JohnMc

Can you advise who all of the English players and coaches are in big leagues? The number of English players playing in the CL and Europa is one of the lowest in Europe. If they were that good, big European sides would be signing them. In the later stages of European trophies there is hardly ever any British players.

 

The standard of player in the Premiership is not as high as everywhere else. They get exposed each year in both European trophies, Chelsea are the best team by a mile and they were nowhere near challenging for the CL this season.

You said "there's a complete lack of English players and coaches abroad", those are your words not mine. If you want to change your sweeping and incorrect statement to 'in the big leagues' then fine, but you should have said that first time round. Even then money is still the deciding factor, if the English leagues suddenly run out of money you'll see English players move abroad. That's what happened with Spanish players after the economic crash. Prior to that Spanish players stayed in Spain because they could, the salaries were as good if not better than anywhere else. Now they aren't they move abroad. Go figure.

You seem to be struggling to differentiate between an English person and the football leagues based in England. The EPL is as strong as any league in the world, I don't see how anyone can deny that. It contains many of the finest footballers on the planet and some of the best club sides. As such the levels below the top level tend to be stronger than similar divisions elsewhere.

Your Champion's League statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. In the last ten years English clubs have won the trophy 3 times and been runners up 5 times, only Spain has more winners in that time (five) and runners up once. You can have the Europa Cup, as you probably know most English sides don't take it too seriously, more fool them.

The Bayern and Barca squads are full of German and Spanish players. It's not the same in England at all. The top 4 in England sign foreign players because they are better. If England are so good why do they perform so terribly in international tournaments?

Actually the current Bayern squad has 11 Germans in a squad of 25 and the Barcelona squad has only 9 Spanish players out of the 25. Not my idea of "full" it has to be said. The current Man United squad contains 34 players. 15 are English and two more Northern Irish, so British. That's a higher ratio of 'home' players than either Barca or Bayern.

I agree that the top four in England sign players who are better than the rest, whether they are English, Spanish of Martian, they can afford pretty much who they want and so buy that way. Indeed it goes deeper than the top four. That doesn't make the English leagues poor or English players sub standard though. It's pure economics, that's all.

Kiernan is English.

Fair enough, I'd never heard of him until this week and thought I'd read he was Irish.

A quick Wiki check shows that the number of English players playing in La Liga and Serie A over the years have been less than half of their Spanish and German counterparts.

It's down to money, pure and simple. During the 1980s, when English football was in a financial slump (relatively speaking) Serie A had lots of English players; Gascoigne, Platt, Ince, Wilkins, Hately, Paul Elliot, Blizzard, Rideout, Cowans and Trevor Francis not to mention Souness, Joe Jordan and Liam Brady who all came from English football. They don't just now because even the top Italian sides struggle to compete with middling EPL clubs on salary. The richest leagues tend to have the best players, wherever they are from.

If the standard of player in England is as high as anywhere in the world, why are the top English clubs largely recruiting players from elsewhere?

The richest clubs recruit the best players wherever they are from, see above. Why isn't everyone in the Barca team Spanish? Because they can afford to sign the best players, not just the best Spanish players. Why isn't everyone in the Bayern side German, they're world champions after all? It's the same in England. Spanish football is relatively impoverished outside of two or arguably three sides so they tend to lose their good players too.

This isn't about signing 'Englishmen' but looking at the English leagues for players (this Kiernan isn't English I understand).

Someone (SBS I think) said "there's a reason there's a complete lack of English players and coaches abroad" as some kind of fact. It's not, there are scores of English players and coaches 'abroad' in all sorts of leagues. The main reason for this misapprehension is the lack of English players at top English sides.

It's worth remembering the governing factor in almost everything in professional football; money. If an English player can live in England and play in the Championship and earn more than he would at an La Liga side outside of their 'big two' then that's what they do. The reason Lampard and Gerrard are now plying their trade in America (that's abroad btw) is because of the money on offer.

I'm no fan of the EPL or its greed is good mantra, if the money dried up tomorrow you'd suddenly see English players and coaches appearing in leagues where the salaries were higher. The standard of player in England is as high as anywhere in the world and we are culturally and linguistically identical, any manager who didn't look there first for players should be severely questioned.

