Jump to content

 

 

calscot

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,722

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by calscot

  1. calscot
    For me, dismissing the BTC and the actions of HMRC for causing the liquidation of the Oldco is akin to to saying that technically and pedantically, "nobody dies of AIDS". They don't, their immune system is compromised and so they die of normal infections and diseases. However, dismissing the leading role that AIDS plays in the death seems a bit over the top. The BTC was our AIDS. It left us open and vulnerable to life-threatening attack. The evil part for me is the analogy that HMRC deliberately infected us and then stopped us from receiving treatment (CVA).
  2. calscot
    For me the biggest and most crucial factor that led to administration and the devastating consequences thereof was the BTC. Secondly, the BTC had absolutely no foundation in fair thinking, never mind law. It was a crock of shit. You cannot in any fair minded society make vague rules, allow people to flirt on the edge of the line of the ambiguities of those rules and then decide to tighten them, up punish them 11 years later, backdate the infringements for that time, add on interest and penalties that not only triple the claim but reach a point that kills the company, and then lose the case. Governments should fall for this kind of perversion of governance. Whyte was just a small time con man compared to a massive constitutional failure that should send shock waves through our tax system. Whyte is just another criminal of which there are many in society, but the BTC means I no longer Trust one of the bastions of society.
  3. calscot
    Double tapping usually means to fire two shots at the target very quickly as the first may just slow them but the second one stops them. There is an alternative meaning which I much prefer which is probably similar to the Mozambique Drill which is when you bring someone down (with one or more shots or using some other kind of weapon) then double tap them by walking up and shooting them in the head (or somewhere lethal or using some other weapon or technique) to make sure they are 100% dead (or no-longer un-dead) and therefore no possibility of being a further threat (except maybe a trip or slip hazard). See Zombieland Rule #2.
  4. calscot
    Firstly, I would say that we don't have the grass roots talent and infrastructure in Scotland - probably why the most significant player we have had a hand in developing was Italian. To take the figurative to the literal, we're not a skinny nation ourselves and one of the fattest and unhealthiest in Europe, with crap weather and an certain affluence which helps create very sedate and over fed kids with not much modern culture for playing sport. We've cut back in sport in schools and after school. We've built on playing fields and the old red gravelly pitches. We've got school sports halls which are empty out of school hours. We haven't got a good coaching network for kids. We don't have an "inclusive" attitude where everyone gets to play and instead have a tradition of only allowing the biggest lads to play regardless of skill and potential. This continues today with my diminutive 8 year old nephew told not to come back to a team due to his height. However, given the talent handed to us, we have still produced a reasonable proportion of Scottish internationals - even currently: MacGregor, Hutton, Burke, McCormick and Adam, which is five out of about 50. 10% from one club. Not fantastic, but a reasonable proportion of "skinny Mexicans" for a club which is normally at the top of the tree and therefore a buying club. Of course we could do better but I don't see where the talent and money are going to come from to do it. I think we're currently doing a reasonable job considering our circumstances and we have McLeod, Air and Crawford as regulars. Little and Perry were given a good run last season but just aren't up to the standard required. But it's going to be far easier to regain our place by investing money and buying the top Scots with a smattering of non-Scots that are a good bit better than your normal SPL level. I used to crave us producing youngsters when as was younger but Gordon Dalziel and Graeme Souness cured me of that. I think we need to emphasise this side of things again as the spending days seem to be long over, but unless something fundamentally changes in Scotland, I think the numbers are stacked against us.
  5. calscot
    I'll have to repeat my analogy earlier. If I say that Mexico is one of the fattest nations in the world, I'm sure you could show me a bunch of pictures of skinny Mexicans. It doesn't prove anything. All clubs produce players, but the bigger the club, the more exceptional they have to be to make the grade and the harder that is. I have already agreed that the best scouts and coaches will help as will high numbers of youth players. The point is that any team can bring through a superstar every few years, it's how often this happens consistently for the same club which is what we're talking about. The Man U one is a great example, thank you for pointing it out. Where are most of these players now? The question is if Man U have a philosophy and process that produce so many superstars for one team, why has this not repeated itself every few years? Or let's be generous, every decade? As I said, it's a numbers game and sometimes your numbers come up, which happened for Man U. What are the chances of winning this lottery twice? I'm afraid that bringing a smattering of players over a couple of decades is just making my point. The very fact that these players are superstars works against your argument. If it's a well defined big club process then why so many who fail to meet this grade? Why not have a team of them all the time? For you to be right, most of the big clubs would need to consistently have about half their players as homegrown which is kind of the argument against McCoist. And in fact when he actually did this, his team were pilloried.
