calscot
-
Posts
11,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by calscot
-
When a board do something, those on the board are automatically guilty. They have been given a chance and have received a negative reaction to what they did and how they did it. In what way can they be innocent? People are allowed their opinions and there is plenty of stuff to object to from the current board. How many chances do you give to someone who is running your club in a way you detest?
-
Who said anything about opinion? I pretty much said you can't be a Rangers fan if you can't see the highly publicised facts over the club and fans being treated badly. That's the one opinion I gave and looking at it, it seems very reasonable. I'll agree you are a fan of the Rangers board. You repeatedly asked the question and have just ignored some answers and tried to deflect from them with an irrelevant tangent - in my opinion that is tantamount to trolling. Just what real point are you trying to make?
-
How about illegally attempting to circumvent the democratic process of electing board members? Then there's the machiavellian tactics over the call for the EGM to delay as long as possible and water down the threat from the requisitioners. The attempt to bring in self serving resolutions on share issuing. The complicity in the paying the bulk of the IPO money to those involved in the rescuing and refinancing of the club. The lack of respect and engagement with the fans. Complicity in the lies and spin that continuously come out of Ibrox and in employing Toxic Jack. And that's just a fraction of what we know about, never mind the stuff we don't. If you don't get any of that then I can't see how you can be a Rangers fan.
-
The answer is that we don't know. Not all second tier teams bounce back up from the third tier. Dunfermline are really a top tier side, well above QotS and so would the latter have been able to win the championship with them in it? I'd say the answer is maybe but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it happening - to go that way would be very risky. Also Dunfermline have much more money than the rest of the league but are only 5 points ahead having played a game more to Stranraar. Would you really be happy in their position knowing we've cut say four million off the wage bill? I really don't get the premise where our wage bill is considered high. 25% of turnover is incredibly low and in this type of industry, to attract big crowds, you have to put a reasonable amount into the quality on display. If we need to make cuts, I think it should be elsewhere while building our income which is shockingly low outside the tickets. German clubs bring in £200m from commercial income - what are they doing that we aren't? Thing is that on one hand we have fans that expect Rangers to win almost every game convincingly and then the same people complain we're spending too much when we do just that. I think cutting the budget to 1m would be risky for promotion and turn many fans away - or at least do a real revolt against the board. It would have been suicidal for the board to spend more money on themselves than the team. I believe you are in the tiny minority that would find that acceptable. There is no evidence that Ally "needs" that level of spending, however it is an appropriate level and guarantees us the promotion we need. It doesn't tell us anything about how we will fair in the top tier although we will at least have some players capable of player there instead of having to bring in a whole new squad. We will be able to afford a larger budget in the top tier. I really don't believe you. There has been too much criticism of the kids last season by the same people who ask for it. Maybe you need to attend some under 21 games and see if you enjoy it. That just doesn't happen. There is not one good example of this happening. As has been said, a team of kids is the same as the U21 team with the exact same development opportunities - if you are right then most of that team will automatically be playing in the first team within a few seasons. To get your wish, you only need to attend the youth games. Then you should have been excited about last season but I get the impression you don't really know what you want. This is real life, not a fairy tale and unicorns don't exist. Being excited is but a state of mind. There are plenty of other clubs that are able to be closer to what you say you are looking for, but none have a significant fraction of the success of Rangers. We're just not that sort of club.
-
Alex Thomson - Celtic – Scotland’s modern Millwall?
calscot replied to ian1964's topic in General Football Chat
Is it just me or is his writing far more nut-job, internet blogger, rather than intelligent journalist? The same goes for Leggo, whose style is along the same low-brow, ranting lines but even less readable. Thomson appears to at least use a spell checker... -
"implement a football player asset strategy" What a load of bullshit. This is how you should speak if you want to earn big money. You get paid a fortune to make up high faluting sounding terms for every day stuff.
-
Can I also point out that players require at least two or three year contracts, which is why we have a squad which is capable of winning the league next season with not too many comings and goings.
-
Just what is McCoist to blame for? The players that TUPED over? A current wage bill which is about 25% of turnover, which is immensely low in the business? A team that are winning almost every game? Instead you'd rather have tied up a Queen of the South level of team that would have had a risk of non-promotion, punters not happy with the quality, and a team that is battling to avoid relegation in the Championship. When you're paying £16 for a ticket, do you really want only say £2 to be spent on the players wages and a proportionately weak team to watch? People went on and on about the QotS model last season and have been proved to be totally wrong as I predicted. Let it go, the evidence is overwhelmingly against you and the extreme danger for our club from that sort of hindsight thinking is there to see. Maybe we're using a sledgehammer to crack a nut but we're pretty much betting our life on succeeding on the first strike.
