calscot
-
Posts
11,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by calscot
-
I can't see how Eck could be our worst manager - you just have to look how he out performed Dick Advocaat. With the same players, he won five trophies in a row after they not won the previous five in a row under DA. He then went on to win a championship, a cup and get to the knockout stages of the CL on a fraction of the budget that DA had in his fruitless final year and a half. I didn't enjoy Eck as a manager but he wasn't by any means the worst and while many enjoyed the first two years of Advocaat, you have to wonder about his real worth when you consider the budget he spent and how much that spending subsequently affected the club. Winning the league by a mile was no more unexpected than our results this season. Losing the league by a mile twice was not far removed from finishing a close second last season or this. However, Eck finishing third puts him below McCoist as he didn't achieve the minimum which was at worst a distant second, whereas McCoist has never failed in that respect - he finished second despite a 10 point penalty and the most horrendous upheaval our club has ever had in its history. If you extrapolate his first half season results (even with being messed around by Whyte) he may have finished second by about 4 points to a team with a bigger budget, hardly a disgrace. People seem to measure him for not beating other countries' champions but all Rangers managers have had bad European results - without Whyte and HMRC around. He has yet to have the opportunity to redeem himself. I can't see in any way, no matter how many excuses you make that any manager in Rangers history could be considered worse than PLG. You can talk as much as you like about what coulda, shoulda been but in the cold light of day his results were abysmal and he didn't win a single trophy which puts him below John Greig and Jock Wallace's second spell. In my lifetime I'd put the pecking order as follows: 1. Walter Smith (2nd spell) Due to the achievements to budget ratio winning the championship most year and discounting PLG's season only finished a close second once. And the memories of a European final. 2. Walter Smith (1st spell) Amazing run of years where he won the championship every year except one, where he finsihed second by 2 points. Then there's the amazing CL run and multiple cup wins. 3. Jock Wallace (1st spell) Two trebles says it all - without the kind of financial help that Souness, Smith and Advocaat received. 4. Graeme Souness Was aided by an amazing budget and the ability to sign top English players but he did have a very strong New Firm to beat where Alex Ferguson had only just left Aberdeen. We had a pretty good European cup run too. 5. Ally McCoist Has not really proven himself yet; however, has not measurably underperformed in the league yet compared to those below him. His whole tenure is skewed by off the field events and makes it hard to judge. He will be judged more fairly when the club settles down - and he seems to be doing at minimum an adequate job this season. He may have more money to spend than rivals but that is nothing new for Rangers managers, and it's still not easy to churn out the results. There should maybe be an asterisk next to this one - the circumstances make this incredibly difficult to compare. 6. Alex McLiesh See text from top of post. 7. Dick Advocaat I can see how people can criticise McCoist for having more money than his rivals and let off Dick who lost badly to Celtic after the first two seasons despite having a budget that no Scottish team could ever really afford. 8. John Greig After just missing out on the treble in his first season, he went rapidly downhill. Hampered by a lack of interest by the owners and a modest budget, and of course having to compete against Alex Ferguson and Jim McLean, he still should have done better but alas while he was a legend as a player, stepping straight from the dressing room to the managers office was too much for him. 9. Jock Wallace (2nd spell) Never really got the budget he deserved but he still had more to spend than most and the team never achieved any momentum. Could not turn round a club that needed a kick up the backside which happened after he left. 10. Paul Le Guen Really not much to say here. 0 trophies, struggling for second place with no competition, didn't have the stomach to even make a fist of it. The best you can say about him is some reasonable European results.
-
The Tims call them "freedom fighters" - it doesn't make the IRA any more romantic for me. In fact you could call them "bad losers".
-
Didn't someone go on about about company law contradicting this? Although I'm sure he also said the law is a "fact" which obviously makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Or you have a referendum every week... I'm generally for the party system otherwise I wouldn't have a clue who to vote for and that's why I think it would work for fans groups representing share holders.
-
It's one of the biggest flaws of the party system...
