Jump to content

 

 

calscot

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,722

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by calscot

  1. calscot
    I would say that only two have taken their chance. I've already published a list of players who had more than 9 appearances. I really can't see which of our best two youngsters was forced upon the manager. It is plainly not true. If you're talking about McLeod, he can pick him or drop him when he feels fit as there are plenty of older players to choose from. He has chosen to pick McLeod when he's been fit, but that seems something you're very uncomfortable with, so you have to taint it with "forced" and "out of position" as it doesn't suit your agenda. Ally has had a load of young players to choose from, of different ages, and he chose to play the one who is generally considered the best, the most often - funny that.
  2. calscot
    Sigh, I did say there would be contortions. Yes, I realise that every time and for every topic. You seem to realise it when it's about playing youngsters, (even though it's pretty irrelevant, as it doesn't change that they played), but you don't realise it when slagging off the manager... Can you actually explain what your point is in a consistent way? More contortions. It proves that players were given a chance and did so badly that some fans like yourself were outraged. I thought it was obvious. The fact that some have left and weren't up to it, makes my argument and is against yours. So again, your point is inconsistent. You seem to now be very particular about which specific players should be played and that misses the whole subject. Either young players need played to be developed or not. Again you need to explain this consistently. I haven't calculated all the teams, but remember doing it once or twice and that number doesn't ring true - especially considering the ages of our squad members. Perhaps you would like to publish your data... It may be true for specific games but like I've shown when you do that, you can get one where it was under 24. That team lost to lower league side. The team you mention lost to a higher league side. The team for most of the season won an incredible number of games and went through the league unbeaten... But even then, what does average age have to do with anything - why is that a more desirable number to go for rather than number of points gained in the league? You can win stuff and develop young players without having a very young average age, especially when you have a pretty capable older player that skews the figures. It seems you would have dropped the likes of Weir just to bring the average wage down by over a year, rather than consider what team will get you the win... This has been dealt with in other threads, you're just going round in circles and again contradictory. You advocate spending less money on players from the division we're in - which firstly would make it unlikely we win the title at the first attempt and secondly would have no scope for development. Do you really need me to explain this? Look, it's not hard, what am I making up - the young players that played in the Forfar game or the fact that you thought the result they helped achieve was unacceptable? I realise that after replying to your post, the latter probably depends on how you want to twist things to suit your agenda. You really must be into yoga...
  3. calscot
    I can't see how paying on a game by game basis affects cashflow unless too many things are paid for too much in advance, or we're too much in arrears... So to me it only affects cashflow if the company is already badly run or in trouble. However, what is definitely affecting income is that we seem to be getting the same type of attendances this season as last but we no longer have about 10k not turning up even though they have already paid. The actual number of paying punters is well down and turnover is abysmal compared to pre-Whyte levels.
  4. calscot
    Well you've just ruined your argument by saying there was one. That suggests youngsters do get a chance rather than don't, which was what you were supposed to be defending. Anyway, if you want to pick and choose the example games then here's one from a year ago: 01 Gallacher 24 02 Christopher Hegarty 20 03 Faure 22 05 Wallace 26 06 McCulloch 35 04 Robbie Crawford 20 08 Black 28 09 Templeton 24 10 MacLeod 19 11 Andrew Mitchell 21 07 Little 24 Subs 15 Kyle McAusland 20 17 Barrie McKay 18 Average age of starters is under 24 with a couple of very young subs. I make that 8 academy players out of 13 who "got a chance" plus a couple of other youngish players. However, they lost in extra time in the League Cup against Forfar, and so didn't quite take that chance to show they are good enough for Rangers - and the backlash for the manager wasn't good. Now here again is where you will have to make contortions again as you rate this result as one of Ally's worst and virtually a sackable one. Very strange for someone who would supposedly put developing youth before results... The game you mention with older players, we won 4-2 against an in-form side in a higher league... I think Ally learned his lesson. Rangers fans, including yourself, have shown no patience for playing young players, but I'm sure you'll figure out a way to blame Ally anyway.
  5. calscot
    Yes, if you totally discount all the ones that did and do...