-
I never said that, what I'm saying is that you should know your parameters and boundaries. You can only change what you have the power to change, it's best to learn how to cope best with what you can't change. That's pretty good advice for anything in life. You're saying we shouldn't be realistic? You're saying we need to be unreal... I don't know how you can call it defeatism - as having ambition beyond your abilities always ends in defeat. It is so by definition. What makes our club different from any other? If you can answer that, then maybe you will be able to answer why our club is currently different from Bayern. Going by your own philosophy, you must be a billionaire by now - please supply Rangers with £300M a year and your dreams for the club will possibly come true. If you're not a billionaire then it's obvious your philosophy doesn't work. So what are your feeble excuses for not supplying Rangers with the required cash? I'm expecting a lot more from you. Those acronyms are used to remind people of tries and tested ways of being properly prepared to achieve your goals. They work much better than just hopes, dreams and infeasibly high expectations. I take you haven't read much on how to go about achieving your goals in life? I'm going to bow out here as very difficult to rationalise with the "you can do anything you want to" attitude. The last time I heard that type of stuff was from a teenager who's proof was that she badly wanted to go to Thailand and now she was definitely going. Asked how she had achieved this, her answer was, "Daddy's paying".
-
Or you can be Walter Mitty and dream of a world which doesn't exist. Except you're worse than he, as you are very angry when your outlandish fantasies are not realised and lash out at people in the real world trying to do the best job they can with the resources they are given. You would prefer to tell kids they are failures and rant and rave at them if they don't become royalty or Prime Ministers. I don't see how having the ambition to be by far the best in your league when your resources are cut dramatically, is lacking ambition, with the longer term aim of being the best in the land. You can have your head in the clouds as long as you have your feet on the ground. And just what are you doing to help achieve these aims? Has anyone heard of the SMART acronym for setting goals? The S is for Specific which rules out most of the stuff people are complaining about, unless it's to win the Champions League The M is for Measureable which again is difficult for subjective stuff like "play good and entertaining football". The A is for Achievable which is where the goals of those wanting us to be like Bayern just break down. The R is for Relevant which considering that we are not allowed to compete in Europe and are in League one of Scottish football makes all such goals irrelevant. And T is for Time-bound - the critics seem to want everything NOW. Whereas, winning the league we are in for the next two seasons by at least 10 points pretty much fits all the criteria. But your whole argument is futile. If every supporter applied your philosophy, then they would come up against the brick wall that only one team can win the CL. Your attitude leaves every support bar one club angry all the time. if you're angry at Rangers, what would the supporters of the lower divisions in all countries be like with your attitude? I just see it as a recipe for a miserable life - and it pretty much shows on this forum.
-
There seems to be a massive number of postmen that play for part time sides; according to some on here a few seem to play for every side. However, thinking about it, many postmen are very fit, they exercise every day -I know one who is fit and slim without any other exercise. Add in a few professional style training sessions a week and they could easily be as fit as a full time footballer. They won't be able to practice skills as much and probably don't have the same natural talent as more successful players, but then that's why they are playing for part-time clubs and not the bigger sides. The difference with full-time sides is more often ability, skills practice and development, coaching, and a higher level of experience rather than fitness. That's why Rangers win over 90% of games. The weird thing is that after totally disrespecting these part-time, professional players, the same detractors still think that despite never even managing a side, amateur or professional (but maybe a computer game), that they can easily do a better job than most managers in the country including full-time, highly paid ones that have a wealth of top-level, international footballing experience. I don't think I've seen a Sunday league team play the brand of football being talked about, in fact I haven't seen ANY Scottish team do it, including the SPL sides. So just where are people practicing this aspect of the trade - even vicariously? However, I have heard phrases like, "my beloved Chelsea" and "Arsenal is my other team" and you start to realise that people are watching teams with £150m wage bills and demanding a Rangers side on about £6m play to the same standard. The lack of realism extends to a post above where some people apparently will not settle for less than competing with Bayern Munich and winning the Champions League. I just wonder how many people asked for a unicorn from Santa and were left angry and frustrated when it didn't arrive. Maybe Saltcoats shouldn't settle for less than competing with Benidorm as a holiday destination, but some will notice, it just doesn't have the climate to compete - unless global warming does something about it. But I think these outlandish expectations are complicit to the lack of substance in the recent tidal wave of criticism of a club who have only drawn once in the league this season and won every other game.
