amms

If this point has been discussed later in the thread I apologise, I've only reached page 3 so far. PR is a multi-faceted discipline and in my opinion we're winning most of the battles Charles Green is choosing to fight just now. Celtic held a major press conference yesterday, it was pre-arranged and the media had been informed that Lawell would be present, he'd be making a major announcement and would be taking questions from the floor. Now in Scottish media terms that's as good as it gets. That's 2 or 3 days worth of material right there. Celtic announcing a new shirt sponsor, a multi-million pound deal with a global brand in a depressed market against great uncertainty in football; that's a great bit of business by Celtic, perfectly timed to follow the league reconstruction plans. It's easy stories for journalists and it's being handed to them on a plate. What's on the back pages today? What's everyone, and I mean everyone, talking about today? It ain't Celtic's new sponsors that's for sure. Green gave an interview to the club's own website, more or less off-the-cuff and today is dominating the media and the agenda. Indeed a third division club, with no vote or say in reconstruction is dominating the discourse on it this week. E We're not just winning some PR battles we're carrying out massacres just now. To understand PR properly it's important to understand what the strategy is. From my position, outside, i'm privy to no inside information on this, I think we're playing a very good PR game just now. Whether the 'PR' we're getting suits supporters is a different question, it definitely suits the owners though.

The average revenue on a 'pay-per-click' web ad is approximately 25p. The average click through on a web banner is approximately 6%. I'm not sure what impressions the Rangers website gets but I'd be surprised if its not measured in the millions over the course of a year. Other forms of web advertising will have different revenue potential, particularly Rangers TV.

One league body, apparently that's the carrot.

I don't fancy a 20 year old goalie to be fair. I like my keepers to be older, fitness is not a big issue but concentration and experience is. It feels like a lot of money Alexander is looking for, I've no problem giving a keeper his age a 2 year deal but £10k a week to play in the SFL feels excessive.

I think he means judged as a success, but it's clearly an answer to an unseen question. He pretty much makes the point that unless it's a straight procession to the top league he'll be seen as a failure, and even that might not be enough for some.

What's a 'meaningless game'? How can any game of football be meaningless, particularly if contested by two professional clubs? It's a misnomer, a term used by those with vested interests at play. Is Fulham v Swansea a meaningless game? What about Hamburg v Stuttgart or Valencia v Bilbao are they meaningless? Broadcasters will want to show matches that attract viewers, these will either involve clubs challenging for trophies or with big supports. That's the case in every league, Scotland is no different. A mid-table match between two clubs of average support is not meaningless, far from it, but it might not be all that attractive to TV, let's be clear here. I'm deeply depressed by these reports, I genuinely thought the winds of change were blowing now. But it seems not. Are the SFL 1 clubs are just as corruptible and avaricious as their SPL counterparts. Hell mend them if they are. Small leagues and 4 games a season is killing the game, it has been for years now. It stifles youth development, it stifles creativity and it bores supporters. Whatever our view of the SPL a couple of things have been demonstrated this season. There is an appetite for derby matches in football, Dundee and the Highlands have demonstrated this. An extended league will see more of these, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Fife and, dare I say it, Glasgow will bring supporters out. Also, with only 4 matches against Rangers and Celtic clubs can put a challenge together. Outside of the us and the Tims their isn't a huge amount resource wise between about another 16 clubs in Scotland. Yeah, Hearts, Aberdeen and Hibs are potentially much bigger than St Mirren or Inverness but not so much that the gap is insurmountable. If a club can put a side together that is the 'best of the rest' then they have a real chance to win the league. But in the current system, if Rangers were in the league too, there are 24 points contested, that's a tall order. Change that to 12 and it becomes achievable. Increased competition creates interest and improves viewing figures. Lastly quality; Scottish football is rank. Our best players are barely bit parts in the EPL and none are playing in any of the other major European leagues. This isn't just down to resources or facilities, we should still be able to produce a couple of great players every few seasons, Wales seems to be able to and their resources are similar to ours. The truth is our top clubs won't risk a young player if a journeyman is available. In a 10 or 12 team league too much is at stake to try out some youngsters. It's too easy to flirt with relegation in a league that size. I always thought it was criminal that Hamilton Accies were rewarded for producing 3 full international players by being relegated from the SPL. Where is the incentive? Mid table obscurity isn't meaningless, it's essential to the well being of our sport. If this goes through it might finally be time to pack up and chuck it.

Dorrans, Snodgrass, McArthur and McCarthy were all developed at SFL clubs. For us Alexander, Black and Templeton began their careers in the SFL. Obviously a few of our younger players could make that claim now too.

Ain't that the truth. Since the mid 1980s we've really only produced Barry Ferguson and Allan MacGregor who could be considered consistently top class. To be fair Scotland as a country has failed in that time too, but an argument could be made about our current plight and the consequence of our inability to produce our own players throughout the 90s and early 2000s.

Or at least their first professional club.

Pah, canny tackle, nae use in the air.

Subjectivity is the issue here, how do you compare two players who played in different positions? Was Goram better than Gough or Laudrup? Which is why we tend do look at international caps, appearances and trophies, even that's not an exact science as different eras can skew that. Durrant was a different type of player from Ferguson, a more exciting player, easier on the eye too, but Ferguson was more complete. I imagine Durrant's trophy haul is bigger than Ferguson's, but Barry had more caps. No one said this was easy.

