calscot
-
Posts
11,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by calscot
-
It has to be asked: who in our league is playing better football? Is there any team you'd find eminently watchable? If not, how come their supporters turn up to support their clubs and don't leave at half time? They don't even have the compensation of winning almost every game; they turn up watch the a type of football that is no better (and I'd guess a lot worse), and they often lose. Maybe that's why they have less fans, but the ones they have seem to be a breed with a lot of character. I can't see much character in leaving really early in a game you're winning because you think the football is not up to scratch.
-
It seems to me that Rangers are an anomaly - proportion of income doesn't seem to work for us. The running of the 50k stadium filled with 43-45k of fans and our training ground would cost a similar amount whether the club is in the first or third or fourth tier. However, our income is massively reduced with ticket prices at about 55-60% of top tier prices, tv money almost non-existent despite being having the largest viewing figures, and sponsorship also incredibly low as well the board failing abysmally at bringing in other income. I feel that if we were run better, we should perhaps be currently bringing in about 23m and breaking even with about £6m on the players wage bill. After promotion to the top tier our income should balloon to at least £38m before Europe is a factor mostly due to ticket price increases, TV money and increased sponsorship. That would give us an extra 15m to spend without a significant increase in running costs. Increasing the wage bill to £19m or 50% of turnover shouldn't be much of a problem. That would still leave us way below Celtic reputedly at around 33m but they are benefiting from Europe and the unpredictable large transfer fees to pay for that. We would then have to grow the income from there and gain money from Europe to be able to increase our income and therefore our budget for wages to compete. It's all fag packet stuff but I think there's some realistic figures in there. The point is that proportion of income for wages isn't a great metric when it comes to us as there are too many reasonably fixed costs and I'm hoping we don't plan to make a profit and pay a dividend.
-
Actually had another look and the quote was five years ago and so could have changed but to me it still suggests the factor of 100 argument is way out.
-
Just read the following by the Stranraer chairman: "The wage bill is the actual killer at the moment - it's about £250,000 each year." They are probably the poorest club in our division and our wage bill is reputed to be between 5 and 6 million. Taking the higher amount then that's a worst case scenerio of a factor of 24 difference. So where does the repeated argument come from that the factor is ONE HUNDRED against ALL the sides in the league? There is another misrepresentation that was repeated in the Scotsman today that in order to bring the wage bill down to the acceptable 50% of turnover level, we have to reduce it to £5m? How does that work with a turnover of 19.1m?
-
Exclusive: Rangers to benefit from new Glasgow City Airport
calscot replied to Zappa's topic in Rangers Chat
Bit early for an April fool... -
If we're going by one game, how about our only competitive loss of the season? The team was: Gallacher; Hegarty, McCulloch, Faure, Wallace; Black; Mitchell (Aird 46), Crawford, Macleod (McAusland 74), Templeton (McKay 99); Little.
-
No idea, but I wouldn't base an opinion on one game anyway. How'd it work for us last season? If something really works, most will end up doing it most of the time. Simples. You have to wonder why Man U are not repeating their "winning it with kids" every season. The obvious answer is that you don't make great players, you discover them and then help them fulfil their potential. Now and again you'll discover a load at once, mostly they will be a lot more scarce.
-
Some people make up an agenda for notional reasons and try to find stats that suit while ignoring and disparaging those that don't. Other people look at the stats to try and make a conclusion from them or base a judgement, and so form an opinion. If the stats change the second type of person will change their mind. What does the first type of person do in that case? Maybe I should quote Keynes here: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Some people have an agenda set in concrete, some don't have one at all.
-
I would say more like 5 to 7 of them.
-
If you're signing players for free on two or three year contracts, does it really matter if they are 28? Aren't they young enough if they are good enough? Why is there so much ageism among the support these days? Even in Logan's Run people were allowed to live till 30... People on here seem to want to have compulsory retirement of 25 for football players. For me, I don't want the guy as I can't see how he would improve us and I'm not sure about his ability in the top league. However, the management may rate him highly as at the level to compete with Celtic and if he's available now for free, perhaps we shouldn't pass on the opportunity.
