bmck

perhaps man. these are changed times. i think what's made last season so frustrating is the memory of the (tired) football we were playing towards the end. and also the fact that despite our better players being clearly knackered, walter still chose to field them. with a bit more energy from backup-type players we could have won the league - as our subs tend still to be as good as spl teams. on the other hand, i watched a game on rangers tv a while ago, showing a christmas-time game with either dundee utd, or aberdeen, and there was passing, and moving, and players running into space. these are the better aspects of the game, and it's hard not to see them very often through the course of a season. i'm not saying i wouldnt like to see us actually getting the ball down and playing a bit, but aesthetics are less important than results. unfortunately for walter, all hte poor football we played wont quickly be forgotten as it would have been if we'd either won the uefa cup or league.

what's that got to do with anything? in a league like the spl, if we play at all well, the chances are we'll win. and we did win most of the time, even without playing well. a glorious defeat is just a defeat.

i cant stand this. football is about winning games. fuck europe if they think we are a laughing stock - it was us who got the final. and it was nowhere near as bad as some people make out - we had some remarkable performances in that european run. winning is all that matters.

thanks man! :D

are there highlights of the friendly anywhere that anyone knows of? Highlights here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLNlXZf3-i4

walter smith has been extremely testy with the fans since he's came back; i think he has his own agenda with all that. i wouldn't be suprised if the miller deal was put to murray in terms of being an a) decent signing, and b) something that would set a precedent for players moving between clubs and it's not being a big deal.

bloody hell! some servery person must flick a switch: slow where gribz is/slow where everyone else is. it cant be both at the same time

i'll have a look into it. the main page side doesn't seem to be running slowly, so i think it's just the forum.

many thanks scooter - these are outstanding.

im quite sure walter smith all but promised a creative midfielder at the end of last season, as it was so apparent it was needed. but now everyone's started talking about our new first 11 - do we think that we're going to go with pretty much what we have? are there creative midfielders in mind that perhaps we dont know about yet?

you cant steal from something you own. how can this be taken seriously?

i do see what you're saying. i hate money too, but for every second that the worker isn't interested in their wage, they hand their will over to people who profit directly from that lack of interest. i've seen too many businesses arse people over when they're pregnant/ill etc. a worker doesn't get a share of the company's profits - they are worth their wage and nothing more, so i can absolutely sympathise when they want the sum of it. but, in the end, it's upto them: they can fight it out between themselves

that's just too much to respond to. ultimately, the people changing the status quo are the ones with burden. that's just it. i dont blame rangers for trying to get him out for less than his total contract worth, thats their perogative - but as the ones instigating the process, the responsibility is theirs. if he doesn't want to go for less than his contract is worth, and stick it all out, that's upto him. if he wants to leave, then it's probably best he settles for a reasonable payout - but given that he's stated through his agent that he wants to stay, then there's nothing that makes him an arse for seeing out his contract, and not taking less than its full worth.

fine here too m8. phone those bassas!

^ i tend to trust ws. he's a relatively fair guy. not big on using untested players, but since he went out of his way to get him, something must have happened. who knows what though.

if my employer wanted to release me from my fix term contract, after they had agreed to it, i would be asking for the whole sum of it. that is precisely the situation here. rangers want rid of him - be it by sacking or mutual consent. as such, given that they are the party wanting him out the door, the burden is entirely on them. if they didn't want to pay him X a week for Y years then they shouldn't have signed him. personally i dont care one way or the other, but i'm not sure how you can, in any reasonable manner, shift the burden onto him here. if your employer commited to employ you for four years, and wanted to shift you out the door beforehand, you are quite frankly an idiot if you take something less than the sum of your full contract. he is owed every penny of his fixed term contract. no grabbing the word "mutual" and, by some sleight of hand, pretending that both parties are dying to part way, is going to change that. rangers want him out the door - he's not willing to go for less than his contract is worth. that's the simple facts - reason from there. all this talk of "mutual" as if the whole thing arose spontaneously, from everyone involved's free will, is just obsfucation. employers who want to end people's fixed contracts early shouldn't be suprised when their employee demands their full worth. there is no other balance of obligation. fans sympathies can lie where they will - allowing sympathies either way to start distorting exactly what's going on, though, is just taking up the cause to propoganda. it's nothing like this. it's not even remotely like this. i disagree that it's overly greedy to ask for how much someone had already agreed to give you, but i guess your respect is quite a precarious thing. no-one's saying you cant express it for goodness sake. all this is bifurcation any way. it's only you that's turning this into a player versus club situation. nonetheless, your position on its own merits is ridiculous - that someone should, when their paymasters find them expendible, walk away with whatever they are given, is just not something i would expect any sensible person to believe.

i never said it had to be objective. he isn't trying to make more money out of you, or anyone. it would be like saying that if i got sacked today, and tried to claim for what i've worked this month, i would be asking for *more*. asking for what you are legally entitled to is necessarily not asking for more. i also dont care whether you like him or not. its ridiculous to say that a person who demands what they are owed is taking more off anyone, much less you personally. they were under attack for the hypocrisy in asking for an extension at one stage, and then denying it at another. there's no hypocricy in taking the wage you are entitled to, otherwise companies would get to not pay people at will. again - it's ridiculous. i never said anything about the latter, so your question must be for someone else.

^ i totally disagree. it's not his fault he was signed and given a good contract; he's under no obligation to give up what he is owed contractually because of some vague notion of it not being nice for the fans. thats ridiculous. it would have been better for the fans if ws had tried to get any use out of the money he spent on him.

it does seem to me to be a worthy subject......

or even if they trained him to have more than one tone of voice

if that's the case then the term "ira tv" is misleading and just a bit bitter. it implies paying setanta is akin to supporting the ira. their coverage is shite, undoubtedly, but i'd still like to see rangers away games - the actions of their board members doesn't interest me, as a consumer, so much as their prices and product. sky's a fortune, but their coverage is better. i would prefer they had the rights as you might finally stumble upon someone who knows what they're talking about - but i just want to see the fitbaw.

cheers man. all the signs leading up to it are not good - that meeting with murray and the bullshit bingo statement that followed, and then this. not the greatest. it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

why do you call setanta "ira tv"? they're irish, certainly, but what's the link with the ira?

how did the sgm go? or is it still to come?

yup, lovety lovety. i really thought it would have worn off by now, but, no, love abounds. now, you and craig get back to your boyd bantering.