  6. calscot
    I can't see how that makes a difference. You try to find the talent for where you aspire to be or you will never get there. We will not be a top two club by grooming players who are of a top 3-7 club level. The aspiration we're talking about here is just one year away. I don't see how the lower leagues are comfortable. There is far more pressure in them for Rangers to win the league than the SPL. With no-automatic promotion, coming second is not a viable option. Actually we're talking about a crowd who seem very unhappy despite winning 33 games and drawing 3 - just where is the comfort? There are plenty of other factors with all the teams treating games against us as different from all their other games which makes them not an easy place for youngsters to feel comfortable. I don't know anything about your concept of planning but I refer to what I said in my first paragraph. Grooming players for Divison 3, then new ones for League One etc, doesn't seem like good planning to me. This is something where I don't see a right answer to. It seems to happen everywhere and I have no idea what young players best positions are and what is the best way of introducing them to the team. Maybe you're right but I need convincing evidence. Don't know what you mean here. It's hard to judge Ally in the position he's in and his priority is to get us back to the top league without delay - he seems to be doing that. Is he the best man for the job that we can afford and who would jump at the chance? I really don't know but I can't think of any that would be cast-iron guaranteed to do a better job. There are some around that might but it's speculation and a big risk. The biggest problem is doing a proper comparison without some parallel universe. The problems of the task change year on year and sometimes month on month. He will only objectively be proven to be doing a bad job if he finishes second. Unfortunately that's the situation which is not ideal. To get me excited about replacing Ally, we'd have to first get rid of the board, bring in 50M investment, and then get someone who is incredibly highly regarded. Even then, they might turn out to be another PLG.
  7. calscot
    I haven't looked at the Ajax squad but will take your word for it. And it sounds impressive. But in the scheme of things don't you think they may be an exception? It kind of comes across to me like saying Mexico is one of the fattest nations and then you find some really skinny Mexican to prove me wrong... If you can show me most large and successful clubs are usually like this then I'll acquiesce and agree I'm wrong. Don't you think the Dutch grass roots system might have something to do with this example? I doubt it is something where we have the natural resources of talent to emulate. They are playing a different scale of numbers game to us. What is bizarre about saying it is what small clubs do? Are you unable to conceive that they might? Do you believe most of the largest clubs in Europe put more emphasis on developing youth to sell on than buying players? Maybe you should take a look at the Man City or Real Madrid squads and come back to me. I haven't looked lately but I'm fairly confident they will fit with what I'm saying. For me, I don't see the evidence that it is a recipe for success - and obviously if it was, everyone would be doing it and you wouldn't see the huge transfer fees that are flying around. There would be no need and players would probably have to retire in their mid-twenties as they wouldn't be able to compete with the younger, fitter, better trained and cheaper players.
  8. calscot
    We're not a top seven club, we are a top two club so the simplistic numbers are relevant. Where we are in the leagues is irrelevant to the size of the club and for the kind of level we are grooming young players for. Sound all very short termism to me which is paradoxical to the long term goal of youth development. Again, I think it is paradoxical to assign a young player a "best position" while he is learning the game. I don't actually know how the best position can be judged. Many players change throughout their careers. I personally think all players need a bit of versatility and a broad experience while developing. But there are many schools of thought which complicate matters including putting a young player in front of a large crowd on uncompromising fans and putting all the pressure of scoring goals onto them or expecting them to be the rock of defence or the main play maker. I think few have a real idea of what Ally is like in that regard and so I personally will leave the jury out on that one.
  9. calscot
    It's been said and ignored many times but to bring an SPL player through in a top 7 team you have to find players who are in the top 16% of the professional game. To bring through a Rangers standard player they have to be in the top 4%. The numbers say we should produce 1/4 of the home grown players of other top SPL sides. To create the gap we want with third place and to play in Europe, that shrinks much further. We can up the numbers by having a larger youth operation with more players and employing the best coaches and scouts but it's still a numbers game. Most successful clubs find it far easier just to buy the best players around and benefit from the numbers that make up the sum of every youth system in their own country and now for the richest - the World. Targeting producing large parts of your squad from your youth system, is a small club game. Large clubs also dabble in it but there is no conveyor belt, and if there was, with our finances, we'd once again be totally outdone by the far richer EPL sides. However, there is a dearth of home grown players playing for the teams there - winning is too important and the level too high, just like us.