This isn't 'news' he talked about it in the excellent Hunter Davis biography on him a few years ago. I remember when Lennon was being threatened by 'terrorists' how little was made of the Gascoigne incident.

He was also arrested for rape when he played for us, something else I don't remember being reported. He was cleared and it was apparently all nonsense but I was surprised it wasn't reported.

Dont often disagree with you Craig, but I do this time, and even more strangely, I agree with dB here. Chris McLaughlin has been Ashley's mouthpiece on Rangers affairs for a long time, and the picture has definitely been picked to suit the slant of the piece. Instead of the BBC asking the biggest question to come out of today, namely what facts are SD so afraid of getting out that they had to go running to court to gag the club, they come over with this bluster puff piece weighted heavily in Ashley's favour, and pick out a lovely photo of Ashley pissing himself to rub it in further.

Whatever McLaughlin's many, many faults he certainly didn't pick the photo used, that's someone else's job not his. They probably read the piece and decided that was the most appropriate image based on the article. We all know where McLaughlin gets his stories from, so his slant shouldn't surprise anyone.

As a long term listener and fan of 5 my post is intended as a snapshot of my perception of the direction the station has taken not a thesis on it. My perceptions are not limited to how they report football, far from it. The skew is obvious (to me) across the spectrum. I listen to it daily. I simply expect balanced reporting on all issues from our national broadcaster - the institution that makes me pay a licence fee for the privilege of them pontificating to me! But when they give me Greenslade and his likes I have to baulk.

Some points -

1. I had no idea Roddy Forsyth is considered pro Rangers. I don't mind the guy but he has got my back up plenty of times with his views on us.

2. Gordon Smith could hardly be called a regular on 5.

3. Stuart McCall - as above.

4. Terry Butcher - as above. His link to 5 is primarily due to his captaincy of England.

5. Sutton was invited on to an entertainment show on 5, not a football show, as a guest for a 30 minute slot. Producer says to self - Oh yes, I know who we need this week.....Chris Sutton, that will pull the punters in..............dream on! All about contacts and scratching backs!

 

P.S. Forget LOs, you would not understand, not in a million years!

People like you baffle me. This isn't hard, if you don't like it don't listen to it, it's not compulsory. Stuart McCall and Terry Butcher were both regulars on Five Live when both were out of management, and Smith regularly pops up, usually speaking about us. Forsyth is as pro-Rangers as Nevin is pro-Celtic.

The only skew on Five Live is toward England, both their top league and their FA.

Believe me I didn't mistake your post for a thesis.

Radio 5 Live is the perfect example. Their anti-union, anti-LOs, anti-Rangers bias is becoming more obvious by the day. The presenters, their "guests", their "pundits" are all cherry picked and obviously no friends of the Union or Rangers. Campbell's opinions in particular have flip-flopped completely since he did the "who do think you are ?" TV show.

 

Regular pundits include - Nevin, Hartson, Lennon and others. A recent radio show guest was Sutton. Why Sutton, who gives a flying one about him apart from you know who! Jobs for the bhoys and ghirls!

 

It's no accident either. A road is being paved..........

This ignores Radio Five using Roddy Forsyth, Gordon Smith, Stuart McCall and Terry Butcher too. Sutton had a high profile in England, winning the league with Blackburn, playing for Chelsea, Norwich and his country he was once the most expensive player in the country. I hate him but you need to go some to suggest he's a nobody.

I've no real issue with D'art's piece, but the quote above is one-eyed in the extreme.

Although this comes up often when the football stops it's worth trying to understand why some people who culturally or socially shouldn't be obviously 'anti-Rangers' often are.

PS What does 'anti-LO' mean?

Rangers fail in attempt to land Vitor Pereira as manager

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/scotland/article4458993.ece

This story is behind a paywall so I can only read the first paragraph. If true it certainly suggests a wider net than has been previously suspected is being cast. The fact Grant has put his name to it suggests he certainly thinks it has substance.

He sounds like a modern Charles Reep. That's not meant as a compliment. Whilst what's happening at Brentford is interesting I think ultimately it's anathema to my views on football.

from 2016, an Argentinian and Japanese team will join expanding it further.