  6. calscot
    There are certain conditions that need to be met before a club will take a player on loan. You have to remember that whoever does will not only be "developing" a player for the good of another team, it will also be at the expense of their own youngsters and indeed their regular players. So what's in it for them? What they want and need is a player who is of a standard which can enhance the first team and get them better results, while not costing a lot. SPrem clubs will be unlikely to consider a player from a lower division to fit in that category - or usually even from their own league. They will presumably only be interested in players that they see as from a level above them - just as we did with Weiss. That will sometimes include Celtic as they are operating at a different financial level, just as we are from Raith. The problem there is that you tend not to be able to play a guy against his own team, or perhaps if it's allowed, you won't trust them to stick the knife in. This means if it happens too often then it could influence the league in favour of a club loaning out loads of players to their rivals. So I expect there are some rules. There is one of the many strange, paradoxical arguments on here that our players are supposedly good enough for our first team - one that's expected to wipe the floor with everyone in the Championship while winning a cup or two, and therefore good enough to walk into almost every team in the country ahead of their first team players and their own developed youths. But from the same people, we supposedly have the worst youth development in the country with the worst manager who somehow "puts them back years"... It can't be both and is obviously neither. What it all says is that our youngsters must be reasonably good but not quite good enough or ready enough for a demanding club like Rangers. It would be surprising if they were as we're have to be doing something of a very high factor better than everyone else. The probability is that they'll all likely make it somewhere in football but only a very few will make it as a squad player in the top two teams in the country. That's even just common sense. The thing is, that Rangers can't afford to risk results by playing them in a team of 11 players, when every game is a must win, where even a series of wins is severely criticised (another paradox). This way the players will all get the chance to play alongside and against experienced, seasoned professionals in a very competitive league. This will give them experience and hopefully improve them as a player. How they cope or possibly shine will affect their Rangers career, but at less risk to our results.
  7. calscot
    It would give the board a very small amount of breathing space, but whether they sell anyone will determine the length of game they are playing. Short termism will mean sale and withstanding the wrath of the fans.
  8. calscot
    They still have been handed a free pass into the Europa league, so that should help bridge the gap somewhat. I think the board are also very careful in containing their wage bill and so will try not to overspend. Without Rangers in the league it's a wise as well as easy thing to do, but it's enjoyable that it's not working out that well for them outside of winning a non-contested league. Where they are becoming less and less sustainable also comes from the selling of players and the more they replace them with lesser stars, the less potential there is to make the kind of profits they've been benefiting from. The strange thing is that they haven't learned from it, and should have been replacing the players they sold with similar players for the kind of money they bought them for. It's not quite that easy, but it doesn't even seem to have been something they even attempted to do. While their fans are still loving our plight, I think the board are starting to realise the stark reality of life without a reasonably strong rival. I'm sure they must be beavering behind the scenes trying to find a way to the English leagues but that door seems to have been slammed closed, bolted and welded up from the inside. They are 20 years too late.
  9. calscot
    That makes the 4m look like an impossibility as it requires every shareholder to exercise their entitlements. As it is they need 75% to do so to make the minimum, which doesn't look easy.
  10. calscot
    You could say that for any player in the world. Nobody is currently making offers for Messi AFAIK, doesn't mean he's worthless. A manager will come in if and when he fancies a player at the time for his squad. We haven't exactly been publicly inviting offers. But hasn't there been one offer? But as I said, our players are not so attractive while playing in the bottom two tiers and even a 7 figure transfer from the second tier is exceptional and you'd have to wait till later in the season before our players will have shown what they can do there. But the point is that if people did come in for them you know what the quoted prices would be.
  11. calscot
    By "decent fee" I infer you mean about £8m at a time when the English record was about £32m, we're talking about £1m when the record is now £85m for Gareth Bale. We're now effectively talking about peanuts for the richer clubs. I doubt you put McGrandles into the same category as those you mention. I suspect the likes of Norwich who've just done so for a Falkirk player who was apparently one of our rejects. Hearts definitely thought Templeton was worth more than £1m, enough to turn such an offer down. Even if to quote some terrible English on here, "he has went [sic] backwards" since he arrived at Ibrox, history has shown that there are plenty of managers willing to take a punt on a promising young player who isn't doing so well, for a discount on his last fee. Especially when £1m is so little for a player these days.