  10. calscot
    I think we used to do scans as a matter of course as although they are very expensive, when you're paying someone over 10 grand a week, it's a drop in the ocean. It sounds like it's somewhere that the board are cutting back on to save money.
  11. calscot
    The collar to me, looks like something designed for a schoolgirl uniform. Don't really know what a collar is for in what should really be technical sport specific clothing, it usually rubs against your neck too much. A simple v or round neck would suffice - however that means the material has to be a bit stretchy which probably costs more. I hate some of the non-stretchy and shiny materials we've had as when your back is covered in sweat they are almost impossible to take off. It's also just not as comfortable for full movement and more likely to chafe or give you sore nips. This type of material is usually worse at whicking sweat too. My favourite Rangers top for wearing while doing sport is a training top which is stretchy, soft and very comfortable - and a v neck. It also looks the most aesthetic IMHO.
  12. calscot
    Funny how the Gersnet crystal ball has become so accurate... Hibs obviously need the money early on.
  13. calscot
    DU making some decent money for their level of finances; however, can't see losing their best players helping their competitiveness which already hasn't been great in the last few years. They will need to find decent replacements but as not many Scottish players are going for this kind of money (which is pennies for a Premiership side), I can't imagine that will be easy. I'm sure we will get more of these kind of offers when playing in the top tier and perhaps Europe. I will expect McLeod to be the target of far larger offers in a couple of years if we get there next season and he continues his development at the current pace.
  14. calscot
    Can you recall in 2008 who became the youngest player to play in a British cup final and who was the manager who picked him at the time?
  15. calscot
    I agree with that and also agree we have to remember where we were before being too quick to copy the philosophy of a club used to a lot less success. I agree there too. While I agree doing this will be advantageous, I will be sad if this becomes our primary goal just for us to survive. I'm not sure how Celtic do this as I'm rarely as impressed by their players as their suitors. However, it doesn't make their fans happy and their team just looks more ordinary every season we're not there. I can't see it as something all that sustainable for them either. It could be just a good run or crafty, Delboy salesmanship that eventually gets rumbled. We've also had a few of those ourselves in the past - Cuellar and Boumsong for example. We regularly compete with Celtic in the youth competitions so I don't see that end of coaching as much worse than them and I can't see Lennon as the guy responsible for improving players. So just what is behind it? It would be interesting to hear theories on it and see if we can learn from it. I can't see us being able to bring in much more than a couple of million for a Scottish player playing in any of the Scottish leagues these days, and selling a player for about £2M to balance the books seems to involve retaining a very mediocre team. I think I'd rather get someone for nothing and improve them to a £2M player and then keep him. But I see the problem as less of a Rangers centric thing and more of a Scottish problem. We need a massive overhaul of grass roots sports, never mind just football, with a ton of investment - but where does the money come from? To me it's a priority for our tax money if we want to lower obesity and poor health as well as giving our nation its pride back.
  16. calscot
    Well yeah, that's a fair point but they are probably safer from going bust than Dundee Utd...
  17. calscot
    I think that's being a bit simplistic and missing some of my point. I agree that as we are no longer at the top table, this is very important. I agree that at first glance that this just seems wrong. However, it ties in with the, "find the right players needed for the team" philosophy that so many agree with. When you want something that someone uniquely appealing to you that is not already for sale, you can't just offer market value. Say you won the lottery and there was a house you really wanted to buy, but is not for sale, you would not likely get it for market value, you would probably have to offer way over the odds to get a happy resident to sell. When you have plenty of money and know what you want, it's easy to over pay to get it. The main trouble with this attitude at Rangers in the past, was that eventually we didn't actually have the money to pay for it, it was paid for on the never never... I think the lesson is not just what you pay but living within your means. This is always a problem with a team at the top, paying the top wages - more-so in a small country. Souness worked his way round this somewhat, by deliberately buying English internationals (which was a lot easier at the time). Even if they failed at Ibrox, finding a top tier English club to pick them up was hardly a problem. I would counter that that is speculation and a release clause means nothing - just ask Dundee Utd, or Barcelona with Ibrahimovic's €250M price tag. We sold a kid to Liverpool for £2M and cannily put in huge appearance and sell on fees to move it up to about £7.5M. I don't think we realised much of it. It's all a gamble. Personally, I hope it all comes true for the sake of the Scotland team. We could do with the next Messi. I don't think this is a typical example as it's hard to sell a player for millions when he's been playing in the bottom two tiers of Scottish football - the player lacks evidence of quality. It's also incredibly difficult to do any kind of negotiation when you are clearly desperate for money. I would say Arteta also falls into this category. I can't disagree with that, except that sometimes you pay money for a player at his peak and he'll always be worth a bit less later on. The trick is for the depreciation to be worth what he brings to the team and factored into the decision for buying him, while not breaking the budget. Spending wisely and getting value for money is usually pretty important but it's imperative for us now.