-
Democratic Process - Hanging by a thread or a rope ?
calscot replied to D'Artagnan's topic in Rangers Chat
Can't believe people are thinking capitalism is wonderful because it saved us when it was capitalism that almost killed us. I'm not totally anti-capitslism but it's silly to only see one side of the coin. But I repeat, the whole thread is off on the wrong irrelevant tangent. Customers do not need to respect elections to the board especially when they don't like them. They are entitled to pick when and where they spend their money. Ironically the board do have to respect the customer or lose their jobs. The customer is king don't you know? -
Democratic Process - Hanging by a thread or a rope ?
calscot replied to D'Artagnan's topic in Rangers Chat
I really don't get the op - it's nothing to do with shareholders and democracy at all. It's all about the customer. You can have all the shares you like, but if you don't have the customers, you effectively have nothing. -
I think the Celtic crowds will be back when Rangers are back. Celtic are cutting their costs for the next couple of years but I'm sure they will flex their financial muscles when we're back. They will find the money and are probably hoarding at the moment. Right now they don't need to spend except for Europe and even there it's a bit of a futile quest so not much point for a handful of games. When we are promoted, I can see the interest in our league increasing massively for the first season. The ones that said that they don't need us are going to look stupid, even though a big part will be the novelty of us returning after being missing for a while. I think you can expect near sell outs in Glasgow every week.
-
I think we have the minimum quality and size of squad that you'd ever accept being at Rangers. It might seem more than we need but does anyone really want to risk a promotion battle where we might eventually achieve it by a few points. Might be exciting but I can see the avalanche of the word "unacceptable" on the forum.
-
It seems to me that PM has had three strikes and so is out and should leave scene. MM is on two strikes but doesn't have much backing. I think next year it should be DK who leads the call for changes. I still don't think he'll really get involved until we're promoted to the Prem and will require additional funding. Hopefully, we can last till then on the income we are bringing in, after some swinging cuts in expenditure (as well as increase in other income eg ticket price increase next season, and money coming in from merchandise). However, the response to the call for new season tickets will be interesting, especially if there are any more shenanigans. I think the board have had their last free lunch.
-
It is just me or is it that highly paid business people mostly earn their keep by making up reports using high faluting terms for a load of mundane bullshit?
-
My point is, not whether he's entitled, but is he a "good guy" for doing it?
-
And the spivs in control of the club are entitled to give themselves stupidly large bonuses and pay offs - so that's ok then?
-
It doesn't sound like it's that clear cut and the delay adds to that perception. He TUPED over on a wage we could ill afford, was paid incredibly well for what he had to do in the league we were in and now wants to pursue every pre-administration clause in his contract that has become irrelevant in the subsequent circumstances. McCoist is entitled to keep his £800k wage but it doesn't mean he should. Stockbridge too, with his £200k bonus. The management might reserve the right to eject you but that doesn't mean you have to like and respect them if they exercise that entitlement to do it to you for no reason. Claiming any bonus to do with pre-administration scenarios that don't translate to our new position just seems like money grabbing to me and I think we're entitled to be disappointed by it.
-
Another player from our last SPL squad who won't be welcomed back or remembered fondly.
-
No mention of the burger van then? That burger van story looks like another lie to try and find a way to demean us.
-
It seems strange that the BBC have been left out of the criticism. The only ones to gain from the story are the board and the BBC and so it's the board that are being a bit strange and not looking too innocent.
-
That's a good point. Others may have put money into the club but it doesn't really count if they take it back out again. When you look at net input compared to investment worth and benefits then King has put in more than everyone bar the fans collectively. However, that fact itself explains why he's biding his time for when to invest, having missed the original asset buyout due to legal problems. When you've already burned £20m, it's understandable to wary about how your next investment is going to perform. Had he invested in the IPO he'd have already lost about 40% of his money to the splurge. We need to be able to survive one more year, get promoted to the top and then refund with another share issue. I think that's when to expect King to be a big player.
-
Can't see how that is true. Many professional athletes cannot peak every week and so enter competitions with reasonable intervals. They then ramp up their training to coincide with the competition before mostly resting the week before. The body is not an engine, it works better on short amounts of stress and then plenty of rest and also needs cycling of training intensities to keep in top condition. Football scheduling doesn't usually allow this and so you get peaks and troughs of form and fitness. When you're playing two games a week, you have no time for proper fitness training, with the game itself providing most of that. A two week "rest" from the game when the players can concentrate on personalised fitness goals could work really well to improve or recover the fitness levels of the team. It is boring though...