calscot
-
Posts
11,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by calscot
-
This is another one of these arguments that makes no sense when inspected for fairness: "If Dundee United believe they can bring 20,000 supporters to Glasgow then let them be given the opportunity to prove they are as good as their word." If we applied it to Rangers then it would read, "If Rangers believe they can bring 51,000 supporters to Glasgow then let them be given the opportunity to prove they are as good as their word." Which applying the same logic suggests that Rangers have a claim for ALL the tickets (although I know some people won't get this as it obviously sounds wrong - but the logical point is that it's no more wrong than the DU claim which is obfuscated by misconceptions of "parity").
-
Only if even handed means being incredibly biased and bitter against one club, but also pointing out another going a step too far.
-
Seems to me he's saying that the board have said they are going to do certain things that he thinks they should be doing but lately it hasn't looked like it. By doing so publicly, they have put their reputation on the line, so you need to give them the time to it especially as it's not a long time and season ticket renewal is afterwards. If they don't don't what they say they will or start fudging it, then we will know we've been lied to, that we can't trust them, and as a result he will rally us to act upon that ie boycott season ticket renewals.
-
Didn't Ally raise the issue an early stage?
-
I think the thing about banners that really wind people up when they disagree with them is that by their proximity to it, it looks like they actually agree with them. To display a banner in a stadium, you really need to first make sure all the people around you to agree to the sentiment.
-
Should Rangers get the plaudits for their League One success?
calscot replied to a topic in Rangers Chat
To not celebrate would be insulting to all the previous and future winners of the league. If we agreed with some it would also mean that we should not have celebrated quite a fair few of our top division wins as very often we were expected to win it. During 9iar we had far more resources than anyone, including Celtic, so that doesn't count? Does that mean Celtic's 9iar is far more worthy than ours? I'm not exactly ecstatic but I'm pretty pleased it's done and dusted, and in record time. -
I'd say we've effectively wrapped up the unbeaten in the league thing as it's now over. The rest of the games are a bunch of friendlies for us and if we want to see youngsters blooded and new tactics experimented with, we have to let go of a meaningless record. For me, we can't just put youngsters in willy nilly while we have the two cups to win. We need to keep our best players playing together in the team as preparation for the cup games. As the SC final is at the end of the season, that possibly could reduce the chances of the Murray Park graduates.
-
I'm not sure the relevance of this. I'd be saying the same if it was Celtic Park or Hampden, the fact that it's at Ibrox is erroneous. The point is Rangers are doing the right thing by giving first refusal to the most regular attendees. The SFA should do the same, no matter which team they support. I've even suggested a process where they base it on who attended the previous rounds like in other sports. For me it's common sense. You've got dedicated fans who attend every home league game, some away games, as many previous rounds as they can get tickets on, who will not be able to get a ticket, whereas you'll have some vaguely interested DU "supporter" who doesn't go to games and mostly just looks at the results, and when offered one of the surfeit of tickets on offer for them, thinks, "Not too bothered about going to games, but may as well go to this one as it's a semi-final and we might stuff Rangers". I'm one of the fans who WOULD go to more games if I was near Glasgow, but because I don't get there often, I still think regular attendees deserve the tickets far more than me.
-
I would like a ticket too but I don't attend many games so should someone with a season ticket be "banned" from attending because I want to go to a semi or final? This is the equivalent of what happening. If you give DU 20k tickets you are effectively banning at least 10k Rangers season ticket holders in favour of fair weather supporters and some who have to travel distance. But you're strangely arguing against yourself there: if Rangers, quite rightly in my opinion, give season ticket holders first refusal on all the paltry 20k tickets, how are people like yourself ever going to be able to attend such a game? You're DU supporting neighbour and vaguely disinterested son should have no problem, but because you're a Rangers fan it becomes all but impossible. I can't believe people are arguing this - you have one club with an average of 41k at every home game so give them 20k tickets and you have the other team with 7k average at every home game so give them 20k tickets. To me it's obviously wrong but some people think it's fair.
-
What they do in some competitions in all sports, no matter who you support, the tickets for the semi final and final are prioritised to those who attended the most games prior to the finals as it's considered fairer to those who are more dedicated. Maybe we should do it that way. So it doesn't matter what games you go to but each one gives you points towards getting a ticket for the finals. You then offer them as a priority starting with the most points and then split the rest. Segregation can be calculated after that. Obviously points would be weighted towards games in which the participating finalists played. But that could still apply to a section for a certain number of neutrals - so if you attend every game by your team till they get beat in the semi, you still have the best chance for a neutral ticket for the final. It's nothing to do with Rangers is about giving tickets to those who most deserve them instead of those who can only be bothered going to see a game when it gets to the finals - which is what everyone wants to see. It could bump up the sparse quarter final crowds too. I'm not biased for Rangers here, we're talking about democracy and not discriminating those who support a certain team.