-
I think Struth would have a similar opinion of him to many of us. The guy is scum and while I probably would be (hypocritically) less against him if he was directing his scummy deeds towards our real enemies, he is just there to throw excrement at people who actually care about Rangers. If we're going to have a difference of opinion and competing factions, I'd rather it was all done with a bit of dignity - firstly because it's Rangers and generally otherwise: who can you actually get behind and trust when the dust settles?
-
The ironic thing is that with some of our songs or actions - like say the Plastic Paddy song, or the red-hand sultue, they infer an offensive meaning that is just not there. They themselves then imply a meaning that IS there and then tush-tush us when complain about it and vociferously deny it all, even though the consistent use of the type of language is becoming bit gratuitous, and pretty childish.
-
I'll qualify that with the possibility they were never asked as they have the power to make the decision of whether to ask and can pre-empt it.
-
In a word, yes. IMHO of course.
-
The more I think about it the more the sporting advantage aspect of Ibrox pales to insignificance. We have our national stadium out of commission, the only other club with a big enough stadium are refusing for some unknown (but guessable) reason and a rugby stadium not seen as an option by a narrow minded football association, with the same going for English stadia. Ibrox is the only viable alternative left that can hold the number of fans who will demand tickets and so while regrettable, needs must. That is even so bleeding obvious when they actually plan to hold the country's blue riband cup final, with a potentially lucrative European place at stake at the holder's and favourite's stadium. It also has plenty of precedence so does why is suddenly different for a cup that doesn't really matter that much? Parkhead is really the most obvious solution but we all know that is run by a very weird, bigoted and hateful sect that will go to any lengths to put a stick in Rangers works. When you've tried your best and then provide the best available solution, if it's a bit flawed then it can't be helped. Instead we go for the stupid option and that's just typical of a totally broken national game that is run by those narrowed to extreme self interest and hatred for any rivalry. Scottish football is a continuous laughing stock and the sooner it is absorbed into a British system the better.
-
So he's judging cup final ticket numbers by previous rounds then? So for Eater road he'll only want 2119 for his supporters then - after all that's the number that went to their semi-final and including the Annan fans. Perhaps we should do that for all finals... Is he really this stupid? The likes of Hibs get about 6k for a Scottish cup match and then demand 24k for the final - as do second tier clubs with a few thousand regular fans. I'm sure there's usually over 20k at a home Rangers home cup tie, including the Challenge cup, and so you can probably double that for a final. I'm sure Raith will want about 8k. Pessimistically you'd have seen 35k at Ibrox and probably over 45k for my guess. Even at a paltry 30k you've just increased your income by a whopping 50%. BTW As he's praising the final not being held at Ibrox does that mean he's implying that Celtic Park for the Scottish cup final is potentially a very bad decision along with the semis at Ibrox? But in the end this just seems line another in a long line of sneaky, mendacious, below the belt punches at Rangers fans who are the most loyal in the country and want to see their team - and so what if they didn't attend the previous rounds, if that's a crime then the rest of Scottish football are far more guilty. IMHO I think Celtic didn't want us at their patch picking up a cup and with the possibility of perhaps damaging their precious hole of a stadium. And of course any excuse to devalue anything Rangers do into the bargain is manna from heaven to them. I just hope we go there, play really well and win the trophy in style.
-
Can't believe the Record actually talking sense for once.
-
Sounds like he has no place on the SFA board.
-
Ramsdens Cup Final to be held at Easter Road
calscot replied to 54andcounting's topic in Rangers Chat
Is it not obvious that the Ramsdens cup should be held at the biggest neutral football stadium necessary ie Celtic Park as Rangers are in the final, and the Scottish cup final should follow suit meaning if Celtic are in the final it's at Ibrox, if Rangers are in the final it's at Parkhead and if both are in the final then as we have no neutral football ground large enough, we move it to Murrayfield... And if we can't get Murrayfield we make a request for St James or the Stadium of Light. If the FA cup final can be played in Cardiff for a suitable, neutral stadium, I can't see why we can't travel to Northumbria... Really, really simple stuff. But then we have a very biased and cheating cabal running the game... -
Trouble is, how many regular posters do we have and then what proportion of them would actually stump up the money? Say 50? That's only £2500 a year... At 40 times that it might be a viable proposition but still a tiny voice. Still, it would be great to have 100k worth of shares between us (bought with one broker fee) and nominate someone to speak and vote for us at the AGM.