  18. calscot
    Maybe I need to labour the point. Would you rather be like Dundee Utd selling a player for 2M and buy one for almost nothing, or say Barcelona, who bought Zlatan Ibrahimovic for something like €69M all in and then sell him for €24M a year later? That isn't good business or even in the slightest desirable in itself, but I'd love to be in their situation where this can happen without too much worry. You could probably divide by 10 for 20 years ago and be reflective of the top of the market - where we were. It seems the bigger and more successful the club, the bigger the potential for losses on players. It's what happens at the top of the food chain where Rangers used to be, so not something I think we should be ashamed of. That does NOT translate as me thinking we SHOULD buy high and sell low as a deliberate strategy in itself. But conversely I will dread the day as a club that we are more concerned with buying low and selling high than producing a team on the park that wins trophies. To that end I am more concerned about value for money than speculative investment in a player futures market.
  19. calscot
    Maybe things have changed but I would prefer our club to be in the situation where we buy high sell low as the bigger and more ambitious the club the more likely this will happen. In an ideal situation, you want to be buying top players who are on form and in demand which will require a high fee and you only want to be selling when a player is not doing it for you and so not worth so much. If you're buying low it's usually because you are skint and scratching around for a bargain while taking a risk. If you're selling high, you're probably losing one of your best players. Of course there are plenty of exceptions but I think it all kind of shows where you are in the food chain. These days, nobody can accuse us of buying high which is maybe a sad reflection of where we are. For me, I'm not envious of Dundee Utd doing the small club thing, especially when it's incredibly small potatoes in today's European market.
  20. calscot
    "Training Cup" probably befits its status... I'm sure the jokes will come thick and fast if we win it.
  21. calscot
    I never said that. Is that a lie or a mistruth, misinterpretation or a mistake or what? You think MY contribution is trolling? Just what is you are doing? You do know the meaning of trolling? I put a reasonably argued piece and I'm open to debate on it, and because you disagree with it without being able to explain why, you resort to this crap... If I talk deluded garbage why can't you debate it like a reasonable person? Should be easy. But I think you say this because I disagree with you, and when questioned about debating the points previously, I think you were the one who said something like, "I not here for that." You obviously have no wish to debate and despise anyone who disagrees with you. You are here for a slag-fest. You seem to think that you can write how you like and that's just "your way of putting across your pov", but you do not tolerate others doing it their way. If you despise my posts then why not put me on ignore instead of slandering me while I'm ignoring you? You don't know what I know, and I think I make compelling enough arguments which can be debated for their worth but which you are unable to put together a reasonable rebuttal, and so you instead resort to insults. The strange thing is that this forum has lots of differing opinions and the point is to debate them. "Excuse"? That word again. That is their choice, it is not mine. It does not mean I don't have permission to debate the style of play or more relevantly whether that is an achievable goal, given our complex situation while simultaneously gaining consecutive promotions. You don't lie? How many are in your last post? Do you lie about lying? (Or maybe you actually BELIEVE everything you say is true.) I don't need to know you, I just need to know me and I know when you are stating things that are not true about me. That is generally known as a "lie". There are at least two mistruths which you state as fact in your quoted post here. You don't know me and yet you say I don't watch any games and base all my opinions solely on stats. You haven't even properly read my post as it doesn't rely in stats and have to misrepresent that. BTW Those who completely dismiss stats, usually have no objectivity and usually no real knowledge. You might have the opinion that more red cars than blue pass your window, but until you count them, how do you KNOW? Rangers is part of my life but it is not my whole life. You seem to be a very narrow minded individual who seems to think that the only important thing in life is to have some competition about how often you see a team play. There are other things to give time to. With Setanta I watched almost all the games that were on as it was on the telly and if busy I could record it and watch it later. I'm not going to put my life on hold every time to watch a dodgy, illegal stream which freezes, judders, pixelates and throws up a plethora of adverts in front of it. I will watch it sometimes but not every time. You might not have a life outside Rangers but I do. I have many pastimes and following Rangers is but one of them. I think you need to calm down and open your mind to the possibility that you may not be right about everything. That's what debating is for, testing your opinions and being confident in them when they stand up to scrutiny and changing them when someone puts forward a more compelling reasoning than yours. Why not? It's a free upgrade.