-
The thing to remember is just because you believe in something you can't prove, it doesn't make people stupid if they don't yet believe it without enough evidence, especially if they are agnostic about it.
-
They are a professional business and if they seen as a compliant customer, then why not?
-
Why? You are saying clubs are equal but people are not. It's really about the people so why discriminate against one side because they have more people? That's a strange and incredibly weak argument. Why shouldn't a guy who's gone to every home game for years not have the same day out? Why shouldn't someone like myself who attends about a game a year be allowed a day out? Why can't I have a day out at the Wimbledon final? The difference is that I can see that someone who has a season ticket is more deserving than me and I'm not a self centred, whining brat. Those Dundee folks could easily have had their day out at the quarter final but strangely weren't interested. Actually - are you being sarcastic? To comply with what you're saying the only democratic and non discriminatory answer is to build a stadium that has a capacity of 150k - like we used to have. I don't see the point of that. Just because it's neutral doesn't mean you have to split it 50/50. All clubs are not equal.
-
The difference is that we did protested before they got there. It's not right, but it was always not right. Once it's done and dusted with no chance of changing it, it's time to just get on with it. Sporting integrity is not a hindsight thing - except in Scotland.
-
The funny thing is that the only club who had supporters protesting about the pre-set choices of the semi-finals and final at the time of the announcement were Rangers fans. Once it was clear that nothing would change, Rangers fans just accepted it even though there was a very good chance that Celtic would be able to play the final at home, and Rangers might not make the semis.. Now the semi is coming up and because Rangers are still in the competition with a good chance of the semi and Celtic are out, everyone else starts complaining very loudly... They also set the final of the league cup at CP and no-one complained except Rangers fans. Then the one competition Celtic are not in and cannot gain from it, they wait till Rangers are in the final and then put it somewhere tiny that will mean at least 70% of regular match attendees at Ibrox can't get a ticket, never mind the less regular and also the ones that need a final to come out and see the game. The really weird thing is that the only ones that see it all as a bit suspect are the Rangers fans. Scotland is a very mad place at the moment.
-
Should tickets not be allocated as a pro rata of the average home attendance? They may have 20000 wanting to go to see Rangers but why do 12000 of them who don't go to any other game deserve to go more than Rangers fans who go to every game? The thing about the Arabs demands is that they come across as self centred idiots, and these are their "leaders". Is this the type of mentality in Scotland these days?
-
It shows that if the administrators were consistent, they should have used the "biggest and best" stadium in the lower leagues - and this time it would actually have been a fact.
-
The point was that it didn't put me off - or thousands of others who have since watched much worse supporting other clubs without even the consolation usually winning. Just how do you become an Albion Rovers fan then? There is also the part to play where Kids are very impressionable, and if all the adults around them are moaning about what a crap game it is, they are never going to enjoy it, or get into it. Maybe I was sheltered from the poor games by the fact that I mostly watched Rangers highlights which lasted about half an hour every week. Probably the best way to enjoy football but sadly never available these days. You get the whole match or 1 to 3 minutes of highlights now. I seen a few live games a year and for me that was a treat and so I breathed in every minute of it. I even remember my first game was a turgid one against Aberdeen. We scored early on and all I wanted was for the final whistle to blow after that. Nothing much else happened and we won 1-0 but I was chuffed to bits.
-
Is the football any worse than in the first half of the 80's? That's what I saw as a kid and additionally there was only one ball and no pass-back rule and ploughed fields as pitches. I did have a nice seat though so was never really introduced to standing at Ibrox.
-
Keith Jackson: Derek McInnes can help guide Aberdeen to a cup double
calscot replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
The thing the author misses is that had we signed the exact same players as Aberdeen, our wages would still be about three times higher. IF we win the League, the Ramsdens AND the Scottish Cup, will our relatively low wages to turnover have really been money wasted? We're a football club so what should we be spending our money on? Our money was spent to do all of this and also provide the main part of a squad to win the league next season. Not many players will sign a one year contract. So are Aberdeen an attractive side to watch? -
DB makes a very good point about the young keeper. Had we used him as a number 2 he'd have had one game. If we put him on the bench now he's not getting a game, so what would he be learning? It's totally erroneous and blatantly misunderstands the fact you can only play one keeper. It's a shame he didn't go out for the whole season but that's not Rangers decision. However, it does seem to show that Rangers are far more practical about youth development than these misty eyed articles.
