sport and entertainment which is easily epitomised by the defference between the Golden State Warriors and the Harlem Globe Trotters. When they turn football into entertainment, it will cease to be a "real" sport. Sport not about attention, it's about winning and being as successful as possible.

In the real world is far easier to be successful if you focus on what it takes to be successful, rather than worrying about whether people think you look good, or whether they entertain everyone.

How much is our earnings from retail? It seems we don't get much and even then SD don't give it to us. I've no idea what it worth as the information is sparse but going by the drip feed, say that 26% is worth about £150k, and the interest you can make or save on £5m must be about £200k at 4%, so it doesn't make sense to pay it back when it's interest free. And when you're resources are lower due to a connected onerous contract with a big rebuilding job, there are better things to do with that size of a chunk of your money. And the second point still stands that denying Ashley his £5m in perpetuity, while sales of merchandise are low, and bears boycotting his shops, puts Ashley in a position where it will make financial sense to renegotiate the contracts which will benefit the club. The guy has an ego but it's all seems based on his score of how much money he has - he doesn't like losing any of that score. Unless we want to secure borrowings on those assets, which with an injection of investment seems unlikely, what is the problem with the continued security? It's seems pretty irrelevant as he will never get the assets and we don't need them security free. Unless things change, it's just a meaningless bit of paper. You might be in the last few years of your mortgage and could pay it off, but if you're earning more interest on you money than you are paying the bank, then why would you? Would you do it just to release the security on your house? Nothing has changed, that's the point you don't seem to get. DK wants to change it. Paying the loan back will make that more difficult as then Ashley will have far less reason to change it. Based on what premise? Have you not being paying attention? And that is exactly what the board are trying to do, and not paying back the loan is part of the strategy for damage limitation for the onerous deals that we can't completely get rid of for some years. You seem to be contradicting yourself here