JohnMc

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 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. 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? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's possible certainly. But it's worth remembering that Wallace has had a wretched season until about three weeks ago, none of the other centre-backs have looked good, Foster was getting booed by our support before his injury, Black has been poor in the holding midfield role, Law only started playing a fortnight ago and neither Simonson or Robinson inspired confidence in anyone. McCulloch is not the long term answer to any question however he's only one player in a side that has defended badly as a team, he's not been anymore culpable than most of the others. If the midfield aren't retaining the ball or winning it, if the full backs aren't stopping crosses and if the keepers aren't commanding their box then even the best centre-half is going to get exposed. An interesting thing happened on Sunday when McCulloch was sent off. McCall chose to take off a midfielder when a lot of people would have expected him to take off Miller or Clark and play one up. McCall realised that our forwards were not allowing the Hearts defence the time to build from the back, in short our defending started the second they took possession. When the side defends as a team even the slowest centre-half looks less exposed.

The way some of us speak about our own players has always angered and baffled me, McCulloch is just the most recent example. He's a very good professional and a very good example to young players. He's coming to the end of his career, that's all. I've read on numerous occasions that 'he only stayed because no one else would give him the money'. Had McCulloch left and joined a League One side in England for example he'd have been on a good salary and with no transfer fee to pay he'd have a received a handsome signing-on fee. The fact that McCall has continued to pick McCulloch tells us far more about the application and dedication of the other centre-halves at the club than it does about McCulloch.