-
This just seems to be another ageism piece that earns its schilling on the popular myth that to develop a club and to produce players you have to put a load of youths into the team. I've asked for evidence so many times but no-one can provide it, it's all about faith in the religion of the unicorn. The irony is that on the one hand our own fans criticise the management as in the youth competitions many teams have quite a few of their players playing regularly for the first team, then on the other they point out we have a great crop who seem to be one of the best in the country. How can you be the best in the country when you are not playing your player in the first team and other are? Surely the other teams should be more developed? If they are the best then is Murray Park doing something right or wrong? Even when you look further along the chain you see that Rangers are a major producer of Scottish Internationals, as well as for Northern Ireland. How can that be? I don't have the answers but I don't fall for a very flawed and simple argument that you have to play youth all the time and as I've pointed out before that the logic conclusion questions where do the over 25s play? A veteren's league? I don't have the answers but it's obvious that it's more complicated than that and it limited by the fact you can only play 11 players at once, and Rangers are an exception where the pressures for not only winning but a champagne performance are huge. With the team half full of youngsters last season (although according to the arcticle and all the similar pontifications, this somehow didn't actually happen) the fans were not happy and while the results in the league were more than adequate, they were not of the type of thrashings expected. So who can blame the management for changing tack and a cold look at the stats shows that there has been substantial improvement. Even when you look at the cups, our oldie team are still in both competitions (maybe just but you're either in or out), the one competition we're out of is the one we went out at the first hurdle due to being forced to play our youths as a result of some strange ruling. The nonsense of this type of article is that the very flawed premise is treated as obvious fact and then the multitude of disciples all murmur their agreement of its veracity and its obviousness. Yet asked to give an exemplar and everyone is stuck. The classic is Man U which doesn't make sense as they don't actually have a team full of kids and according to the Rangers criteria, never did. They ONCE had a team half full of young players but only ONE teenager - we've been playing with more than that. But then many people don't seem to understand the meaning of the first part of, "If you're good enough, you're old enough." Another classic is Ajax, which ignores the amazing Dutch grass-roots football system that we just don't have in Scotland - and also ignores the amount of money they spend on players. Someone once said the Dunfermline team had a maximum age of 25 and averaged about 21, I await with baited breath while they develop this team into one which will topple Celtic - which the article seems to be suggesting. I actually feel sorry for all the over 25s that are left on the scrapheap and have to find normal jobs. People seem to be advocating a retirement age of about 26, but they never seem to realise it.
-
I agree there's an ominous pattern there although there is plenty of mitigation there for most of the games, but there are a couple of shockers with not much defence. But it's easy to show defeats in the cups as, unless you win it, you lose to someone. In the past three seasons, Celtic have lost a game to 5 out of 6 domestic competitions to the following: St Mirren Morton Aberdeen Kilmarnock Hearts That's without any of our problems - in fact they say they've never been better off. Most of the sides are from the SPL but the relative wealth for the last two seasons is still similar with even Hearts having entered administration. Their European record is a mixed bag and includes five or six draws and losses to mediocre or lowly teams. Going out to Albion Rovers would have been a disaster, losing to DU or Aberdeen in the semi or final, not so much but will not enhance Ally's reputation. If he wins the cup, then that would actually be an achievement despite the negativity for any defeats. He would then equal Lennon in his tenure. The Ramsdens is a must - and there is no positive if we lose the final and little credit if we win. Ally's tenure has been so traumatic off the field that you have to wonder who would have done better in his position, but the problem is that he's not shown himself to be able to rise to the occasion and so lacks anything that raises him above the ordinary and steady. His one chance is the cup this year and he almost blew that in what should have been a straightforward tie. I think his whole reputation for the last few seasons will live or die on whether or not he now wins 4 cup ties in a row. That shouldn't really be the case at a time like this considering Advocaat had a barren season and plenty of famous teams from the blue tinted past didn't win a cup, but the results shown above have made a rod for his own back.
-
I think with the gleefulness of some of the replies the title should be, "Now I've got you, you son of a bitch!"
-
You'd have to hope that Ally had alarm bells ringing after the cup game and that the players will be getting a figurative doze of iced water in the face. It's more difficult to regain the urgency and commitment in the league when it's all but won, no matter how much motivating you attempt to do with both carrot and stick. While the likes of Morinho is a genius motivator, I doubt there's a time when his team have been 23 points ahead and unbeaten, with a couple of wins away from the championship. So while there is no doubt he'd do better than Ally in that respect, you have to wonder how much even from him would penetrate the players psyche in this situation. So while that's no comfort for the fans, the cup is still a completely different prospect and going out to Albion Rovers would have been a disaster with the reward of a home semi-final against DU on offer and about the best chance of winning the cup we could expect in our current stage of our path back to the top. Our fans would never have forgiven it and Ally would take the brunt with a huge blot on his copy book and a significant build up in the tide against his tenure. The players would be forgotten about and so for them it wouldn't be the same impact. So I expect the riot act to have been read and hopefully a large reaction in the upcoming games. You would think the players would have more ambition and there shouldn't be a manager in the world that could prevent them or be needed to motivate them from playing their way into the semi against a bottom league side. There is certainly something wrong with their attitude and while a better man-manager might be able to fix that, fixing shouldn't really be necessary.