 

you could have three or four leagues with combined countries in them in the future.

you have to ask the question, who would want the Scottish League to join?

The TV companies and the sponsors, that's who. We're not the only country who has seen a drop in standard in our domestic game. Belgian clubs used to contest European finals, as did Swedish clubs and Scottish clubs. You can't conceive of that happening currently yet Manchester wasn't that long ago.

If you include at least two Scottish clubs you add a half a million viewers to the TV audience at a stroke and open up marketing and sponsorship opportunities to another 5 million people.

I think it's inevitable that Europe will end up with something like seven major leagues; The Spanish, English, Italian and German leagues can stand alone, they are big enough countries, the French league too probably, then you'll have a couple of other leagues, probably a Western European league we'd be in and an Eastern one including Russia, Greece, Ukraine, Romania, Israel and Turkey and few others.

I'm not saying I'm happy about it but it's a natural progression.

He was supposed to join us last summer, spent a lot of time at Murray Park too but then chose Hibs. We were a mess last summer and it might not all have been his fault, however he's not made the best career decisions so far.

Actually I think it's inevitable now. If you draw a line from when organised football started in the late 1800s through to today what you see is the decrease in the number of clubs from a particular geographic area, the decrease in importance of local competitions and the increase in importance in wider competitions.

In my lifetime the Glasgow Cup was an important trophy to win, it's a kid's competition now. The League Cup will be next and the Scottish Cup will eventually follow too, you can already see this in England and on the continent.

For me it's only a matter of time before UEFA allow countries to combine their leagues. Who we'll combine with is a bigger question, but it'll happen I'm sure of that now. A combined TV deal for Portugal, Scotland, Holland, Belgium, Sweden and Poland say has some clout, the logisitcs of making that happen aren't beyond the wit of even football authorities. Any football fan could pick the clubs that would make up that 'league' without much thought.

Look at professional rugby union to see how this works. Teams from Italy, both Irelands, Wales and Scotland and in the southern hemisphere Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. These leagues are popular, the standard of play is high and broadcasters, sponsors and paying punters want to see it. It's a no-brainer, it's just a matter of time.

It's not major issue for me. Aggressive tax planning is just part of business and something I've been involved in. These things aren't black and white and are often matters of opinion.

Yeah I accept it's 'part of business' for some people, but not all. I'd also say there's a line between aggressive tax planning and breaking the law and King did the latter. That's not a matter of opinion. Whether he did it deliberately or not I've no way of knowing, but he did it and it reflects badly on him now.

I totally disagree with you. Under Murray he was a major shareholder, albeit with little of no influence. why shouldn't he remain on the board and put forward his opinion? I fail to see why it's an error in judgement or inability to grasp what's going on. I'd still want to put forward my point of view if in his position, and perhaps he managed to calm some of Murray's worst excesses with his views. In the situation of a majority shareholder, He was just a non-exec.

 

Likewise under Whyte, all the other "independent" directors had left. At least he could try and get the information, even though it was no secret that he was being shut out. Yes, he could have resigned but that would have given Whyte even more of free reign. I'm grateful that he did stay on and perhaps was ineffectual but his presence meant that one director could show that Whyte was acting illegally.

Here's my problem with King, he put a lot of money into the club and yet we're being told he had no say in how the club was run. Now he was either quite naive when he invested or that's not the truth. Either scenario doesn't paint him in a great light from a business perspective. If you're going to put £20 million into a business you'd want some say in how it was run, no?

I fully accept he wasn't involved with Whyte on an executive level but he should have distanced himself from what was happening. If he was being misled by Whyte, and many people clearly were, then you'd have hoped alarm bells might have rung a bit earlier than they did. He was on the inside and we weren't after all.

If there was any suggestion that he had any influence over the tax planning or the decision to run up debt or the sale to a conman then perhaps, but I've not read anywhere that he was supportive or involved in any of that, and to suggest that he was seems to be character assassination for the sake of it.

It's not meant as a character assassination. As above if he wasn't involved he should have been, if he wasn't supportive he should have spoken out and if he was being marginalised by Murray and then Whyte he should have done something about that. Look King clearly must have fairly good business acumen, he must have quite a strong personality and he must know when to stick and when to twist, it seems unlikely he could have become as wealthy as he did without those traits. Why did they desert him when it came to Rangers?