  12. calscot
    I see where you're coming from but the proof of the pudding was in the eating, and many of those players showed they weren't quite good enough for the fans, or the manager while playing in the fourth tier, never mind the second. I'm not sure how you know about their development and progression, but for me, I don't think it's usual to automatically develop a load of young players that can guarantee a title off the bat. I also don't quite see the point of developing players who are good enough for the lower three divisions but not good enough for the top, and not just the top tier, the top of the top tier. There is no club that I know of that is developing half a team of players who can play at the top. If there was one then Celtic would have at least one real challenger who didn't require much of a budget. As I've said before, logic dictates that if it's that simple then everyone would be doing it and we'd end up as nothing special and neither would Celtic. However, lots of teams do actually do it to some extent. None of them canter to the title of any of the leagues never mind challenge Celtic. There is more of a chance of winning the lower leagues than competing in the top tier using this model, and as Rangers have actually shown in real life, with some good players beside them you can win the bottom league with a bit to spare, but despite this, there's no other example where it can be done in a fashion acceptable to Rangers fans. I'm none the wiser of how some people think it should be done and what makes us so special to do it better than others. People complain that we win because we have more money, the problem is that appart from a bigger crowd (which can also be detrimental when they are unhappy), the only real difference we have is more money than a lot of our rivals. Maybe location in a big city with access to a greater number of youngsters in catchment distance also helps. We should probably be employing the best youth coaches around but it's not like top trumps where you know who is best by looking at them. I'm sure the Rangers job commands a top salary and so should in itself attract the best, but who is chosen has a lot of factors, some of them not objective. For me, I don't see how excessively playing young players who are not up to the grade is going to help their development. I'm also of the belief that to develop the best you need to limit how many are in the team for them to benefit. For an easier example, how about cycling? Supposing you have cycling club with three groups, A, B and C, each one faster than the other. Now supposing everyone wants to graduate up to the next level. If you remove the B group members and let all the C group riders ride in the B group, all you get is a B group that rides at the pace of the C, nothing more. You promote the best half of the C group and you'll still get either a slower B group or one that fractions off into two groups - a B+ and a B-. You promote the two best riders and they will either try their damnedest to keep up, listen to the more experienced riders, try to emulate them, and learn a lot about riding faster; or they will be unable to keep up, get dropped, and learn they need to put in more work in the C group before they are ready. If you keep putting the latter in the B group they will lose confidence and motivation not learn much at all. The thing is, you're talking about moving half the C group to the A group - to develop them. For my thinking, that won't work. For me, the likes of McLeod is the exceptional young guy who's moved straight to the A group and easily keeps the pace while learning and getting faster all the time. That doesn't mean that others of his peer group can do the same nor benefit from trying every week.
  13. calscot
    I'm pretty sure McLeod would and suspect Aird would too. Wallace has already attracted offers around that. Templeton would probably command a million too. Problem is that players in the lower two tiers of Scottish football have not shown themselves at much of a level, I'm sure the values of some of our players will increase this season, even more so when we're back in the top tier. Once there, most of our players would command at least million - if anyone is interested in buying them while they have quite a bit left on their contract. In the SPrem, presuming we're at least regularly challenging for second place, any players that make it as a first team regular for us will automatically be command at least million as long as they have a few years on their contract.
  14. calscot
    The trouble is that we lost our best young 20 somethings as they didn't TUPE. The next level were the likes of Perry, Little, Heggarty, Crawford, Hutton, Aird, McLeod, McKay, Naismith and Hemmings along with Faure and Templeton. All of them had game time to a greater or lesser degree with double figures, so I think that counts as several. Unfortunately, many didn't make the grade and the results and performances were criticised. Moving up a league after that put more pressure on the management to win and so quite a few were considered not up to the task and some left. We're pretty much left with the graduates of McLeod and Aird, Crawford and Hutton, and have another generation waiting in the wings. With stepping up yet another level and the pressure fully on, it will be difficult to give them much of a chance unless they really earn it and show that they are better than who is on the pitch. Ironically, Hutton is one of our most criticised players by the fans... Don't know about the 150 games thing as we haven't played that many since demotion, and it would mostly be considered a way of totally burning out young talent in any case. These guys have experience of reserve and age defined games as well as loan spells so it's not like they are not gaining experience by playing no games at all.
