calscot
-
Posts
11,722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by calscot
-
Where they play seems to be a huge can of worms...
-
Hmm. You seem to be still rumbling on well after the storm has past. Look, once again, all I did was try to engage you in debating your position, and gave my OPINION that when someone refuses to debate their point, how are we suppose to know whether their point has any substance? You were then incredibly antagonistic: "I don't like your attitude! You see everything in black and white. You'll never change my mind. You talk nonsense." I tried to talk sensibly to you about the whole idea of debating but you went off on an illogical tangent each time and completely ignored or misrepresented my verbosely explained points until you had a massive whoosh moment and I didn't see where I could go from there. If you really want to agree to disagree you forfeit any right to the last word but you seem very intent on it - if you don't want to cook, stop stirring the pot. Now you're five minutes are up, I'm sorry but I'm not allowed to argue any more. If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
-
Could this have a possible massive anti-climax? We get the names and then ask, "who the hell are they?" As suggested by a previous poster, any nefarious, anti-Christ type figure could hide behind a nominee. I thought that before but then had the companies act thrown at me so now not so sure. Tried to read that but man that is dull, soporific stuff.
-
Which part do you find most bitchy? Maybe the last line was a bit off but I couldn't resist the paraphrasing... For me, twisting the facts to have a go at your own management team isn't exactly the epitome of playing nice.
-
I agree. As I said where would you draw the line and why? Say we have two 17 year olds, one joined at 12, the other came from another club at 16, should we fast track the first one regardless of ability to boost our "not been at another club" stats? To me it shows all this counting the youths is "silly", even when the count is not false to suit an agenda. It seems to me that we play plenty of youngsters and at the same time are running away with the competition we're in. So what are people actually complaining about except for "silly" criteria? Does it really matter about exactly what age they joined the club? It kind of reminds me of the "first high profile, Irish catholic senior player from Dublin" headlines. They have to really narrow down the criteria to make us look bad when we've actually signed plenty of catholics. Now it seems the youngsters we're playing don't really count...
-
Doesn't it show that this kind of thing is hardly applicable to the quest for winning championships? Arsenal seem to be a good case for NOT developing youth. 60k fans paying through the nose, fourth most valuable club in Europe after Man U and the two Spanish giants, a very stable club who have had the same manager for 17 years, considerable investment in youth development, the pick of Europe's best youngsters who will move to London to play for them, and they are perennial also rans... Eight years since they won anything or finished better than third. I suppose they are top at the moment and usually finish third or fourth against three teams who spend more money on wages - although Arsenal do spend £143m per year. Arsenal have also been highly criticised for signing flops and being unable to get rid of them and overpaid young players leading to a very bloated squad. Holding them to the same scrutiny as Rangers have been on here makes them look incredibly badly run and managed.
-
Haven't used any text on telly for about 15 years... Except as a one off curiosity for the digital telly version. Internet is a lot easier, especially since News Now came on-line.
-
So where do you draw the line? Pretty much all the lads will have played for a team previously, even if it's their school. If the criticism is that we don't have enough lads in the team who signed at say, eight years old then it's a pretty obscure one that is virtually meaningless.
-
Cherry picking your stats to make a very watered down point? How about Little and Crawford who have started twelve (same as McLeod) and eight games each - more than half the games, don't they count? Scott Gallagher has also started six games, McAusland four, Hegarty two, Mitchell one. Then Aird has had 5 sub appearances and McKay four, Hutton two and Murdoch one. Maybe I should stretch stats the other way and include Stephen Smith who has started three games. That suggests to me that you're not actually interested in accuracy.
-
Done...
