BBC McCoist told to make cuts

[Super Cooper 0]

Why not? What is the universally correct age? Players are considered rookies right up until about 23 which is why you still get U23 sides. There is an U21 league so no matter what your opinion is, it disagrees with pretty much the whole of the profession.

 

But the point that you have completely missed is that if you compare past squads you'll find far more over 21s. YOU want to discount this as it doesn't suit you. You like to count all players above about 17 as part of the first team squad so you can say it's huge, but it's comparing apples with oranges.

 

Says who? You? Why then do we have U21 leagues? If that is then why don't we release all 20 year olds who are not yet in the first team? Why are there no big clubs full of 18 year olds? Again your using your very unique view compared to most of top professional football to completely miss the point. That is that when we counted the previous squads in the past, we didn't count the youngsters.

 

IIRC We used to have over 30 experienced professionals, and some people like to call our current squad, "huge" and other hyperbole.

 

Your final comment just says you are totally unable to make a convincing argument.

 

Let me ask you something, if I'm blind, how come I can include so much breadth of scope? If I'm biased how come I can compare both sides and also change my mind if the facts or my understanding changes? If I'm talking nonsense, how come I can explain it in much detail, in many ways? Then see if you can apply the same attributes to yourself.

 

There is no universally correct age, players develop at different rates. You just used a figure which would suit your argument. Rookies by who? Stop it. Football is not black and white.

 

Comparisons like that are pointless, they mean nothing as next to no similarities exist.

 

Yeah me and every football manager who chooses to pick teenagers in their teams and squads. Obviously they wouldn't be picked if the boss doesn't think they are ready. No one is asking for full teams of 18 year olds, professional football is a sport played by men aged 16 to 40 generally, players can be of any age within that range depending on physical fitness and ability. I am not counting the Stoneys, Telfers, Sinnamons or Hardies either, just the ones who have been included in the first team. Our first team squad is 30-32 strong with a full youth set up underneath that.

 

The current squad is huge whether you want to play about with ages or not. Around 30 players are considered for our first team squad every week.

 

But then i am not trying to convince anyone.

 

I have no interest in writing boring essay long replies in an attempt to change peoples minds or enforce my views, that's not what i am here for nor is it the type of person i am.

[Super Cooper 0]

There is hardly a team in Europe who have players ready at 18/19 , also how many do you want ready , 1 . 2 or a whole squad , this bringing kids through nonsense was and is a dream of those living in a footballing fantasy world

 

There are players all over the world who break into teams at an early age. How many do i want at Rangers? As many as possible, obviously. For the level we found ourselves at in the summer of 2012 we had a terrific chance to hire a manager with a track record of developing young players and bring through more than usual, we had a chance to believe in and give time to more than just Lewis MacLeod. Instead we signed a team of has-beens and went with a manager with absolutely no experience or clue for what we needed.

 

Instead of a board with brains and ambition to do what is best for the football club we got a group of spivs out to bleed us dry whilst keeping in place a manager to keep fans onside and distracted elsewhere. The last 2 years on and off the park have been heartbreaking.

 

This bringing kids through is what football teams the world over do. That is football, every experienced player started their careers somewhere and every one of them was once 17/18/19.

[rbr 1,247]

You have answered your own point , to do what you wanted takes time , a proper scouting network and a board and manager that all sing from the same hymn sheet , we had none of these , very few players and an illegal transfer embargo , yet you expected some sort of football heaven , it was never going to happen

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Super Cooper 0]

You have answered your own point , to do what you wanted takes time , a proper scouting network and a board and manager that all sing from the same hymn sheet , we had none of these , very few players and an illegal transfer embargo , yet you expected some sort of football heaven , it was never going to happen

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And we had that time, we had a chance to rebuild and blew it. We will never have a better chance to organise ourselves. We will not revert to type and do what we do best. Living outwith our means with short term fixes season after season.

 

No one is expecting football heaven, that's unfair.

[rbr 1,247]

How did we have time , and how did you think these young players were going to come from

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Super Cooper 0]

How did we have time , and how did you think these young players were going to come from

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In the summer of 2012 we had 3 years to build our future. 3 years without a challenge. We made a complete Noel Hunt of it.

 

What do we pay youth coaches for and why do we have a youth set up?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I better point out that SC's post has clouded the main thrust of my point, which is that while cutting the cost of the squad may be desirable but does not seem very practicable, which means while we should do what can be done, and improve recruitment policy for the future, the main focus of cost cutting should be elsewhere, and a parallel emphasis made on endeavours to increase revenue.

 

We have to prioritise what will give us the biggest gains, instead of lustily taking a meat cleaver to what brings in the money in the first place and which already offers very slim pickings.

 

I agree with this good summary and also most of #54.

 

The only question I would have is, is it correct to say that

 

The problem is that we reputedly pay them off the whole amount and then they double up on a new wage elsewhere. When you do that, where is their need to compromise? Seems to me we need to let them rot in the reserves until they are desperate to leave.

 

Do we know that for certain?

 

Or isn't it more likely that this is what has happened and if not it certainly will in future.

 

Surely you'd think there was a compromise where we let them go and pay them the difference between their Rangers basic and their expected wages for whichever new team they find? Surely that is better for us and better for them?

[calscot 0]

I agree with this good summary and also most of #54.

 

The only question I would have is, is it correct to say that

 

 

 

Do we know that for certain?

 

Or isn't it more likely that this is what has happened and if not it certainly will in future.

 

I don't know for certain and personally find it very hard to believe, but it's what repeatedly gets reported (which is why I used "reputedly").

 

I really hope not.

[calscot 0]

With reference to another thread it seems the board have tried to play a card I didn't expect and go for an across the board pay-cut. It's an extreme one though and not surprising it didn't work, people don't work that way these days and have had no leading by example from the board.

 

The worrying thing is that it smacks of desperation...