  22. calscot
    I usually ignore you but sometimes think I should check up on what insults you are currently throwing around. Why do you feel the need to constantly lie just for a reaction? This is the definition of trolling. Let's get this straight, I actually like watching Rangers games but don't have the opportunity to see many due to location and Setanta going bust, but do I see about 1/4 of them on telly or stream along with highlights and read match reports, which is as much if not more than a great number of Rangers fans throughout the club's illustrious history. Contrast this with yourself who I believe said you DON'T ENJOY watching Rangers and have cancelled your season ticket entirely because of this. You also slag off Rangers more than any Tim I know and often it's hard to tell who you support. Since when do Rangers fans look down on someone for not attending games when they live 400 miles away, or for not paying over £700 a year to an overpriced Sky and phone package to watch about 25 games on the telly? But you don't even seem to have the nous to understand (and I presume have no interest in) that what I have written above doesn't require me to watch a single Rangers game ever. It's a philosophical footballing point that is relevant to any team and even transcends the game. If you want to debate my points with well thought out counter philosophies that make some kind of sense then I am happy engage with that, but please stop bringing down the standard of a good forum by merely throwing insulting lies around to try and make yourself feel like some kind of internet hard-man.
  23. calscot
    There is certainly a time where it is the best option, but I didn't notice Bell punting it so much - Ally must be going apoplectic at him...
  24. calscot
    I fail to see how having a goal of winning every game leads to the alternate aim of "playing entertaining football" (whatever that is). I think the problem is that many people don't really know what they want. The most "entertaining" games are generally equally matched sides, playing end to end and often ends in a satisfying draw. For all the fans at the match to be entertained, both sides have to play well and that is a bit of a paradox, as both sets of fans want the other side to play badly are are not pleased when they play well. When their goal is constantly exposed in an entertaining way, the fans get annoyed at their defence. I've asked constantly for people to point out the Scottish teams that play incredibly entertaining football that they would like us to play like, but get no answer even though there are 42 senior clubs to choose from. For us to be terrible, there must be about 31 more entertaining teams to put us in the lower quartile. But the reality is that we don't actually have the level of skill that people are really looking for. Scots watch the English Premiership as well as top leagues from around Europe and the World Cup finals and then watch our lower quality game and moan about it. It seems what people really want is for Rangers to take the piss out of lesser teams and play lots of tricks and go for style over substance while the opposition give us space and time to do so while acting like clowns for the comedy aspect. A bit like the Harlem Globe Trotters. We could divert training from "skills for not losing games / winning at all costs" to keepy uppies, ball juggling and tricks etc and flatter to deceive. But without the collusion of the other sides who have no interest in indulging Rangers fans who treat it as a cup final and tactics mainly to keep us from playing and exploiting our superior skills it's probably not going to work. But that's the thing about sports like football, they aren't theatre, they are about scoring more goals than the other lot, and you're not paying for theatre, you're paying to witness the occasion. You might think there is a point where to keep the crowds coming you need to think about being entertaining but where that falls down is all you need is a cynical side who come along, forget the "entertainment" and do the win at all costs thing - like say George Graham's Arsenal, and start winning everything. Or you get that from every opposition team you meet. I would say that the main trouble with Rangers is the latter is what we are experiencing, but we don't have the standard of players, like say Gascoigne, that can just take the piss. We have mid level SPL players which is a level many Rangers fans in the past have seen as pretty poor and not Rangers standard. The same level of player that didn't exactly create enthralling matches in the SPL when playing each other. We have the added pressure at Rangers in that we can't afford to finish second or even be run close as first while we rise up the leagues. Aiming for playing "nice" football instead of doing what needs to be done is an incredible risk to the survival of club as a potential force in Scottish football.
  25. calscot
    Kanchelskis was the biggest waste of money for me. 5.5m for a guy nearing the end of his career was far too much. 76 games where he was pretty mediocre on the whole, and then left for free, was not good value.
×
×
  • 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.