-
What does that even mean? We ARE developing young players - in what way are we not? People bandy this glib stuff around while being clueless to what it all means. We had an average of about 5 or 6 rookies in the team last season and we had inconsistent results and a lot of derision for how we played. We've changed that and massively improved in both results and performance and yet the whining continues. You really want to go back to last season? Perhaps you need to attend some U21 games to see if you enjoy the football, as that is the standard they will bring to the first team - except obviously worse due to playing more experienced players who have a point to prove over a bunch of cocky teenagers. As has been pointed out several times, how is shoving a load of players in the first team "developing" them? When has that ever worked as a strategy? Where is the development? As said before, if you take this to the extreme (which is not much more than last season) then every team would be playing 8 youngsters and three experienced players - but this is no different to the U21 league, so therefore the U21 league is already doing the exact same job. The only difference is the size of the crowd and the pressure for the result - both of which should be good for youngsters... The tried and tested way of developing youngsters is to put your best two or three in the team where they can benefit from playing beside experienced players - that doesn't happen when you flood a team with youngsters. You then give a number of others a taste of the top team here and there to see how they cope and to show them what it's like. There seems to be an obsession with filling teams with young players these days by people who seem to think they know about development so much better than just about everyone in the professional game. We are Rangers, our tradition is to put out as strong team a we can and try and win every game - it's a good tradition and yet one that most don't seem to give a damn about - until we draw or lose or play crap.
-
There is no evidence that McCoist can't compete - and as a manager that has only managed Rangers there is no easy way of gauging him against managers of clubs with lower resources. He has however, ALWAYS finished in a league position that was appropriate for the clubs spending relative to other clubs, and this is despite him having his hands tied in the transfer market EVERY season, along with the most horrendous off-field problems in our history, and of course a ten point penalty. The same cannot be said of Souness, Advocaat or McLiesh - and PLG, while clinging on to second place also did not perform to the clubs relative wealth. Wallace and Greig also obviously failed in that sense. Smith finsihed second in his last season of his first spell while I think outspending Celtic, so even he has not achieved this. So out of eight managers in the last 40 years, Ally is the ONLY one that has this achievement (and I think there is a good possibility he is the only one in our history). To me there is no evidence whatsoever that he will not finish above teams with less finances. Quite the opposite. He may not have shown he is a great manager by finishing above our finances, but he has shown he does not under perform in that sense either. That may change when we are promoted back to the top, but there is no logical or factual reason to think so. His less than satisfactory cup record is a different issue to what we're talking about here.
-
As has been alluded to, does there not have to be a large enough set of shares available for sale for King to make a move? It seems the larger shareholders are increasing their holding rather than selling - Easdales, Laxey etc and a couple are pretty big unknowns - BPH, Margarita, and the fans won't sell en mass. So where can he buy them from? If you're going to buy a large chunk of a club you probably have a strategy and that will have to include a contingency for the compulsory buy-out percentage. But even then, all along he's said his preferred route is a share issue as the money goes to the club and not the city investors - and the club will need this money at some point. Before he invests board need to initiate a share issue. The ball is not yet in his court.
-
I'm not sure if he did flatter to deceive, I think Shored Bear's analysis rings more true. He was an amazing young player who never moved up the levels. If he was playing for a top EPL side then he might have a point in his rant but I think he's playing at his level, the one he stagnated at. Maybe with maturity he could realise his full potential, but he didn't give us the choice of being able to help him. He needs to listen to his own words and get what he is saying - he wasn't rated at the mighty Rangers but is at lowly Coventry... It's pretty much stating the obvious, so I can't see why he is bitter.
-
Here's the blooding this season so far for Murray Park graduates. Name Starts (Subs) Andrew Little 14 (4) Scott Gallacher 6 Kyle McAusland 4 (3) Chris Hegarty 2 Lewis Macleod 20 (2) Kyle Hutton 1 (4) Robbie Crawford 8 (10) Andy Murdoch 0 (1) Fraser Aird 6 (9) Andrew Mitchell 1 Barrie McKay 0 (4)
-
Sounds a bit midieval... I think you mean "blood".