  15. calscot
    I think you're just seeing it in too narrow a focus. I've pretty much explained it in general terms, nothing to do with Rangers, and I really need the hypocritical part explained. I would feel the same if it were Celtic or any other team. It's all about the integrity of the seeding. I have no idea where this is relevant to anything I said. I don't think we should ask for anything like that as, although what we would be asking for is entirely fair and would reinforce the integrity of the competition, it doesn't look good when you seem to be asking for an easier passage - even though it would be correct amount of ease and benefit everyone. It can be difficult to ask people to change rules when you would be a beneficiary. The point I am making is that those in charge of the competition should have changed it for the sake of their competition and all member clubs not specifically for Rangers. I think it would only be in Scotland and wrongly so. I still don't think you understand my points about what seeding is for. This is about fundamentals, not Rangers or Scotland. We may only benefit by inheriting a seeding that is appropriate to our chances of progression in the tournament. I can't see how that is bad thing. A quick test of how appropriate it is, is whether we beat the current top team in the country to inherit it. Once you get to a quarterfinal of a competition, seeding should become pretty irrelevant when you apply appropriate seeding earlier, as the best teams should have arrived there on merit. When you skew your seedings then that becomes untrue. It is probable that both ICT and Rangers are two of the top 8 sides in the competition, they should therefore not be eliminating each other at an early stage which could result in a lesser team winning in 1/8 of the draw and one quarterfinalist having an easier draw that the rest. But another point that is being missed is that you can't win the competition because of some notion of favourable seeding as you still have to beat the best performing sides in the latter stages. All that a higher seeding does is allow you the chance to progress to the natural stage of your ability. I shouldn't have to explain it but an obvious example is the second best team being put out by the best in the first round. Now while that team can never claim to have had the ability to win the competition - as they lost, they can complain that going out in the first round does not reflect their ability, and given a proper seeding they had a reasonable chance of making it to the final. If you lose to a lower seeded team then that's just part of the cup and you obviously deserve to not progress. Again the point is not just about Rangers, if we beat ICT, they could feel very aggrieved that they were put out so early due to a bad draw with bad seeding. You might point to us getting Falkirk but surely ICT did not deserve us a round earlier. Ironically you're own argument is slightly tainted by the fact that Falkirk are seeded well above us and therefore not normally much of an advantage. Your whole argument is circular in that Rangers can only get an easier draw by not being the level of a 23rd seeded team. Normally you'd expect that team to be defeated by a top tier club at the top of the league and if not then defeated by the likes of Falkirk. There would be very little speculation about the club winning the trophy. The complaint actually REQUIRES Rangers to be wrongly seeded. It wouldn't be talked about much if it were Dunfermline. Again, I have to re-iterate, no team can win the competition more easily by being a top seed. If that is the case then any top seed that wins the competition is not worthy as they had an easy ride. No matter the rights or wrongs of it, Rangers will have no easier a chance in the draw than the top 8 seeds, so I can't see how they can complain. If we win it (still a big if) we will be as worthy as any other team in the competition as we will have been either the best or those who beat the best. My final point is that if seeding is important then it is important enough not to do it badly ie find a way of seeding teams that reflects their ability. If it's not important enough to do that then it's not important enough to complain about when it's fudged.
  16. calscot
    Penny shares just seems like corruption to me, and a total con. Can you imagine asking someone to go into business with you and they are supposed to put £100,000 in while you put in £1,000 but you now own 50% of the company each. Not only that, since you are responsible for raising the capital you get a bonus from the company of £10,000 plus over priced wages and expenses and onerous contracts for you mates (with kickbacks of course)...? So you're now about £20k richer with half the shares of a company now worth about £50k.
  17. calscot
    I really doubt it for all the reasons I have given. You don't complain when a rival is given a more level playing field unless there is something wrong with you.
  18. calscot
    You always have to be vigilant that your processes are working as they should and beneficial to your goals. You don't keep processes the same for the sake of it when they are clearly no longer suitable. It's about good management which also pretty much common sense. Sporting integrity would demand it. When they see that their seeding system is clearly no longer appropriate - in a big way, then yes, they should obviously change it. Even an adjustment by committee giving proper justification would do - as I said in a previous post, the only club to have a complaint that wouldn't be like cutting off their nose to spite their face, would be Celtic as they would expect to give us a doing while we are under strength and are probably looking forward to doing so. Other, sporting bodies do this as it just makes sense. Scottish football, however, is obviously broken by jealousy and hate.
