calscot

I don't think any of us are sure about how good Pedro will be, but I think many of us are impressed with his knowledge and his vision of how we want to play but are not yet convinced about the implementation and whether he can walk the walk. It does seem that hope is rising in many though as we see the improvements in the team. I think we are still susceptible to defensive errors and prone to run out of ideas against a parked bus but I'm getting more an more confident we'll still get the points. If we forget Progres due to not having his own team, treat the Hibs game as an aberration due to the refereeing, and the Celtic game as one against a much more expensive and established side, our record against the rest makes it look like when we mess up, we get a draw. I'm not leaving much in the way of data points but we're 6 wins and 3 draws for the rest, with an extra time win with the draw in the cup. I think that bodes reasonably well at this stage in the development of the squad, and personally expect an extra time win to be the worse will happen if we don't play too well. Of course you can lose any game if you don't figuratively turn up and the opposition do. Totally agree, and a manager has to show that he can negotiate these must-win games, while under a lot of pressure. That's something we haven't seen since Walter.

I found it a bit of a strange game where we dominated in most of it but then had lapses where we were dominated for spells. The good thing is that we scored the goals and kept the clean sheet which is something we wouldn't have done last year under similar circumstances. Their pressure would have led to a bad goal or two and ours would have likely not brought much in return. I think it's a good sign that we won the game well even though we gave the opposition the upper hand in too many spells where we were not very good. The same goes for the 4-1 win. I wouldn't say we're a Championship winning team yet but we now look like a team that will win most games even when we mess it up a bit. I agree with most of the consensus that he looks a good player but has some ridiculous lapses that make him look like a rookie at times. I agree with that, when Jack plays he looks like he's doing a good job, but Dorrens looks very ordinary at best in those games. That does seem to be working well in our current formation and he seems to keep popping up in the box to the left of Morelos giving us more target options, and twice in this game put the ball in the net after the defenders all went to challenge the Buffalo from a cross from the right, and all missing the ball. One thing I noticed from Tav was that he was looking up before his crosses and looked like he had a modicum of measure on the ball, whereas I think he used to put it in a bit blind with hit and hope. I agree, I've never really thought he's fitted in much since he came. Worth trying as a young talent but not really up to the task yet. Miller isn't sharp enough anymore to play in his more natural position, and I think we've seen he's not the player for the position he's been playing this season. With whatever talent he has left, he doesn't fit our current style of play - whereas Peña, aberrations aside, does.

I don't disagree with you about concert party thing but it's the only one than has a burden of proof, and as such the most defendible. About the rules, the EBTs were within the rules, but the courts chose "common sense" (although ignored the common sense of what could be interpreted as "entrapment" and also the statute of limitations)... I do think though that in this case he's embarrassing himself, the club and fans with the defences of being skint, not know the rules and not controlling his company/trust. When he decided to go to court, I actually thought he had some good legal reasons or at least just exposing the ludicrousness of the decision.

I also back King but do believe a couple of his defences make him look like he's at it here. The one where he doesn't have enough money is a no-goer - if that succeeded then someone can just spend all their money buying 30%-99% in a company and could genuinely claim not to be financially able to make the offer to the rest. However, it does beg the question of what other routes the person can take - eg can he be forced to sell a 5% tranche of shares - and then what if there is no buyer? The other argument that he doesn't have a say in the company he used to buy the shares just looks like taking the piss. For me his main arguments should be about whether or not he was in a concert party due to the circumstances at the time, and the futility of the offer. I do find the law an ass in that the likes of Whyte can commit an obvious fraud and get away with it because the guy he knew he was defrauding knew he was being defrauded, despite the impact for all the other stakeholders, but someone who helps save the same football club from a bunch of parasites bleeding it dry, might have the law forcing him make an expensively put together offer that just won't be taken up.

What happened to "common sense" in the courts?

I think Caixinha has a good point there to why we are so bad both in International and in European club football compared to Portugal. We're clueless about the tactics of modern game, whereas Portugal seem to be leaders. I think that's the reason the board chose him. Pedro definitely knows a lot about the theory, the question is whether he can actually apply it with Rangers and make it work.

Short for balti curry and saag paneer?

