Jump to content

 

 

calscot

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    11,722

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by calscot

  1. calscot
    Lawwell setting up signing a 20 year deal with Celtic Park? Wouldn't surprise me these days.
  2. calscot
    Also shows that people often make their mind up about something while completely ignoring the facts. Statistics is a dirty word when they are inconvenient to an opinion.
  3. calscot
    So they HAVE changed their name but to Truth and not Trust? Take you're having trouble with autocorrect?
  4. calscot
    Watching that I would say a huge number of people of the room were disrespectful. The murmur of chit-chat was very loud and had a lot of people moving around. Shouldn't happen during a speech. At least the hecklers actually seemed to be listening to most of it...
  5. calscot
    I'll need to apologise for giving money to SDM - but out of shear curiosity I've ordered a couple of bottles of red and a couple of white of Chateau Routas. Not expecting much finesse from a country wine from Provence, that labels itself "red" and "white" but will try to be objective. Next up is to try and find some reasonably priced Dark Side of the Moon Cabernet Sauvignon...
  6. calscot
    Me too and would do so again - in fact I miss Setanta, flawed as it was, as I won't give Sky my money. However, we're in a minority...
  7. calscot
    While what you say is mostly true, I think there's much more to it than that. Players can make gaffs but will be forgiven if they consistently do well after that eg Weir. Van Vossen allowed the miss and attention he got for it to get to him and he became a shadow of the player he was and Walter was quoted as saying something like, "It's like he's been replaced by his twin brother who's not a player." He was a good player before the miss and terrible after it. Simenson won't have the chance to redeem himself so his fate is sealed.
  8. calscot
    That's because Sky were still doing better than Setanta in Scotland despite the latter having Scottish football. We've got too many people who care more about the English Premiership than our own game and pretty much getting what we deserve for that.
  9. calscot
    I see a parallel with Alien where the guy has one as a parasite on his face and its tail wrapped round his neck. Its defence mechanism relied on empathy where when it was threatened it started to choke its host to death and therefore could not be removed without killing their colleague. God knows what they are impregnating into the club...
  10. calscot
    I think you missed the point. You could do a similar list for almost any manager - especially ones that say "scraped a win". Only on a Rangers forum would the latter be a crime. Only here is it the manager's fault when your rivals to win their games in hand against other sides... Or when you're side loses a few games when the the club is in crisis and slips into administration and the players don't know if they will be paid. However, start listing the wins and most other managers will pale compared to McCoist. Some "excuse" will be made by some for that though, as that's just too positive. I see that you have to qualify Arsenal's failures with: "Bolton aren't as bad as Peterhead." I assure you that when we were at the top and no-where near Arsenal's present level of wealth, a loss against Bolton would have been for us. But again people don't seem to understand (or deliberately ignore) that: while Bolton aren't as bad as Peterhead, we're not quite as good or as well off as Arsenal at the moment...
  11. calscot
    You can never write off the likes of Hearts and Hibs but I get the impression they may be in a far worst state than us and without even our comparatively modest budget. Their managers have arguably done a worse job than even the poor opinion of McCoist's performance from his most ardent of critics.
  12. calscot
    While their is little real evidence to base any ranking or even prediction on next season, I would pretty much defend that our results last season were pretty consistent with what you'd expect from an SPL team that consistently finished say 4th to 6th. The loss to Dundee Utd looked like two similar standard teams but with one having more practice against higher quality sides, and therefore took their chances better. This is also pretty consistent with my premise. A lesser team that has been pushed down the divisions from the top, like say Dunfermline, would be far less likely to romp the third tier like we did (as evidenced) or get to a semi of the cup and the final of the Ramsdens. Cup games are one offs and depends on the opposition but getting to the latter stages, but along with the league form our form is again consistent with a better SPL team. Losing the semi and final is also not unusual and possibly shows a lack of being in the top three or four. The loss in the League Cup again would not be unusual as the first game of the season especially when you throw in the embargo - which makes it an anomalous statistic which has little significance in any case. I would say if you were profiling a team to fit our results, a fifth or sixth SPL team shoved into League One, wouldn't exactly be a bad fit. To add to this you have our much complained about wage bill which while inflated due to being Rangers and being in a lower tier, still has some indication of quality, for which when you look at the type of player we have recruited, again would be consistent with a top half club. With the absence of any real comparative data that can be relied upon, we ALL have to resort to a bit of hand waving and subjective and qualitative conjecture, and I don't think mine is exactly outrageous.
  13. calscot
