JohnMc

I'm still not sure if this is just an elaborate wind-up.

Anyone who thinks the soul of a football club is weighed by it's date of incorporation, the issuing of shares or its annual report clearly knows absolutely nothing about being a football supporter. Why did they build a statue to Brother Walfrid instead of the Chief Executive of BDO if corporate structure is so important to them?

Continuity is vital for supporters so it doesn't surprise me our enemies choose it as an area of attack, but it doesn't matter what they think, the truth is we are Rangers and as long as we remain we always will be. I've a feeling this is a riff I might return too next weekend.

Any half decent team plays possession based football with quick movement. Only bottom end teams play route 1 football because they lack the talent and intelligence to do anything better. It's just desperate stuff. No decent team has won big trophies playing horrific long ball stuff, at least in my lifetime.

Celtic under O'Neill were route one, long ball, win set pieces. It was only having Larsson in their side that gave them any guile, other than him they were all power and strength.

No more former players please.

That's an interesting point, I wonder how important that is. Struth, Whyte, Wallace, Souness, Smith, Advocaat, McLeish and Le Guen never pulled on the Light Blue. McCoist, Greig, Waddell and Symon did. At first glance you'd have to say the first group was considerably more successful than the second. However it would be wrong to place the reason for that firmly on who they played for. Whyte and Le Guen didn't exactly excel, likewise both Greig and Waddell it could be argued were victims of timing and circumstance. Also the greatest British manager of the last 50 years was a Rangers player, he just didn't manage us.

What ex-players are realistic candidates? Davies is often mentioned, Derek McInness too. Guys like Arveladze and Van Bronkhurst, Barry Ferguson, Ian Murray and Steven Pressley and Davie Weir are still learning their trade, they might become great mangers, average ones or bad ones, time will tell.

At the other end of the spectrum you've got Jimmy Nicholl doing great things with Cowdenbeath, and the much travelled Bobby Williamson with untold experience and insight.

Yip, none of them is exactly filling me with anticipation either.

Aye and not a very safe bet either.

 

I can't understand why any football manager could even consider trusting a goalkeeper who regularly places bets.

Allan Mcgregor spent most afternoons in the William Hill on Kelvingrove Street. I've no idea if he bet on football or not but gambling is endemic among footballers.

Don't all rush at once!

 

Surely someone fancies writing a match preview for the League Cup Semi?

I'll do it. Some words need said.

McDowell never wanted the job and seems to be saying he's unable to do it. We should respect that.

Gordon Durie stepped down as East Fife manager because the of the toll it was taking on his health, there's no way he's capable of taking the Rangers job, even short term.

If Jig does get the job on a temporary basis I hope we all support him. It's worth remembering that the mess the club is in is not the fault of any of the three men named above.

What do people expect the fan's board to say here? They can issue any amount of statements but in reality they are powerless to prevent the board doing whatever they want. We all are.

To criticise the fan's board for being impotent on this is to miss the point that all fans are impotent currently. Do any of us think the board didn't know what the reaction to this was going to be? Do any of us think a strongly worded criticism of this potential action would make any difference to the ultimate decision?

None of that means a fan's board isn't a good idea. They can still give input on subjects, they can still provide a formal conduit between the club and the support, but people have to be realistic about what they can influence. The time and energy expended could be much better spent. If people want to make the directors know about their anger over this then arrange a large, noisy, legal protest outside McGills bus depot or even better outside the distribution hub of Sport's Direct. Take the fight to them.

Everyone on this messageboard knows how Forlan's Sister feels about the club and it's current custodians, it's fair to assume our board of directors do too. It's not his or anyone else's fault they don't care.

From this thread I think we can take it that Der Berliner doesn't have to work with or live beside many Celtic supporters. Trust us Db, if they hammer us life will be intolerable for a long time for those of us who have to 'interact' with them on a daily basis. Frankly if they only beat us by 2 it'll be them who'll be complaining the most. All the tims I know see this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to destroy us.

If the worst comes to pass Db you might need to find room for a few thousand lodgers!

Is that real? No one, but no one, pays £3k for an ad in the Herald these days!

Absolutely spot on Craig.

Many fans are hung up on the "Rangers'Men Only", so much so as it could put the Club in real danger or, at the very least make us unable to reach our full potential.

You only have to look at every successful football club throughout the World...foreign managers, coaches, players etc.

