amms

Yeah, I agree that Dutch club football is better than Scottish club football currently, that's been the case for pretty much 40 years or so. I'm less optimistic than you that we could keep a 'golden generation' together these days if we were lucky enough to nurture one. Realistically we are struggling to match the salaries of Championship clubs in England far less EPL ones. We'd need to mine a very rich seam to produce a team that could compete at that level. The alternative is to change the game, lobby the SFA and in turn UEFA to properly distribute finance. It's farcical that at this juncture in history, when the amount of money being pumped into football has never been higher that clubs like Rangers and Feyenoord can go to the wall. It won't be easy but if all of the smaller nations, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, Poland and even France came together and decided to create a voting pact then UEFA would have a problem and the big 4 leagues would need to listen. This financial fair play rule, if it is properly applied, might go some way to helping equality again. Bosman has been the biggest problem, not the ability to leave at the end of a contract but the inability to limit 'foreign' players at clubs. Since the Bosman ruling only 10 clubs have won the European Cup/Champions League and only 6 countries have actually contested the final. Of those six two of them, Portugal and France competed in the same freakish final 2004 when Porto beat Monaco, since that final only four countries have provided finalists. In the 16 years before Bosman 13 different clubs won the European Cup/Champions League and the finalists came from 10 countries. If equality in finance can't be imposed then a minimum amount of home bred players should be. The larger countries will still have an advantage simply through bigger populations but it will mean that every now and then an Ajax or a Red Star Belgrade or a Porto or indeed a Rangers could put a team together that could compete, really compete not just make up the numbers. All this requires political will, there are vested interests at play who are diametrically opposed to these types of changes, but that doesn't mean change can't be brought in. The big clubs in the big leagues are always going to have an advantage, I accept that. But the gap is so large now that competition no longer exists. Aspiration is being taken away, that's the life blood of football, without why bother?

But Ajax don't 'compete' anymore, they take part yes but they've become cannon fodder for the clubs from the 'big leagues' now. Ajax are not expected to get out of their group these days even though they won the tournament in 1995 and have a wonderful European history. Simply producing players for La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga isn't what football is about. If you are going to invest the time effort and money required to produce the finest players you can, you have to be given a chance to mould a team with them. Young Dutch players are as susceptible to agents and greed as young Scottish ones.

Double post.

We joke about the American system but it has a lot going for it. You can't just impose it on football though, for a start the clubs would never agree. But devolving youth development away from the clubs I think makes a lot of sense. How you make that work, how you make it fair, how you ensure quality and how you manage all that I don't know. Ultimately schools should be more involved, it's developing children after all and it is preparing people for a career. How you fit that into a busy curriculum I don't know but for me schools are the missing ingredient in all this. I was interested to read that the Glasgow swimmer who won the silver medal (Jamieson?) at the Olympics attended Glasgow Council run Bellahouston 'School of Sport'. If they can produce Olympic swimmers they should be able to produce footballers. Easier said than done of course.

Making sure they are signed to longer contracts is the key, but for clubs like us that's a gamble. A player at 16 might look like he's destined for the top but come 21 things haven't worked out; how do you make that judgement? Imagine the outcry if we'd allowed John Fleck to leave at 17, who could have predicted his career trajectory then. Unfortunately promising youths don't always fulfil their promise, but long contracts need to be fulfilled and there is a limit to how many players we can have under contract at any one time. Youth football, not just for us but for the whole country, needs completely rebuilt. If all promising youngsters can be induced away with little actual return for the club that developed them then why bother? You can't force a 16 or 17 year old to sign a contract, especially if an avaricious agent or idiot father is whispering in his ear. There is a good argument to be made that youth football and development should be kept separate from professional clubs.

It's probably the best football biography I've read, although the Hunter Davies' 'Being Gazza' book and Tony Cascarino's book run it close. Unfortunately the only mention of Rangers in it is him as a boy going to the cinema to watch the Rangers v Moscow Dynamo game at the end of WW2. That's a pretty tenuous link I think. I'll happily write one because it deserves a wider audience, unfortunately I'm not sure if it fits the sites criteria (we do have a criteria, yes?).