-
I think part of the fan appetite part comes from the fact that it's usually a lot of money required eg £1000 at a time and the lack of an organised way of then having your voice really heard. If Barcelona can charge £150 for a membership fee and have 170k subscribers then why can't we get 40k paying £50 for not just membership but a genuine share in the club that lasts a lifetime or can be sold on? It's hard to gauge an appetite for this when it's never really been offered. I think the bigger obstacles are to have owners that buy into it and someone to organise the logistics to make it happen. I think RFFF and SOS have shown the support can be galvanised when someone actually takes the bull by the horns and organises it. The problem there is finding someone whom the fans can trust as a figurehead before they part with their money. We needed someone like Kennedy to put up his money to buy Rangers in administration and then over say a five year period, making his money back while selling ownership on to the fans in a piecemeal fashion.
-
PS Looking at the Championship table, I think next season will not only be a big step up but is also far more interesting in that we know a lot more about the clubs who have far more of a higher profile history. Stenhousemuir brings up a blank when I think of them, while Raith Rovers and Falkirk bring back memories of performances, style and results. Who can forget, "And they'll be celebrating on the streets of Raith [sic] tonight!" Or "FC Bayern 0 - 1 Raith Rovers FC"?
-
Hearts really don't look like they have the potential to beat the drop. They have a 15 point disadvantage but have gained no more points than second bottom after more than a quarter of the season. Could it make next season a bit more interesting? In fact half the teams will be no strangers to the SPL and will be not be much different to playing the bottom half of the top league. That's when our current squad will make a lot more sense. We could have saved money with a lesser team this season (although who wants the results and performances to be worse than they are?) but we'd have the same squad for next season too as who is going to sign a one year contract? Otherwise we could have ended up like QotS in the bottom three of the Championship - which so many people wanted to copy.
-
Get a small tablet (or smartphone) and a smart tv. You can browse on the tablet and then "throw" the page to the tv... MirrorLink and Widi compatible stuff will be even better.
-
I've no problem with it apart from it's damn ugly!
-
I've always thought there could be something like the board could offer an annual share issue to the fans of say £50 each which gives a pro-rata share of the value of the club at the time (without artificially inflating it). If that had 40k take up that's £2m a year income for the club to spend. And giving say a £20m value now, in about ten years the fans could own half the club (even more if the club's worth doesn't increase as much as the cash injection). That's a bit simplistic but it gives the gist. I think then there needs to be some sort of party system where you proxy your vote to one party from say three to five available whose policies you mostly agree with, and by being a member of that party you get to vote in the pressure group members and AGM representative, with the number of your votes proportional to your shares. Ten years may sound like a long time but slow and easy beats standing still any day. A pound a week is also pretty affordable and your money doesn't exactly just disappear as the shares would be sellable and you have the voting rights as long as you own them. People could also club together. The parties could start off with the likes of the RST, SOS and any forum that wanted to morph into that kind of entity, including Gersnet. They would each need a constitution that limited the maximum number of shares for one person (even as low as one per year of membership) and bar institutions to keep them democratic. But there is nothing stopping us from doing this now by buying shares on AIM as the OP says. The only problem is you need the shares to be for sale and the more you buy the more the share price goes up which is a good or bad thing whichever way you look at it. If we could coordinate it in some way we could reduce the brokers fees to an acceptable level. Ironically this is what the RST has been about but it's not something they have been able to really capture the imagination of the fans with. Due to the newco the gers-save scheme must also have burnt a few fingers. Perhaps the way to use the infighting as a strength is for all the factions to get together and form a collective party system, that way they can all thrive in the same system with a common goal.
-
I like the quote.
-
-
It seems to be all about someone who wants to sling mud at Rangers by phoning some phone number believing it belonged to a wanted criminal, being told it's a wrong number and being hung up on, then publishing this "insightful" information as some kind of evidence that everything about Rangers is abnormal and criminal. That's pretty much all we got from him. There may be more to it but you could only take that from the innuendo at best.
-
Might have been more prudent if you PMed me instead...