Now that's a question! Who is the best player we've ever produced? I'm not sure what the criteria for this would be either; caps, trophies won? Durrant was a sublime footballer, he also appeared at a time when we weren't very good. His emergence gave hope for the future. I've often wondered what would have happened had Wallace not been replaced by Souness and instead Holmes had opened the purse strings to Jock Wallace. Anyway, what say the learned posters of Gersnet, who was the best player we ever produced? The really difficult thing in this is defining 'produced' actually. Someone like John Greig or Willie Henderson signed as schoolboys, whilst players like George Young and Alan Morton joined from Junior clubs, so did we actually 'produce' them, we were their first senior clubs and they were teenagers when they joined, also 'youth systems' didn't really exist then. From the modern era I'd say Allan McGregor is in with a shout.

What constant haranguing? I posted on this thread for possibly the first time today, certainly the first time in ages. I posted in response to Jauncornetto. It was you who chose to engage me not the other way round. Craig, for the record I don't know Kuznetsov, I've never knowingly spoke or met him, all I know about him is what I read on here. His hard-on for McCoist is wearisome, his grasp of tactics tenuous and his admiration for Celtic flawed in my opinion. Sometimes I ignore them and other times I challenge or engage him on them. I don't feel there is anything wrong with that. I always start off playing the ball not the man, how the game goes after that isn't just my decision.

Don't tell me what to do. If you've no desire to get into an argument then why do you post on a messageboard, do you expect people to solemnly nod at your sage-like posts? I've no issue with you personally because I don't know you, I disagree with some of your views on football. Get over it.

Is Edu getting a game for Stoke? Even fit Ness just didn't seem like their kind of player.

How is it a personal insult? I'm criticising your views on football tactics not you personally.

You're another one who struggles to read. I've no problem with you having an opinion but when it's clearly ignorant nonsense you should be criticised for it. We've over 180 pages of proof that you've not got any insight into professional football management or tactics.

It's a strawman, the two aren't analogous. If you go to a top restaurant and you don't enjoy the meal do you feel qualified to approach the chef and advise him on to improve it? Yeah, actually they are. I've had plenty of meals in my time but I wouldn't be able to run a kitchen at the busiest restaurant in town, could you? No one is saying you aren't allowed an opinion, simply that you should be called on it when it's clearly ill-informed bollocks. There was no argument to counter. If you aren't qualified to give tactical advice posters are fully entitled to criticise you for doing it. That's not infantile it's pointing out an clearly apparent fact. I've no beef with Juancornetto, I agree with much of his last paragraph, but not his first two.

You mean like you just did? Critics shouldn't complain when their criticism is in turn criticised, particularly when they are clearly not qualified to make it in the first place. When fans start talking about tactics like they are the bastard child of Helena Herrera they sound ridiculous.

I see reading still isn't a strong point of yours.

At the same time those who continually criticise someone are themselves open to criticism, particularly when their criticism is as one-eyed and unwarranted as some on here has been. Some people feel they are qualified to give tactical critiques, evaluate player strengths, question training methods, scouting and formations. These insights seem to be based on watching football on TV or playing fives with some 'pros' once. Fuck me. Opinions based on ignorance deserve all they get.

Great post from Calscot.

Ah, right, my mistake. If only I'd realised you were including the Evostick Conference South Amateur Sunday League in your calculations. Doh. Righto, so time doesn't matter, that's fine why not use Terry Butcher or Jim Baxter as your example then? That's nuts, even by your standards. As we can't go back in time to sign him the rest of us here on planet earth will have to make do with the current state of football and base our opinions on now. Timelords like you have it so easy. Please don't put the word 'we' into any sentence including Forster and Maloney, speak for yourself!! Mendes was over 4 years ago, I know you don't think that matters but that's because you're wrong. Forster is a better example, however whilst he was 'bought' from Newcastle he never actually played for them and was in fact a Championship/League 1 player in all but name. However I'll accept he did technically sign from a Premiership club. What? I'll type this slowly, it's on topic because the topic is about David Goodwillie. Who cares? Well you clearly judging by your hysterics on this thread. Average salary is important because it, erm, tells us the average salary of players in that league? You understand that, right? Salary being the main stumbling block to signing someone from that league, right? According to Goodwillie's agent he's on a basic salary of £12,500 a week plus bonuses. I think that's currently unaffordable for any Scottish club. You're right. As long as a player is out of contract and isn't getting offered another one, is so badly injured no one will take a chance on him, is at the end of his career or is on loan then it's great proof. You're a regular Petrocelli.

Has anyone ever actually met a Queens Park fan? I'm a born and bred Glaswegian into my fourth decade on earth and I've never knowingly met a Queens Park fan. I've had friends who were Thistle fans, Clyde, Clydebank, Morton, St Mirren, Airdrie, Hamilton, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Ayr United, Dumbarton I once had a teacher who was an Albion Rovers supporter, but Queens fans have passed me by. I even worked with a guy who was a ball boy at Third Lanark! So now I read they've 3,000 supporters!!! Come on, where do they hide?

Jeezo Kuznetsov, you're a sensitive soul these day! Look, this is a messageboard so when someone states something I've a view on I'll reply, that's kinda the point here mate. I'm not nit-picking or trolling for fuxake, I agree with Cooperfan that a move to the English Premier League pretty much prices a player out of the reach of all Scottish clubs now, I'm allowed to state that and back it up. Your examples were either out of date or exceptions, none of them came from Premiership clubs either with the exception of Maloney and that was a long time ago now. That is 'on topic' as it's pertinent to Goodwillie joining us which is the thread topic. The average salary in the EPL is now £22,353 a week before bonuses based on last season, so it is higher now and will rise again next season with the new TV deal coming into force. So whilst that means that many are earning less than that they are still on far more money than anyone, even Celtic, can afford. That's not trolling or picking a fight it's stating a fact. He's in the Championship now with a side struggling I accept, but he still has Premiership salary and he's very unlikely to walk out on that I'd have thought. You can't compare Goodwillie to Skacel, Anderson or Gordon. I've no idea why you take issue with me pointing that out.