The disparity in financial resources between Scotland and England is something we better get used too. We've lost Danny Wilson and I'd add Rhys McCabe to that now too, Celtic lost that boy Islam Feruz, Dundee Utd lost Scott Allan, Aberdeen lost Fraser Fyvie and Kilmarnock lost Matthew Kennedy last week too. The thinking in England just now is to bring in promising young players in their teens rather than wait for them to mature elsewhere. I'm not sure it's the right idea but the problem for us is they can afford too take the chance, indeed it's really no gamble at all for them. It wouldn't surprise me if McKay doesn't sign another contract, that's not a reflection on him, I know nothing about him, just my take on the footballing economy these days.

There is a superb biography about a footballer called Stewart Imlach who played for Scotland at the 1958 World Cup Finals. The insight into how the Scotland squad was picked, managed and then discarded is jaw dropping. Then, decades later, his correspondence with the SFA asking to be being given an actual physical 'cap' for his Scotland appearances shows that little had changed. They were self serving, intransigent liars then, clearly the SPL have picked up on that vibe and brought it to a new level.

It does seem the people supposed to run the game in this country are determined to destroy it.

Applause!!

Indeed, only Templeton does know why. I don't think English is annoyed at his choice more puzzled, as am I, but certainly a lot are angry, this wasn't part of their grand plan. For the record I think he's a great signing, history might judge him to have been truly pivotal in our attempt to return to the top.

And do you think that's the reason a boyhood Celtic supporter, even bearing in mind his father's allegiance and his middle name, chose to join?

Okay, i'll bite, what has Tom English written that everyone disagrees with? I have to say I thought his piece was pretty fair and accurate. He pays McCoist a compliment, surely we're all still undecided as to his management abilities, except those who have already decided he has none? McCoist did deflect well after Berwick, he did say he needed 6 or so players and he hasn't got them, again I've seen that said on here. As for Templeton it is a coup for us, most of us didn't think we'd be able to attract sign someone like him. But am I the only one surprised he came? Sheils, Kyle and Black are coming towards the end of their careers, at 27 (Sheils and Black) this will be the biggest contracts they'll sign and the SPL will likely be the highest level they'll ever play, joining Rangers for financial reasons when they've little left to prove in football makes sense. The foreign lads are here for the money, no shame in that or pretence that it's anything else. For some it might prove a way of kick-starting a stuttering career, but basically it's about money. That makes them no different from pretty much every other non-Rangers supporter we've ever signed. But for me Templeton and to a lesser extent Wallace are puzzles. Frankly you do need to question their ambition a bit. Neither were Rangers supporters as boys as far as I can tell so the decision to join Rangers is a footballing and financial one only. Both good reasons but under the circumstances surprising. English makes the point that perhaps Hearts gave Templeton no choice, that makes a bit of sense. But I'm still surprised a 23 year old boyhood Celtic supporter, who we're all agreed should be playing at a higher level than Division 3, chose to join us. I'm pleased he did though, he's a great signing.

As someone who has been boycotting The Sun since 1986 I'm pleased to see others have finally seen the light too! It seems almost unbelievable that this Phil person is being taken seriously these days, no wonder the press is fucked. I love the reason given for his name change, they taught me French at school but I didn't decide everyone had to call me Pierre.

I won't speak for others on the thread but I think you are misreading the sentiment Rockhamptonboy. If most felt Sinclair was doing a good job I don't think anyone would care much who he'd supported as a boy. But most, and I don't necessarily include myself in that, feel he is doing a poor job, as such having Celtic leanings goes on his debit column. Are you in Queensland mate?

Is he getting off scot-free? Even if he isn't charged and in truth I'm not sure what he could be charged with, some sort of incitement perhaps, he's been publicly outed as a tit. He's not got the excuse of youth on his side, his employers and neighbours will be aware of his idiotic behaviour and he'll be nervously looking over his shoulder for months to come. The RST or someone similar tweeted his name on Wednesday night and brought it to public attention, good on them.