Long gone are the days when "they" won the big trophy with local boys. Possibly the only time it's ever happened! Yet their Board of "ce..ic" men pocketed a great deal of their fans' money for their own personal gain.

So, the myth about have former players, fans etc coming back to run the Club is just what it is, a myth.

I've not read anyone suggesting we should limit our players or coaches to Rangers supporters, no one at all, that part of your post is a complete strawman. Being owned and run by people with an emotional connection to the club doesn't seem to have hindered Bayern or Barcelona or Real Madrid.

I think we should always remember the caveat placed on 'Rangers Men' is not just any Rangers Man. Park and Letham have strong business backgrounds, King does too, but he also has baggage that concerns some. If for example someone was suggesting that I should take control of Rangers simply because I'm a 'Rangers Man' then that should rightly be derided, Mr Sarver is clearly better qualified than me, but when comparing him to the '3 bears' or King then it's far less cut and dried, indeed on balance the people who understand the club, the support and indeed the sport seem more preferable.

These are all excellent points but perhaps a mix of the two cultures might not go amiss?

 

How about some cheerleaders (we did have some for a while), pre match entertainment (no, not the BB pipe band), half time entertainment (no, not the stupid can you get the ball though the hole in the goals), proper marketing, far more flexible pricing etc?

 

I agree with Craig, just because some investors are so-called Rangers men doesn't mean they are going to be fantastic at running the Club. Mr King, for example, doesn't have much of a track record from that point of view and who knows whether running a car franchise is transferable to running a football club? It may well be, but we don't know at this point in time.

 

What we need is a bunch of well-heeled smart businessmen who are also football fanatics and yes it would be nice if some of them understood the traditions of our Club or better still were long time supporters but that is by no means a prerequisite to success in my eyes.

Valid points, the 'fan' on the board can get carried away 'chasing the dream' and bankrupt us just as easily as the incompetent or corrupt director. There is no guarantee any of those interested in the club can run it correctly, but the very basic business premise of not spending more than you make would be a start and you'd hope at least one of them understood that.

For clarity I'm not criticising Craig, I'm genuinely interested in his take on the compatibility of the two sporting cultures.

Man Utd have spent over £210m in the last 18 months, don't think their fans can complain much about that.

Well a section of their support was so hacked off they left and formed a new club. By any measurement Manchester Utd have not improved under the Glazers, the club has spent over £680 million simply servicing their debt since the glazers took over. Think about that figure for a minute.

we do to hit your 75 p a share target.

I don't have a 75p target, I think you misread my original post. He only has to make the club worth more than he paid for it. If Celtic are worth 75p a share and we're in the low 20p bracket then their is scope for that rising clearly.

I'm not buying into us needing "Rangers men" as owners. I will happily take Warren Buffett right this minute.

 

I would prefer that we get someone with the business credentials, know how, vision and forward thinking to turn our ship around. I care not what his creed, colour, religion or nationality are. All I care about is "Is he good enough to put Rangers back where it needs to be" and "Is he bona fide, above board and looking to lead by example in terms of honesty and integrity".

 

I find it disappointing that we continually have to hang our hat on "Rangers men" - that isn't a slight on the 3 Bears or Dave King, it is that I find it bemusing that we would be prepared to turn other people away who could very well be suitable. If Jerry Jones of the Cowboys, Robert Kraft of the Patriots or George Steinbrenner of the Yankees showed up we would be saying "Thanks but no Thanks - you aren't a Rangers man" - all 3 of whom are fine examples of how to take a sporting franchise (yes, albeit a US one) and enhance it's value

Do you feel the skills are transferable Craig? American sport is quite different from European sport, the franchise system, the manufactured equality of the league, the fact the NFL, NBA and major league baseball are basically the Champion's League not some backwater provincial league.

Liverpool are on their second American owner, the first guys were deeply unpopular, John Henry seems more popular but Liverpool are still punching well below their weight globally. Aston Villa fight relegation every season and Man Utd are being milked as a cash cow.

Rangers aren't a franchise and our culture means anyone making money out of the club will be despised by the support, it's not how our sport has evolved. We are are run at breakeven by people who care for the club or at a loss by wealthy people as a hobby. I'm not sure any other system works in the UK.

Our recent history shows that this is a very short sighted view. The truth is we have no idea what his intentions are and after the last few years we should be very skeptical.