It could be said, if he REALLY wanted to go to Rangers he could have offered to take less pay to make up the shortfall... But he FAILED to do that. Be he's certainly not the BE ALL AND END ALL, and maybe Rangers can get someone BETTER... The guy just sounds greedy and not very bright, he's making sure that nobody likes him. But typical anti-Rangers spin from the usual haters.

Yeah pensions are based on the fact that you only have about 15 years to live, and the ones that die younger pay for the ones that die older. They reckon you need a pension pot of around £250k for a reasonable living, but take that sum and put it in a copper bottomed investment portfolio with a yield of of say about 3% and you're looking at only £7.5k a year. An annuity at 67 will probably get you about £18k with the same amount. (My figures are just based on stuff I've read and could easily be inaccurate but the principle is sound.) So a footballer will need to have saved a lot to get a guaranteed, comfortable income from 35. Of course he can invest in riskier stuff for a bigger yield, but might end up with a lot less...

To be fair to him, he reported that the police attacked the fans while unprovoked, other headlines all over the place were of the order, "Rangers fans clash with riot police", which puts a completely different spin to it.

Not wanting to get into any sides, but I agree with Frankie, "Life membership" surely means non transferable for one person for the rest of their life, which ends after death. It's not "transferable membership in perpetuity". It's what it says on the tin.

Can I just say how ironic that tweet is since many of the Celtic minded press do just that, defending Franco's fascist police indiscriminately and brutally attacking some football fans from Scotland in the same city in 1972...

While I can see a slight point with the odious cow thing, if you think that way, it does also mean that any time someone calls someone a prick, wanker or a dick etc, they are also giving sexist abuse to men. It obviously even stretches to calling a man bullish. Women use sexist abuse like "cave man", "neanderthal", "hairy ape", "gorilla", "rutting stags" etc all the time, but are never called up for it. I would also say words like c***, f*nny, pussy, ar*ehole, f***wit, b**tard etc are generally used for men, while bitch and cow, which are milder in comparison are used for women. And even though that is the case, I'm pretty sure that using the first few for a woman would still be seen as sexist. In that sense, I cannot see any sexism in the disparaging terms in the above post, just a lack of what people would call political correctness. I can't see evidence that the gender was relevant, I'll bet if it was a man, the insult would be just as great or possibly greater. The only relevance was the gender normative form of the insult. So if you want to insult a woman these days, it seems best to use a gender neutral term. But be as sexist as you want to insult a man as nobody cares. PS I see that "odious" is part of the contention, and I recall Spiers being called, "odious creep", and as creep is a word normatively used for men, does that mean it was sexist abuse? I never heard anyone complain.

Not criticising but if you're going to publish what is a really good article, I suggest you review the first few words of the 7th paragraph before you do.

Fair enough, I wasn't debating the manager's record one way or another, nor just being pedantic - it's a public article, if the stats are wrong in the first paragraph, others will notice and so it could affect how it is seen. It was just a heads up... No matter how I look at the following, I can't reconcile it: "Rangers have not set the world alight with their start to the season. Having already played six competitive matches so far, the ‘Gers have only registered two wins this campaign."

I make it 3 wins in 6 including Europe or 2 wins in 4 domestically...

Niño is a bit young - muchacho? I'm currently learning Spanish so it's a nice wee exercise to give my take on a translated version, with some artistic licence to fit it in to the rhythm and rhyme especially as Spanish has a lot more syllables: Hola, somos los Guille Muchachos. Hola, nos con- ocerán por los ruidos. Vadeamos en sangre F*nian. ¡Rindanse o morirán! Porque, somos los 'Derry Muchachos. Which means: Hello, we are the Billy Boys. Hello, you'll know us by the noises. We wade in F*ian blood. Surrender or you'll die. Because we are the 'Derry Boys. Or a more literal translation (but try singing it!): Hola, hola, somos los Muchachos Guille Hola, hola, ustedes nos conocerán por nuestro ruido Estamos hasta los rodillas en sangre F*nian. ¡Rindanse o morirán! Porque, somos los Brigton Derry Muchachos.

The funny thing is that you have to conclude the punter knew something about where Whyte was going, and when he put down £100, he must have been thinking along the lines of what happened. It seems he just chose the wrong bet. You have to wonder what the odds would have been for what happened. I'm pretty sure they would have been much lower than relegation - as in the end we finished in second place despite a 10 point penalty, and the negative results that came our way from the administration problems - and according to some, with the worst manager in football history, so it's not surprising the odds were high for the standard definition of relegation. But what actually transpired was, to me, something that seemed incredibly unlikely when looked at through a (somewhat idealistic) filter of everyone acting rationally, due to its level of self-harm.