  19. calscot
    I really don't get this line of thinking. Rangers have, form the next round on (should we get there), a no more favourable chance in the draw than any of the 7 top seeded clubs, all of whom you would expect to be the main rivals in the quarterfinals onwards. Previously we've been at a disadvantage from them and indeed have the top of the prem in the next round. If we win the final against a top 7 seeded team, how will we have been favoured? Win or lose the next round, both us and ICT have been handicapped by our inappropriate, early seeding. It's a really strange argument which for me I would be opposed to had it been Celtic or anybody as there is no sense in it. But no matter the seeding and the draw, there is no seeding for the final where any team that thinks they are deserving of the cup, should show it by winning. When you lose in the final you can't blame the seeding of the winners as for that game it makes no difference. (Although like I said there is an exception to competitions like tennis that have games every two days where a fresher finalist after easy draws could beat a more deserving opponent who's knackered from a series of hard draws.) If Rangers win the trophy, there will likely be more SPrem scalps on the way than most winners due to our ICT game. Bad seeding is bad for everyone in the competition as it makes the chances of progression to the later rounds less related to ability and more to luck of the draw. Think about it, without changing Rangers' seeding, every top seed has a chance of drawing us in an early round and therefore a chance of us putting them out early. For clubs hoping to have a bit of a cup run to establish their position as a top club, to make some much needed income, and for a manager to prove his worth, it could be a bit unfair to them if they get beaten by us. Lower clubs, who are likely to go out anyway, to one of the many sides in leagues above them, have the chance of a lucrative and more glamorous game against us removed - even more so if we're also removed from the competition early by a top seed. Having seeds that don't reflect potential of a team is bad for the competition, all the clubs in it and negates the use of seeding in the first place. Seeding is there to allow the better sides a better chance to progress in the competition before knocking each other out in the later stages and allowing smaller teams a chance at a top side instead of just another one with their peers. Rangers seeding of 23rd, breaks this model and the whole of the seeding's raison d'etre. The only reason ones who gain from it are Celtic as they are the only ones in a strong enough position to be highly confident of beating us (if the hot and cold balls allowed it), while they would also take more pleasure than the rest for us going out early to a top tier side.
  20. calscot
    Can you imagine them going on Dragon's Den for the money? We're looking for £3m for an 18.75% share of the company. What's your projections for year 1? We'll need further funding to pay creditors by the end of the calendar year and then again in the first quarter of next year with a year end loss of at least £10m. How much profit did you make last year and what was your turnover? We made a £14.4m loss with £19.1m turnover. How much have you increased the sales of your main product in the last year? Season tickets are down by 33%. This is ludicrous and ridiculous, you clearly have no idea how to run a business and I'd be better flushing my money down the toilet. I'm out!
  21. calscot
    Not aimed at you particularly, you just added to my impression of a developing meme that I thought was vaguely amusing.
  22. calscot
    Wish people would quit the petty ad hominems... It was poor logic to use it this season and last. I think it's obvious that you shouldn't knowingly mess up the calibration on a measuring instrument then blindly use it measure stuff. That's just illogical. If you can't recalibrate the instrument, you need to find another, more accurate one. Or introduce correction factors that give more accurate results. As usual, they made more than one mistake, but interestingly, two wrongs may actually make a right in this case.
  23. calscot
    What the organisation whose predecessors messed up their seeding system by messing with it as a sporting meritocracy? Imagine deliberately dirtying your data and then using that data? Most scientists know about "outliers" and "artefacts".
  24. calscot
    As you can see I pretty much agree. But that shouldn't stop us from making sure it's not a bit silly. In some ways it's reasonable, but when it comes to the anomaly of Rangers, it's very obviously unreasonable. Whiich is what we have been doing. That's also a fact which the other clubs have to deal with. It's the bitching about it that I think is again, unreasonable. However, the poor planning that led to the controversy is worthy of criticism. As someone pointed out, in other sports the whole draw is done at the beginning based on the individual seeding which removes this type of fudge. Football refuse to do this out of tradition as they are attached to the drama and human aspect of a draw for each round as well as the romance of the cup. I think they also like the potential for hot and cold balls - otherwise we'd probably be borrowing a national lottery machine. With money and in particularly cashflows becoming more and more important, not for the prospering of clubs, but survival, perhaps they need a rethink. After all, if Rangers were able to play to their potential in the cups as lowly seeds, they could have been ravaging a few top clubs' income by putting them out of the cup early, while denying the odd smaller club a windfall that eases the strain.
  25. calscot
    You're the ones without dreams... In this case I'd say you're the ones that organise the protests etc...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.