-
He had fantastic football intelligence, as does Rooney, and learned a lot as well as applying himself with a lot of practice. Thing about Gascoigne is that he WOULD have failed the test (and he failed at a few clubs as a youngster) but he proved himself from Newcastle to Spurs and onwards. We knew he was a flawed genius but we were the kind of club at the time that could afford to take a punt on him and possibly get a top class bargain - which we did. Fleck has perhaps proved himself at Coventry but that is too late for us. While that is a similar level to where we're playing right now, I'd much rather have Law in the team and he was a freebie and on less wages than Fleck would have been. Sometimes it's best to cut your losses - there is no rule that you have to graduate all your youth players regardless. I think some fans wring their hands too much with this sort of thing.
-
A lot fitter? I should think so too at 22 due to maturity in mind and body. Andy Murray is also a lot fitter now than when he was 16-20. I believe he will continue to get fitter until he's at least 25 or 26.
-
I recall most people saying his correct position was up front... Shows how subjective this argument is. But if you can't take your chances in a position slightly removed from you preferred one, you're not a great player IMHO. Laudrup for instance, played all over the place.
-
They scored 92 last season. Halfway through this season we were on 65 which extrapolated makes 130. They also drew 5 and lost 2 games, extrapolating ours would be drawing 2 games and losing 0. It is difficult to compare a team in a different league but if you take that seriously then QotS become something you can't compare to start with. They spent one season in the third tier and so there is no ongoing examples. There is just no evidence that Queen's season was more than a purple patch or luck. Teams that are relegated have a unique advantage of often having the best and most expensive squad in the league who are used to playing together at a level above and sometimes that just works out for them in spades. But the thrust of the thread here is that if guy doesn't repeat his one best season with another club, then something must be wrong. That just ignores the randomness of everything that is usually acknowledged even by common sense. Most people have had say the round of golf of their life, but few go round blaming other people if they don't repeat this in the next round - or ever. There are a multitude of factors and randomness is just one of them. Playing every game and taking the penalties is pretty significant, as well as fitting into a new team, form, confidence etc, etc, etc. And do you really want most of the goals to come from one player? What if he gets injured (Negri anyone)? Surely it is far healthier for a team to have the goals coming from a spread of players, especially when you are scoring 40% more goals overall. It also suggests a different style of play.
-
The Easdales have more than enough influence and have been around long enough to be complicit and culpable in the board shenanigans and have yet done nothing to show that they are good for the club. Somers has already shown he is singing from the same hymn sheet as previous board members and has been trying desperately to cover up what are at best boardroom errors and at worst, corruption. He speaks with forked tongue and shown he can't be trusted. Wallace is the only one that has shown any appearance of integrity and putting the club first, although he may just be better at playing the game.
-
So you're basically saying that QotS's last season was a one season wonder due to the Allan Johnson? If that's the case we have little evidence for comparison for anything. We don't even know if the manager or the team were just lucky, even in the sense of everything just came together for a season. Kilrmarnock don't seem to be much better from normal as of yet.
-
Can I just point out that the top three scorers at Rangers have scored a combine 33 goals, whereas their counterparts at QotS have scored 17.
-
The problem with a club like Rangers is that if we sign a player and give him a pay rise, if he doesn't play well then who do you sell him to? The level he apparently belongs to can no long afford him, and if he's not good enough for us then why would he be good enough for another team that can afford him? This problem is multiplied several times by the fact we're in the third tier. The one time we got around this was Souness buying up established English internationals. It meant that, even if they failed at Ibrox, there were big clubs down south willing to take a punt on them. It was all part of his strategy.
-
Nobody said it was easier to score for QotS and a look at the scoring charts and it obviously isn't. But that doesn't mean it's easy to score 40 in a season for Rangers. If that were the case we'd have about four players with 160 goals between them every year plus the same again from the rest of the squad, meaning we'd be winning every game with about 8 goals. However, every time people talk about QotS, they seem to extrapolate a one off excellent season as something they always do. It's like seeing someone throw a double six once with two dice and then complaining when someone else can't do the same every time. As an aside, people will also forget that Clark doesn't take the penalties. Big Jig is a defender and has scored more goals than the QotS top scorer this season - what does that say about the ease of scoring for QotS?