-
I don't think I have the football knowledge and analysis skills to do this for any team, never mind Rangers. I'm often impressed with those skills from the analysts on TV and they show me strategies I'd have never noticed - like Germany's switching midfielder tactics. But then I don't watch enough football to do the studying. I'm mostly interested in watching Rangers and as I can't get to many games and it's now difficult to watch on TV, I don't even see them much these days, apart from the highlights. Last game I went to was the Newcastle game and that was quite enjoyable but any analysis was limited by my pre-match alcohol intake. I did see the Dons a last season and they did seem to have a philosophy of keeping the ball on the deck against Wimbledon AFC. However, that was a very one dimensional tactic which if not for a late goal could have been disastrous. They had a lot of possession, little penetration and were almost mugged on the break quite a few times. When you play the one same way, as Levein found out, your opposition suss you out. It was also a quite boring with lots of short passes going nowhere with Wimbledon sitting back a lot... I remember thinking it's how it would be if Rangers did that all the time - all the teams sitting back and us just passing it around with nothing much ever happening and lots of 0-0 draws as a result. If you can watch a few games of any team and then do an in depth analysis of their formation and tactics then that's an admirable skill I don't think I have. However, I don't feel I see that much to learn from on here in that respect... The guys on the telly seem to be a lot better - and they are usually ex-players and managers, like McCoist, Strachan and Eck etc.
-
So you're saying the conditions surrounding the club and the strength of the squad are the same as last season? You haven't noticed any change at all? Last season we did not have a proper squad or preparations. You know Queens Park could sign Ronaldo, pay him £15m a year, therefore have three times the wage outlay as us - but would that make them a much better team than us? Would they be certain of beating all Premier teams with just that one extra player? It doesn't work that way. What if he got injured? It wouldn't change the resources they were spending... What if he just played crap because he was demotivated with the team he was playing with? The amount you spend does is not always reflected in your results - none more so that cup games. Using your very own argument, Barcelona are an example NOT to follow, they couldn't even beat Celtic, a team with a fraction of their resources. The problem was we played half a team of rookies last season, and that affects consistency - or how come we beat the second in the SPL? Ironically, you arguing that we should play kids like last season but in the same breath you're saying that was a year wasted. The thing is, the money is spent and we are winning the league we are in. Why are people moaning? I really don't get it. I would understand more if last season was lauded for the playing of so many young players, but it's treated like a disaster year that was excruciating. You seem very confused. You don't really know what you want, but you want it last year...
-
If someone wants to anonymously hold shares in a company they can easily do so without us EVER finding out. And the law and business ethics are on their side for that, until they break the those rules themselves.
-
That may or may not be the case, but I'm struggling to see how you could come to that conclusion. If we were struggling in this league the it would be logical that we would struggle more in a harder league. But when you're winning every game at an average of 4.2 goals to 0.5 then although you have no real evidence to say you'll do better in a higher league, you've certainly none to say that the team would struggle. The logic would actually suggest we are capable of competing in a much higher league than we're in and seeing as there is only one team that have more resources than us, so suggesting we'd be not too bad when two leagues up is hardly stretching the bounds of plausibility. But then people like to believe things to suit their own agenda, strange as they may be.
-
It is credible. ANYONE could have shares in our club. The relevance is zero as is the evidence given.
-
Do I have to remind people that the likes of Barcelona and Ajax have both recently been beaten by Celtic? But I can see the team talk now - "Right, I want you to go out and play like Barcelona. Lewis, you're Messi." Can we actually give an example where we don't have to get into half a billion pounds worth of debt to emulate? Or with regards to Dortmund, have to raise £300m income in order to spend over £100m on the team. It's like being annoyed a tennis coach doesn't seem to be teaching your reasonably talented son to play like Andy Murray. And here was me thinking that everyone wanted us to play like Queen of the South - oh but wait, aren't we doing better than that? Ok, that moan backfired, so let's upgrade our comparison to Barcelona, you can't argue with that one. I would love someone on here to use this philosophy for some Sunday league team and take the country by storm. After all, it sounds so easy...
-
Well, apparently it's the wrong number...