If someone had previously invested £20 million in another club and came back after getting rid of those who were draining the club for their own purposes saying he wanted to invest more do you not think he would be welcomed with open arms? I fail to see why people in this club don't.

 

Yes, he may not turn out to be what we hope he is, but he deserves a chance and surely has to be 100 times better than the previous status quo,

To be clear I'm broadly supportive of King and I certainly feel he's an improvement on the last few years. I just think as a support we should be more cautious, more watchful and less trusting. I find the celebrating that has happened since yesterday's announcement uncomfortable, the club has been very badly mismanaged by a series of people now, we shouldn't take it on trust that the current directors won't continue in that. King has, at best, made mistakes in the past, we should be careful he doesn't continue making them.

I'm a little concerned about how we're approaching this. Many of us are taking up a position on this and that position is based on the previous board's actions and the fact that King is a bluenose, a millionaire and not Mike Ashley. The fact he seems to be unpopular with people we perceive as being 'anti-Rangers' also helps many of us form a position regarding him.

Like most of us I was very pleased when Ashley and the Easedale's were removed and thank King for his involvement in that.

However, when we leave that aside I am actually surprised King has been passed as fit and proper and I can understand why many people are perplexed by the decision. When looked at in black and white King isn't suitable for our club. Whatever we might think of the South African judicial system or its tax authorities King has a number of convictions there. He also remained a director of the club during Craig Whyte and also the worst excesses of Murray. At the very least that displays a serious error of judgement or the inability to grasp what was actually going on.

If anyone else was looking to takeover Rangers and he had numerous convictions for tax evasion had been a director of a football club that was involved in some poorly thought out tax planning, was massively in debt, was 'sold' to a conman and subsequently raped and pillaged again would we really be welcoming that person with open arms?

Caution and vigilance should be our cry just now. Celebrating this decision like a cup final winner really makes us look like we've learned nothing at all over the last five years.

I wonder if the the lawyer, Rob Cohen, is the same Rob Cohen who is Frank DeBoer, current Ajax manager's, father in law. Might make for interesting family visits.

This is 'old' news and unlikely to make much of a difference now, but it serves as a stark reminder of our club's inability to properly play a 'number 10'. Naismith is the closest we've ever come in my time watching.

Moshni is clearly a talented football player and even seems to be a decent human being but I'm far from convinced he's a good defender. He joined us from Southend reserves, he looked good at times against part-timers, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking he's anything other than ordinary. No way is he playing in the Bundesliga next season.

A good statement from the club: a PR no-brainer in which even of harshest of media critics can't argue with given the Hibs precedent of last year.

 

One difference is that Hibs only had to host the one play-off match so the SPFL may point to that in any debate. However, I suspect RFC will have them by the short and curlies legally...

Are you confident we won't only be playing one?

Good statement though.

To be fair he has a fairly impressive CV whatever team he supports.

Liverpool was a fantastic opportunity.

 

Players generally can't pick and choose when super rich clubs with impressive pedigrees will come knocking at their door. When the moment comes, you grab it.

 

Many players would choose Liverpool over Rangers even if they were offering the same money - but chasing money - if that is what he was doing, hardly makes him unique in his field.

I agree it hardly makes him unique, but it's not an excuse. If I'm being charitable to Wilson I'd say he was badly advised, I dare say he wasn't the only person who made a lot of money from his move. Whether Liverpool would have come for him again 12 months later or not is moot, it was the wrong move for his career and that was clear to most people at the time. Had his career progressed as it could have he'd be playing at a far higher level than he is today and would be earning a lot more money than he is today.

I'm not just saying this because he left Rangers, the young lad who left Celtic for Chelsea at 16 made the same mistake in my opinion. I accept that kind of money can completely change someone's life and would hard to resist though.

He was right to go to Liverpool even though it didn't work out. Not going could have been a lifetime regret.

 

He has his career heading upwards again and it will be no surprise if he ends up playing for his boyhood heroes at Parkhead.