No, our recent history shows that so far everyone who has got involved with us since SDM left was purely interested in making money. Hopefully King and the '3 bears' are different but I can see no possible reason for thinking this guy is.

trouble with that is the huge number of 20p shares we are about to end up with. celtc have around 100 million in circulation.

 

sarvers bid would put us at 180 million and i suspect another 100 million will need to be issued.

 

they wont hit the 75p a share that would make us worth 3 times celtc.

We don't need to be worth three times Celtic, just more than someone is willing to pay for us today. Hey, it's a gamble, there are no guarantees. But I can't see owning a Scotch soccer team cutting a great deal of ice down at the Mirabel Country Club or Pheonix Rotarian bridge nights.

I agree with the pragmatic sense in what you say, and doing the maths I can't argue. However if we are such a cherry pick financially why aren't many more than him over us like a rash (discounting Ashley of course)?

We're a gamble, we're not a sure thing. You still need good money at this stage to 'buy' us for example, its not like last time when you could pick us up for a few million, it's clearly going to take £20mil plus at this stage, that's not small change even for millionaires who normally have their wealth tied up in businesses, properties, etc rather than in cash in a bank somewhere.

A succession of people have seen the opportunity to make money out of us in the last few years, some have succeeded too!

I'm speculating of course, but I just can't see any other motive, he seems an unlikely patsy or stalking horse.

C'mon, he wants to make money, pure and simple. He see's an opportunity to make millions, it's really not rocket science there is no point in speculating on any other motive. He's an American banker, he has no Scottish blood, no connection to this city, he's not even some mad born again Proddy looking to use the club to spread-the-word.

Here's the thing, if he (anyone) can buy us for say 25p a share, fix us so we aren't haemorrhaging money, which shouldn't be that hard in all seriousness, get us promoted to the top flight again and competing at the top of the league then our club will at least double in value. Celtic shares, even with no Champion's League money this season, are trading at around 75p currently, so ours reaching 50p a share shouldn't be beyond us. There's a lot of disinformation around just now, the 'investment' needed in the club isn't so vast, most of the playing staff are out of contract in the summer, the wage bill will be a fraction of what it is currently without doing anything.

He see's an opportunity, whether he can pull it off or not is moot.

heard that on the wireless this morning

what do we know about him ?

There have been a couple of profiles about him in the press in the last couple of years, this from the BBC is as good as any http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29463560

He's really young and has never played professional football, he's basically been a football coach all of his adult life. He's been heavily involved with a number of SFA initiatives with youth coaching.

The question remains, is he the next Jose Mourinho or the next Andy Roxburgh? Time will tell.

That's a most curious piece. Initially, the tone & wording suggest those who saw the whole thing as a PR stunt were wrong, and were confusing employee and employer contributions. However, even if it were 'only' employees' NI which was due, HMRC would have hardly turned a blind eye, thinking a transfer embargo was punishment enough.

 

Then the piece winds up by saying HMRC have 'no concerns' which, given our history, financial position and the much trumpeted expression 'winding up order', is a most odd statement - a taxpaying body cannot go from a status of 'winding-up order' to 'no concerns' in less than 48 hours. But if Forsyth knows it was cobblers, why isn't he going with it?

 

Very odd.

Yeah it's strange. I notice a BBC piece quoted on another thread mentions us being 'saved from administration' by Easedale yesterday so it's clearly a line the media are running with. That might be simply because the club haven't as yet denied it and because it adds even more drama to events. It also reads like whoever fed them the original NI story has come back with an 'explanation' when questioned about it's veracity in the the face of the SPFL saying 'nothing to see here'.

For what it's worth I remain sceptical. Easedale didn't actually give the club any money, he simply made funds available until the MacLeod money cleared, that I imagine happened today if payment was made on the 3rd. The addition of the 'imminent administration event' simply made it look like Easedale had saved us.

Yeah, I'm sure Dave King needs business advice from us.

Fuckin 'ell, Mr Goodbar.

Yeah, but how'd that all end for Ms Keaton!