Getting rid of Rangers for £1 removed any liability for the BTC from the Murray Group, plus had the bonus of £18m of debt being immediately repaid instead of over 9 years - way after the time the BTC would have been decided... It was a win for the Murray Group and the bank, and big lose for the club.

I think at first glance it seems diligent to start early as it allows for less brinkmanship and the time to seek alternatives if the talks break down. However, the timing is not great as although Rangers are back at the top, we're not properly established yet, and while a lot of people are revelling in the gap, it's a poor product to sell. We need an actual competition to get the broadcasters interested. However, the strange thing is that even without it, the OF are filling all the stadiums and you'd think the demand for TV would be proportional, so I think the devaluing point is the demand in England to see the games. In the end I always find it strange that the money has absolutely no relationship to viewing figures, otherwise we'd be getting about 2500 percent more.

So once again, SPL fans with have to pay twice for Sky and BT for a limited number of games on at stupid times. Once again it will only really seem value for money for those that avidly watch English football or watch a ton of TV in any case. I've got the BT and Sky apps on my phone but with a lack of recording facility, I'm never going to watch a Friday night game as I'm always socialising. There must be decent market there per-capita, but the whole consumer model just kills it for Scotland and our clubs, and provides a really terrible service. Ironically, wanting more money for our clubs would be normally a bit of a conflict of interest for fans - as you have to pay more, but we're a strange, special case where most of our money actually goes to the English clubs. It's no wonder our clubs get less money than in the likes of Denmark with a similar population but a much smaller proportion of avid football fans. We really need to remove ourselves to a different (single) platform from English football - a bit like what Setanta originally was - ie if people want to watch English and Scottish football, it's better for our clubs if they pay seperately. There is still a case for an SPFL channel or two, but they don't have the expertise or the savings from being large scale. However, it must be getting cheaper and cheaper to do this, when you consider how much TV is now shot on an adapted digital SLR costing under 5 grand. As for actual content that viewers want to really see, it seems strange that in some ways we had a better service in the 80s than we do now. We have access to more live games (especially in poor quality and unreliable streaming mode - compared to broadcast TV) but I think we miss the four games a week of 30 minute extended highlights and analysis on a Saturday night and Sunday afternoon, and put up instead with a few minutes from all games on a Monday onwards. In the end, going back to multiple broadcasters that also show EP stuff, means that we're going to once again fleece the fans - who don't support an English team, for a very poor value product.

It seems it's all about the interpretation of the word, "relegated". I predict the court will throw it out because the odds given were obviously for the normal meaning of the word where a team is relegated due to having the least points. The chances of that happening to Rangers or Celtic, even with points deductions was pretty minuscule in that season, hence the high odds. The parent company going into administration and liquidation, forming a new company, transferring the assets, being voted to not be able to transfer the SPL share and losing membership, applying to the SFL and joining in the lowest league, while also sounding incredibly unlikely, is a different thing. Due to the extreme nature of Scottish football's hatred totally overshadowing what would be prudent for the game and respect for fellow clubs, the latter was still far more likely than the former, and would have probably attracted much lower odds, especially in the context of the the Whyte takeover and the spectre of the BTC. It seems likely the guy will lose. However, with the defence of new club as a red herring, the case for the defence could look based on falsehood and so distract the court from their winning position.

A loan move means he can't play against us...

You have to wonder what this is about, are the purse strings just tight shut (saving it for next season and/or a share issue), are the management team too blind to our problems, or are they just confident of fixing them with what we've got? Whatever, it's not inspiring and feels like there's a communication gap.

You seem to know more exactly what happened than me... I got the impression that he said something derogatory to the team, a teammate slagged him back and he couldn't take it, and went into meltdown mode. But even in the scenario you give, I think there's always a line you should stay behind even when asked to talk candidly. And if you overstep it, it shouldn't be hard to backtrack a bit and maybe apologise. There was an quote by one of his ex-teammates that rang true to this affair and I get the impression that he can be very charming, affable and persuasive when things are going well, but he seems to have a circuit breaker switch that when tripped, just can't be reset.