A lifetime of regret, really? I hadn't realised Wilson was a scouser. Had he bided his time, played another couple of seasons in our first team he'd have been far better prepared for the EPL, everyone could see that at the time.

Time will tell if his career is heading upwards or not, but once again he seems to be chasing money.

In all fairness John, Danny Wilson was an excellent prospect for us, but he only got a game because Bougherra went AWOL that season and Walter quite rightly put his foot down.

How he got into the side isn't really relevant, is it? All players get their first match because someone else messes up somewhere, either on the pitch or off it. The trick is taking that chance when it comes.

Danny Wilson and Scott Allan are both perfect examples of what could have been. Both started their careers brightly before getting their heads turned by money. Had Allan stayed at Dundee Utd for a couple of seasons after breaking into their first team he'd be at a bigger club now, probably in England either challenging for promotion from the Championship or fighting relegation from the Premier League. As it is he wasted the most important years of his development and now finds himself at Hibs. He's 23 now, no longer a youngster, and has only played 68 first team games in his entire career, a number of them from the bench. Stuart Armstrong, who is the same age and broke into the Utd side at the same time has played 136 first team games. Tell me, who do you think will have the better career?

Wilson is very similar. He played 14 times for Rangers and was on course to being a first choice defender. He left when he shouldn't have and played a total of 9 first team matches in three years. It was only his loan spell at hearts and subsequent transfer that saw his career going back on track. Had he remained at rangers i've no doubt he'd be a better player and playing at a higher level than the Scottish Championship.

Nothing is better than first team football for players between 18 - 22 years, nothing. That's where they learn their trade, understand pressure, deal with different types of opponents, the anger of fans as well as the praise. No academy or training facility can replicate that.

I wouldn't want either of them at Rangers, both have shown disloyalty and a lack of intelligence in their short careers, someone else is welcome to them.

Has a non British manager ever been successful in Scotland? Advocaat had a level of success certainly, but he had a significantly bigger budget than all the rest at first and when Celtic started to compete financially under O'Neil he struggled. Wim Janson won the league with the Tims but he still only lasted one season and we'd imploded half way through which really helped him, Hearts won a cup with someone or other from abroad in charge but the Scottish national side, Motherwell, Dundee Utd, Aberdeen, Dundee, Hibs, Rangers and Celtic have all tried 'foreign' managers with really poor results.

Picking who'll make a good manager is nigh on impossible, particularly for supporters who don't actually see the personalities and dynamics up close. If you looked at the playing career of Jock Stein or Jock Wallace you'd never have picked them to have the later success they did. Who thought Robbie Neilson was going to be a good coach?

First and foremost our club has to win in Scotland and that puts certain restrictions on us. Secondly I think we've a duty as a club to look to have a side that represents the support and that means finding the best players and managers from here and building the team that way. Sure supplement that with outside influence but all football clubs should represent their support.

There are managers who are doing well with the resources they've got. Murray at Dumbarton and Fowler at QOTS spring to mind, both those clubs are over-achieving currently and when you see how Alex Neill did with Hamilton and now Norwich you can see the our current league can develop managers. Finding someone with a pedigree is nigh on impossible, we're simply not in that market just now, finding someone with potential is much more realistic. Over to you Dave.

The answer to Spence's continued presence is one of necessity. BBC Scotland must produce a certain amount of airtime from studios outside of Glasgow. For example Janice Forsyth and her production team have to travel from their Glasgow homes through to Edinburgh to produce her daily show so they can say it's made in Edinburgh. Spence being in Dundee means his time on air when studio based counts for this 'quota' as programming made outside Glasgow. Was Spence a Glasgow based journalist he wouldn't be on air, ever.

He must be finding this difficult now though as his role as spokesperson in chief for Stephen Thomson becomes less palatable as Thomson is shown to be the money grabbing slimeball he is.

I don't recall anyone in League 1 showing interest in him. I don't recall any team at all ever being interested in him. He wouldn't have got anything like the same money elsewhere.

With respect how would you know who was or wasn't interested in taking McCulloch as a free agent three years ago. With no transfer fee a player could expect a signing-on fee in excess of £600,000 on top of his salary, the average salary in League 1 is nearly £4,000 a week.