williamh 0 Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Personally I think he deserved a chance 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 How can someone be a reject before being tried? Eh, pretty simple. For example, I could pick up an apple, see it looks a bit bruised and reject it without trying it. Is it so hard to understand? It says something about the management signing policy if they are signing rejects in the first place Well as most of the rejects were signed by PLG I suppose it does. What 'Reject' have we signed in the past? Every player we signed who didn't produce the goods and was moved on. There is no evidence ANY of our players would improve performances prior to playing for us, hence the purpose of trying someone - so why label them a reject before even being tried? There are many reasons to reject anything, we don't know the whole story about Gow, whether he's rejected is up to Smith. You could say Bougherra was a 'reject' before playing for us as he was at lowley charlton Bougherra may have been a reject at another club but that doesn't make him a Rangers reject. You could say the fact we came runners up in the 2 most important competitions suggests Walters decisions not to try other players instead of those running on empty were wrong. Had he been succesful and won those competitions then you would have a point but you dont. That's easy enough to say but the point that Walter got there in the first place suggests he was doing something right. I really can't see how picking Gow would have won us UEFA cup. Walter didn't think he had it in him and I respect that decision from a manager who got us to the final. To call someone 9000 miles away an armchair fan is laughable considering Ive probably been to more games than you in the last 4 years. That's a bit cringeworthy - I didn't realise that going to some games gives you better credentials to make managerial decisions than Walter Smith... anyway well done you for going to more games than me. I really expected better from you as you used to be a very good poster, but now you're taking things far too personally and I now expect a petty groan from you every time I disagree with you. Let me tell you now, my posts are generally not personal, I think things through logically and often come up with different conclusions than others. Feel free to disagree with them but please try to understand them first- it might be interesting to see an explanation of a different viewpoint to your own, and I do try to make some kind of sense. If I disagree with you, it's not likely to be a personal attack. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Well as most of the rejects were signed by PLG I suppose it does. Wasn't Gow signed by Walter though? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Yes I believe he was, but I did say, "most" not "all". We only kept one of PLG's signings - so you could say the rest were rejects. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter 0 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Walter signed him and NEVER played him in a competitive fixture IIRC. Something went on that we were not made aware of, end of story. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Walter signed him and NEVER played him in a competitive fixture IIRC. Something went on that we were not made aware of, end of story. He did play for us competitively. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Yes I believe he was, but I did say, "most" not "all". We only kept one of PLG's signings - so you could say the rest were rejects. I thought Walter signed him. That's exactly my point though. Why did WS sign him? Was it to stop Celtic from signing a promising player from under our noses? It's strange. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I still don't see why we should have any sympathy for him. He's in his early 20's and earning what, 250k a year? I was a student and then unemployed after graduating in my early 20's before going back to Uni to do a masters and then finally landing a job in the middle of the recession for 12k a year. It's well known players of that age can have an attitude and act in a way that would get most of us fired and finding it difficult to get another job. However, in football they have a contract, and continue to get paid without having to play a competitive game and get any sort of result. They then get sold to another team, get a signing on fee and a clean slate. I don't know what Gow did but it must be something and getting paid a fortune for doing bugger all is hardly the worst punishment in the world. I have no reason to feel sorry for him and have no loyalty towards him. My loyalty is for Rangers and as the team is doing reasonably well without him and appears to be harmonious. I don't find the outpouring of sympathy for him or all the what-ifs very constructive. I feel fans would be better to place their loyalty with a reasonably successful manager than an estranged player who didn't exactly make many fans excited with his signing. There will always be players who don't get a regular game and end up being moved on, so why the obsession with Gow? I have more regret about the likes of Amato, Tugay and of course Albertz. However, I supported the manager at the time to pick his own team. The players change all the time but my club remains as Rangers. I wish Gow all the best but in the scheme of things, I'm not too bothered about him as a non-Rangers player, and with so few players doing much after Rangers, I think his chances of making it really big are pretty slim. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I thought Walter signed him. That's exactly my point though. Why did WS sign him? Was it to stop Celtic from signing a promising player from under our noses? It's strange. I think he signed him as looked like a reasonable squad filler but he obviously didn't come up to scratch in one way or another, be it ability, attitude or whatever. Walter obviously has his reasons but he's not divulging them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) I think he signed him as looked like a reasonable squad filler but he obviously didn't come up to scratch in one way or another, be it ability, attitude or whatever. Which is an error on Rangers part, not Gows. Also, money isn't a factor in this discussion. I'm ont really fussed if he's earning 250k a year or whether you were unemployed after graduating or not. I'm asking why he was watched/scouted by WS then signed by WS only for him to rot away. If it turns out he wasn't good enough to play for us then someone at Rangers made a mistake. If he fucked up somewhere down the line while at Rangers then it's his fault. I suppose we'll never know. Edited September 7, 2009 by Gazza_8 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.