Interesting. Did I hear there was a wee bit of trouble in the stands at Parkhead tonight? Haven't they got a special relationship with Sweden anymore?

The arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of that part of the statement alone is staggering. The thought-police strike again.

Yeah I agree with DB here. A quick glance at our squad shows we've only got Boca, Alexander, Cribari, Kyle and McCulloch who are over 30 and it's being reported that Bocanegra is leaving. You can add Black, Sheils, Wallace and Sandaza to the 'experienced' pile but after that the squad is very, very young and inexperienced. I'm all for giving youth a chance but you need balance and our squad is probably the youngest it has been for over 100 years just now.

Oh there is no denying it is harder to run on sand than on grass or a track, and because it is harder it feels like it is doing you more 'good', but the same level of fitness can be achieved by running on grass or indeed in a gym. The big difference is the time taken and your perception of how hard it was. Professional athletes, and I include footballers in that group, are incredibly fit, far fitter than we give them credit for. They have a basic level of fitness and strength that non-athletes simply don't and in most cases will never be able to achieve. At the top level there is very little difference in the level of fitness and indeed ability of professionals, the differences are in attitude, appliance, confidence and motivation. That's not to say this current Rangers team couldn't be fitter or train in differently.

It is allowed, I've no issue with that. But you insinuate that supporting Rangers should inform how you vote, I disagree with that, it has little or no bearing on it as every passing election demonstrates.

There is an 'Irish Famine Memorial' in Carfin in Lanarkshire. Personally I've no issues with calls for one in Glasgow, their are calls for a Holocaust Memorial among the Jewish community in Glasgow and I doubt any of us would say they shouldn't have one. The Irish Famine was a horrific event, an appalling example of mans inhumanity and propensity for evil, like the Highland Clearances. Remembering them is not a bad thing. Having a mature debate about it is something we should embrace, I imagine many of us were affected by the Irish Famine in one way or another if we were to trace it back. Certainly Glasgow as a city was there is no denying that. Letting people like Phil whatshisname set the agenda though would be a huge mistake. The story of the Irish Famine has been skewed in recent years into straightforward Protestant and Catholics, as ever it was much more nuanced than that. Getting the truth taught is in our interests. The Irish are not our enemy, whatever the mental wing of the Celtic support might like to believe.

Running up and down sand dunes will make you no fitter than running round a track or up and down stairs, it's all in your head. Wallace understood this. Remember where Rangers were when Wallace took over, Celtic were one of the best teams in Europe at the time, they had the Indian sign over us, a genius manager of their own and despite having arguably the best Rangers side ever we were unable to beat them for the league. Having been second to Celtic for years and not won the league for a decade Wallace realised the issue wasn't skill or fitness or even tactics but that Celtic were mentally stronger than us. They expected to win the league, we hoped too, Wallace saw this fatal flaw. By taking the players to Gullane, by inviting the press along to photograph it and publicise it, a very unusual thing to do even then, he was sending out the message that Rangers were the fittest team in the league. He pushed the stories of players being sick, well players are sick in pre-season every year whether they are on sand dunes or a state of the art running track at Auchenhowie, it's not that unusual. He even convinced the players themselves that they were fitter than they had ever been, that this gave them an advantage over every other team in the league and they believed him. He also made sure that every other team thought this too. It was a stroke of genius. By 1975 we'd one the league for the first time in 11 years and the following season the treble. Too much is made of the 'jungle fighter' Wallace, a gruff, snarling bully who terrified players. It does him a disservice, this one-dimensional view of Wallace is patently untrue. Bullies are not able to motivate only terrify, Wallace was able to do much, much more than that. Had Wallace not left Rangers in 78, having won the treble twice and the league three times, he may have created a dynasty to rival Struth. In Stein he was up against a managerial genius and he beat him, no one else ever achieved that. We remember 'murder hill' for all the wrong reasons.

It might have been on radio or TV actually. He was very complimentary of Wallace, particularly about his man-management and his ability to give you self belief. It was him that explained the psychology of 'murder hill'.