By the time I get to Phoenix, she'll be rising

And she'll find the note I left hangin' on her door

And she'll laugh when she reads the parts that says "I'm leavin'"

'Cause I've left that girl so many times before

I'm always thankful for a Glen Campbell earworm but that's pretty much all I'm pleased about with this story. Let's assume the story is true. Firstly what does an American banker with no connection to Scotland or apparent interest in football even want with our club? Secondly does he understand that we aren't a 'franchise' to be changed at the whim of an owner? Thirdly what does he want with our club and lastly just what does he want with our club??!!

This talk of a gazillionaire seems to have got some people very excited, will we never learn? These people should be nowhere near our club, we're not a 'franchise' and we're definitely not a money making opportunity. Plus the Phoenix Suns are rubbish. No thanks.

think we also as a fan base need to be better educated in the ways of youth academies and what our aims for such should be. Think Ajax have the set goal of their academy to produce three players for the first team squad every two years. That is from a well established and very well funded youth system. 6m euro a year

 

So what is a realistic aim/goal for ours? one every two years?

This is an interesting point. A section of the Rangers support are merciless towards young players, look at the abuse that's thrown at Aird currently. Heaven forbid we might try and support the lad, you know, encourage him, help him. Fuck no, we abuse him, tell him he's shite, shouldn't be in the team and is a wage thief. That's part of the problem, a large section of our support won't allow a player to develop, to make mistakes or show inconsistency something all young players do. That vocal section expect every Rangers player to be fully formed, the finished article. Ironically they are often the same section who abuse the manager and the club for not producing young players.

The SFA and the clubs should all agree to have a certain percentage of the their squad as 'home-reared', overnight it would force clubs to focus on it properly. That being said there is nothing stopping a club doing it unilaterally. But heaven help the young player who has a poor game in front of the Govan.

With respect, I think it is true. Exceptionally fit compared to 40 years ago* - yes. Exceptionally fit by even the standards of part time players, then no - not even close. If we were training and using things you mention properly (like dieticians) and following proper 21st Century fitness regimes then we would be what you describe. But we don't I watch football a lot, we are not fit compared to most others I see. Whether one person is faster than another is NOT just luck of nature. It is also what you do with what nature has given you. That's just a ridiculous claim, putting it all down to luck. Two payers at 16 - one is faster than the other. The slower one trains properly, takes advice, diets properly etc. The other boozes it up and eats junk food. You'll soon see that "the slow one now

 

I agree about Adam, btw, he was an example of our lamentable individually targeted boo boy structure. I remember similar vendettas going back over the decades - perhaps there's always been a whipping boy at Ibrox?

 

* Though Davie Smith was lamenting what he saw as our terrible lack of fitness in his Dec 6th speech at the Gernet dinner and comparing it sadly to his time.

I think you might be confusing poor tactics and motivation with fitness here. Our full-time professionals are 'fitter' than part-time players, to state otherwise is simply nonsense. You might have seen them given the run-a-round by part-timers in the last few seasons but that was nothing to do with fitness.

As for running as you are aware there are two real types of running. The first is sprinting, simply speed over 10, 20, 30 yards and so on. You can work with sprint coaches, have your gait analysed and adjusted, work with weights and improve your speed but that'll never be able to compensate for natural athleticism and ability. Some people are simply born 'faster' than others, their body shape, weight to muscle ratio, leg length means they are simply faster sprinters and there's nothing you can do about that. Sure, if someone chooses to put on a lot of weight or gets an injury they'll slow down, but that won't make someone else faster.

The other type of running is distance, involves stamina and strength. Good sprinters often aren't as good at this type of running, it requires different strengths, lung capacity is more important for instance. It is also an area that can be worked at and improved, and is the main area all professional footballers work on. It's the core of all fitness, the ability to 'run for 90 minutes' is a cliche but it's what all professional footballers aim for. Some are better at it than others; injuries, age and core strength all make a difference but pretty much all are operating at a very high level. Distance runners are usually slightly built, carrying as little excess weight as possible, that's not possible for pro footballers, upper body strength is important, they are muscular because of the contact nature of football.

Professional, contact, team sports work on core fitness in pre-season. Huge amounts of running and other endurance work is done then to build up the body to a peak level of fitness. This is then 'topped up' during the season, this is standard and universally recognised way of 'training' and it would more concerning if Rangers weren't following that.

Most improvements in 'fitness' during the season are entirely psychological. The infamous 'murder hill' of Jock Wallace was a perfect example of that psychology, the players believed it made them fitter than everyone else, whether it did or not wasn't actually important.