    I think it's obvious to an objective viewpoint that last season's results of 33 wins and 3 draws in the league plus a Scottish Cup semi and Ramsden's final, while not guaranteeing success in the division above, certainly points to a very good chance at being highly competitive for the title, even before any player recruitment in the summer. The fact that some are shitting their breeks with the presence of Hearts and Hibs, I doubt we'd have been happy recruiting many of the type of players in their Premiership squads even before they have drastically downsized and cut their cloth to suit their current financial position. These are two clubs who propped up the Premiership and while our squad has not quite reflected the cost of the wages, they have still generally recorded results like top half, top tier team, which is a step above the Edinburgh sides. The gap between the other sides and us will be far less in the league next season and results will suffer with more draws and losses as a direct result, but in a marathon of a season, you'd expect even this smaller gap in quality to show through and for Rangers to top the table. I'm not saying it will be pretty or progressive or very enjoyable to some, but I do predict that automatic promotion will be ours for the taking. For me, our biggest handicap to overcome will not be the management team, but that of the mismanagement by the board and their dysfunctional relationship with the fans, which will probably affect signings, moral and the influence of the 12th man. The backdrop will not be lined by a feel-good factor - which could be something that the likes of Hearts exploit with their roadmap of fan ownership.
  14. calscot
    I think it's obvious why. People expect more money form Rangers and Celtic and so their agents play it hard. There are plenty of players who have refused either club and then ended up signing a lesser deal with another club. It's similar to something like actors, if you're being shown to a larger audience you want a increase in royalties. I find it strange why you don't understand the second part - top players don't want to play in lower divisions as part of their career and so want to be compensated. It's perfectly sensible if you actually think about it instead of immediately going on about brainwashing and nonsense which seems to be your staple of argument... Do you actually have a real point or do you always have to insult and indeed lie to defend your point of view? This forum deserves better. I think it's obvious that I watch the games when I can, while watching highlights and reading reports - like most Rangers fans throughout history. You are incredibly sanctimonious. The strange bit is that YOU claim you watch (I doubt it) but you don't seem to realise we had 33 wins and 3 draws which is hardly a complete failure. Besides I recall you have said on here that you have chosen NOT to watch Rangers in the future because you don't like it - the difference is that I actually like it but don't have much opportunity. You seem to be a customer, while I'm a fan. Your logic suggests that NO club in the world is getting value for money for however much they spend as they ALWAYS lose at some point to a less well funded team. How can you understand life, the universe or pretty much anything, never mind football if you don't get randomness? You need to understand that the more expensive team doesn't always win - I could explain with normal distributions and so on but I doubt you'd be interested. I think you need to take a basic course in maths as it would help you understand things more. Seeing with your own eyes is all about subjectiveness - and I've seen games on tv you've then described and your subjective view does not agree with what I've seen or what others report. The point of statistics is to see things more objectively - although their interpretation can be abused. What can't be abused is the number the objective stats of the league table - the team at the top at the end of the season wins the trophy, not the one that someone thinks subjectively was the best. It's strange having to explain something so basic. More empty arguments with insults as well as not understanding the word, "records". Like I said, you don't understand stats and so you are against them even though they are incredibly important, and when it comes down to it, it's what sport is all about. The main stat for the championship is the table of points with the number of goals for each team being the stat that adds to it. For running it's the table of times. You might have a beautiful swing in golf but if you're well down the stats of the leaderboard then you won't make the cut and will be forgotten about. And so on. I've been watching us for about 40 years and so you're giving another strange argument. I count myself as unlucky I don't see Rangers more as I'm a fan not a customer and I will continue to watch the team when I can. I get the impression that you are very young and only been "watching" for a few years - you'd probably be better switch back over to the top English or Spanish leagues. Now that's something I don't watch very often, as Rangers aren't involved. This is the last I'll say to you as I doubt you'll even understand anything in this post and I wish the level of debate didn't have to sink this low. From now on I'll only be talking to Rangers fans.
  15. calscot