-
So let's get this straight. Jackson, without giving any reasoning whatsoever, calls a number which he expects to be answered by a wanted criminal whom he wants to seemingly randomly ask if he has shares in Rangers, is told he has the wrong number and the phone is hung up. And this is news why? It's the lowest form of propaganda, make something up, show your complete lack of evidence but dress it up as fact and try and have the mud stick by innuendo. You could phone any number in the world at random and get the same result. Or choose the numbers of most unsavoury characters you can think of. It means absolutely NOTHING. Even if the most scummy person you could think of - say some British hating terrorist who bombs innocent women and children and runs a brutal organised crime gang in their home country for instance, and if you actually find they have anonymous shares in a football club - what has that got to do with the club and its fans? How do you stop anyone you don't like anonymously buying shares in any company? I'm sure there is different club from Rangers where you could find quite a few of these investors - but the massive difference is that they are also hero worshipped by the clubs fans and indeed players and manager. I really can't believe people were giving respect to this lying Rangers hater just because for he once had some actual embarrassing truths to preach his bigotry with. I can't believe that anyone with the interests of Rangers at heart would either buy this rag or collaborate in a story. We need to fight this one. Yes, we want to know if we have scum investing in our club but this is just using propaganda to drag our name through the dirt. Along with the Red hand salute story the smear campaign is really getting up through the gears. There seems to be no motivation other than to incite hatred against a section of our population. We have to start fighting it.
-
Here's the squad for AEK Athens. Andy Goram Basile Boli Richard Gough Dave McPherson David Robertson Ian Ferguson Stuart McCall Brian Laudrup Gordon Durie Duncan Ferguson Mark Hateley Sub on for Durie: Ian Durrant 69 Actually looking at that it was a pretty good team. But then AEK are a far bigger club than most Rangers fans give them credit for. I do think that part of it was that the 3-5-2 system just didn't work - with those players anyway, and especially with Boli who didn't fit in it at all.
-
I remember Walter saying how he envied Advocaat's squad with all the top internationals on the bench. Smith had the likes of Cleland, Nesbitt and Murray on the park and a load of journeymen and kids on bench like Bolan etc. We had some great first team players but we didn't have strength in depth. If we didn't have all our best players fit and on form then we had a good chance of having a bad game. Need to look up a squad list to find and example.
-
Could part of the flaw be that there are not at least a few hundred bears complaining to UEFA, the SFA, the police, the council, their local MPs, FARE and NBM or even the swamping the phone ins and news story comment sections?
-
Good for you! I've been informed the appropriate response for this is supposedly, "we'll agree to disagree." I personally would prefer to debate the points but it does seem to have become unfashionable.
-
Even taking the morality out of the equation, it seems to be obvious to me that it is the MOPEs who are far better at explaining why they are offended than we are at explaining why we are singing the songs. We don't actually have much of a case and so they have a huge advantage there. I also think that one of the reasons that they are not under so much scrutiny is that they are infinitely more motivated to spend a load of time and effort, and with no shame, complaining and taking things as far as they can go. They are indoctrinated so much that they have their cleverest people having the equivalent of second jobs doing this, while our more clever people are the ones in dismay that we sing our dodgy songs in the first place, and even if they are fine with them, they are not so rabid as to spend all their spare time on some sort of single minded crusade. We are at a huge disadvantage and that's why the answer is to first clean up our act. The only way to fight fire with fire is to become just like them. Is that really what people want? We fight the evil by becoming the evil? Just what is the point in that? Maybe we need to decide what "We are people" means. I can't see how we are different by being the same as them.
-
Don't get why that's a surprise... I'm in my mid forties and ironically find most kids pretty computer illiterate. They know how to browse the internet and do facebook and that's about it - it's not exactly difficult these days when you don't have to even install anything (ethernet card, drivers, Winsockets, TCP/IP stack, Netscape) never mind setting up gateway DNS, and proxy servers etc. FTP has a non internet meaning for most young Rangers fans, and you needed that to download everything. My grandfather was on the Internet at 92 and he passed away about 10 years ago...
-
It was a world class miss...