    Comparisons with the likes of Dundee Utd's wage bill are strange as does anyone think we could sign first team Dundee Utd players to play in League One for the same wage as Dundee Utd are offering them? It just wouldn't happen. Rangers and Celtic will ALWAYS pay a premium for players and that goes more than double while in the lower leagues. Would Dundee Utd's team even do as well as us results-wise last season? I think that would be pretty difficult and actually very much doubt it. Dunfermline are the nearest barometer and they had a much poorer season - and failed to get promoted. Losing a one off game to DU in a semifinal does not make them a stronger side in our position - they are not a great example considering they lost the final and finished fourth in the league, which just shows the randomness of some results. Just because our team costs more does not mean we are rubbish if we lose the odd game. If that's the case, then EVERY team is rubbish, Celtic included. In fact i believe Rangers had the best record in Scotland last season in all competitions. If we're talking about our performance in League One then results-wise the player budget has certainly been shown not to be unjustified. I think there are some people who claim to watch all the games and yet act like don't actually know what the results were.
  16. calscot
    It would be interesting to see a map of the seats with those that are renewed in blue. I'd bet on big blobs of blue on the ones around the middle of the stands and especially near the half way line, with very, very few in the corners. Rather than showing people's opinion, I think it will show how much they don't want to lose a good seat...
  17. calscot
    You can research everything say Phil whathisname says - I think that's ludicrous. I'm going to ignore/dismiss him no matter how ludicrous you think that is. However, I do agree that you should research stuff before dismissing/believing anything but that doesn't mean you can't dismiss the most nefarious sources out of hand - you don't have to believe it nor disbelieve it. I would say one of the biggest problems we had is that some of those on our side spouting out about the likes of Craig Whyte did so with cryptic innuendo instead of proper information. When asked for the information they insulted people and told them to do their own research. Hardly helpful in that cause. I see that that as a massive, massive failure of the "told you so" crowd.
  18. calscot
    When someone lies about you negatively all the time, should your friends listen to them or just dismiss it? Of course you should dismiss everything from a lying, hateful messenger. It doesn't mean the message is untrue but it is far too unreliable to give it any credence so it becomes irrelevant noise - otherwise you have to listen to and consider the implications of every lie, every time. I agree that if there are other, less unreliable sources which give the same message you shouldn't dismiss the message just because your enemy is saying the same thing, but that's another matter.
  19. calscot
    I think there was a lot of rumour and innuendo both positive and negative - they wanted to believe the negative was true and we wanted to believe the positive was true, which is natural optimism for us and schadenfreude for them. Just because a lot of the negative stuff ended up being as true as they wanted did not make them "right" or in possession foresight in any way. Just as when you bet on black once and it comes up black does not make you any good at roulette.
  20. calscot
    Yep, there's a difference between not investing and not investing yet. He's given the situation where he would invest and it hasn't been presented yet. I'd also be surprised that you'd be delighted as I get the impression that you're not a fan of DK...
  21. calscot
    Didn't that make any of it a lot harder to believe as true? And weren't they spectacularly wrong about the BTC? I can't believe someone thinks we should be going on Tim websites and believing their guff as if it's gospel. BTW Most Celtic websites seem to "know" we're a new club - is that true too?
  22. calscot
    I'm really not sure that you understand what "reluctant" means. It's actually usually used when people actually DO something, rather than not. So you're really saying that he's shown his hand by definitely putting up the money but reluctantly - just like we (mostly) all pay our utility bill and council tax increases reluctantly. There is also the part you miss that this is obviously only a PART of their inheritance and if it wasn't, he wouldn't be reluctant, he would be saying, "I'm NOT going to spend my kids inheritance." I think the point is that they will still inherit enough for anyone to be comfortable for the rest of their lives. How old are his kids anyway, and surely he's brought them up to make their own comfortable living? I really don't get the spin doctoring from you, it really degrades any appreciable case you may have, and how are you going to look if he does eventually invest?
  23. calscot
    i don't think you could have picked a worse analogy. Bookies aren't successful by predicting who will win, a good one will make money whether it's a win, lose of draw for the favourite. It's matching the odds with the betting profile that really counts - and form is used as a starting point to predict how that will go to give the initial odds. However, people who regularly bet on horses usually base it on form and I don't think many are very successful - hence the successful bookies. Oh yeah, and on average, a football manager is... average.
  24. calscot
    That's harsh on McCoist - imagine the board had the equivalent of 33 wins and 3 draws... but that's fantasy land at the moment - they've achieved the equivalent of relegation.
  25. calscot
    I don't really see the difference if you swap the leagues as Rangers are still a far bigger club (even if we lost to them) - maybe you want to bet on who will win the SPL first between the two sides? Or between Telfer and McLeod? And that's the main difference, especially in the kids department: we looking for players who can win the Premiership, Dundee Utd are looking for players to keep them in the top half while being affordable. There may have been mistakes made here and your suspicions of problems vindicated, but with regards to your argument here, to me, a player moving to any team in Scotland is always a step down, even in our current situation.
×
×
  • 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.