JohnMc

Does he bring energy or does he just run around a bit with no real purpose? Borna is only useful in the opposition's half, his defending is continually poor. He needs replaced, but not with Ridvan who seems equally hopeless in either half.

No, I believe it's important to Maasai warriors and Snow White too.

What does everyone see in Ridvan? I'm at a loss why anyone thinks he's an improvement on Barasic. Borna can't defend but at least he can cross, Yilmaz can't even do that. There are rides at the shows he can't get on, my heart sinks when I think of what we paid for him. That aside not sure there's much to take from the match. Newcastle have better players than us, perhaps not unexpected when they spent £415 million assembling them, but the gulf wasn't cavernous although it felt like they had another gear if they wanted it. With the exception of the keeper our defence is unchanged, that might be a worry. Lundstram looks like he's starting this season like last season. Hopefully someone will convince him it's actually March and he'll find some form. A bit early to judge the new guys but as I'm a Rangers fan I won't let that stop me forming hard opinions and fighting to the death for them. Butland is too handsome for a goalie, get him punted, I've taken an instant dislike to him and that's unlikely to change. A midfield of Dowell, Raskin and Rice should carry us to glory. The big Dutchman looks like a handful and Sima is certainly strong, hopefully he's got a bit more than that too. Big season ahead for Lowry, whether it's on loan at St Johnstone or in our first team he needs to start playing regular football or his career will be one of what might have been.

I've not seen that much of him, but what I have seen of him suggests he's got a real chance. He's clearly got ability and a decent reading of the game and he seems to have his head screwed on. I know Motherwell were really disappointed to lose him. He was the best player on the pitch in the cup final against Celtic at the end of last season despite being one of the youngest playing. The small caveat I'd make is he has the physique of a grown man. That's a huge advantage in age group football, it really helps a young player stand out if they're physically stronger than pretty much every other player on the pitch. It will allow him to move on to 'adult' football quickly . Rangers haven't been good at nurturing the talent in the youth teams, so that's against him, but it would be fantastic if he made an impact this season.

No, it's to further emphasise why they're different from Ferguson. The team certainly didn't fail while Duncan Ferguson was with us, we won the league in 93/94 and 94/95 the two seasons he was with us. I'd also argue his signing spurred Hateley, the man he was supposed to succeed, onto greater influence, Hateley was our top scorer in each of those seasons. Duncan Ferguson is one of the great 'what might have been' of the last 50 years. He was the victim of David Murray's ego, SDM was angry that Jim McLean was reusing to sell him to Rangers. He should have bided his time, perhaps arranged a 'Gough' and got someone down south to buy him for a season then sell him to us. We were powerful enough then to do that. But instead he arranged for friendly journos to write stories about how hard done by Ferguson was and ramped the pressure on Dundee Utd until eventually they agreed a very acrimonious sale for a then British record fee. That simply put enormous pressure on Ferguson from day 1. For all his undoubted talent Ferguson was a big daft lad, and the glare of publicity and expectation that came with the move wasn't a great mix with a young man filled with confidence and bravado. With hindsight I think Ferguson should have gone to Bayern Munich, who apparently made a bid for him after he'd terrorised the German defence in one of his few games for Scotland. What a player he could have become with the level of coaching and technical input they had. He's still have to come to us eventually, but he'd have been older, wiser and a better player. Anyway, there are number of labels that could be justifiably put on Ferguson, but a dud most certainly isn't one I'd use.

Nah, Duncan Ferguson was sold for what we bought him for, he was no dud. Ferguson was treated differently from pretty much every other footballer in Britain it remains a disgrace he was jailed for what happened in that game. The other 2 players were paid off by us.

I'm not sure it's fair to say someone who got a serious injury is a dud. Kuznetsov, Rosenthal, Helander and even Roofe have been unfortunate, the former two had their careers completely derailed. No one thinks Michael Mols was a dud, but he was never the same player after his injury. For me a dud could be someone who simply wasn't up to the job despite the all realistic expectations. Basil Boli for example looked like a truly world class defender at Marseille but like a comedy act with us. Guivarc'h had won the World Cup but looked like he'd struggle in the Challenge Cup with us. Salenko had set goal scoring records in the World Cup but looked like he'd won a competition to play when he was with us. Even Maurice Edu, lionised for scoring a last minute winner against them from 2 feet out, never came close to living up to his price tag or expectations. But all of those players had to move country, learn a new language, or try and settle into a new culture. As supporters we probably under estimate how difficult some players find that and what affect it can have on them. The real duds are those who simply never tried. Kyle Lafferty, particularly second time round. A total waster who will no doubt spend years appearing at fan forums and pub openings in the future. Grezda, Pena and Negri fall into this category. Andy Webster is another, he didn't cost us a transfer fee however he was waste of a wage. Alan Gow is another who I always felt could have done so much more. Those who simply weren't good enough. Konterman, Sebo, Billy Urquart, Beattie, i'm not sure you can really blame them for that, the club needs to take the blame. They at least tried their best.

As my son said to me last night with this proposed change to offside Sakala will be worth £100 million next season... I hadn't realised that Dessers is actually Belgian, so hopefully Raskin and Lammers being at the club will help him settle. He's had a peripatetic career, not sure what to read into that, still, if he has a couple of good seasons then moves on that might be okay. He seems to fit Beale's plan to make us a much taller side. Every one of our summer signings so far has been over 6 foot so far, I suspect Beale felt we were being bullied by physical sides before. Looking forward to seeing some of these guys on the pitch now, the side will have a very different feel to last seasons.

Anyone else get the feeling we've decided to park our tanks on their lawn? The action against the SPFL can't be about money, it must be about creating change at the top of that organisation. Leaking it to the media, along with uncomfortable truths around employment contracts, during a quiet sports news period, feels deliberate too. It feels like we're ramping up pressure on Doncaster, his paymasters, and the other clubs in the SPFL who might be swithering over where to fall on this. The spin around the SFA backing us on it only helps create division and uncertainty, must make it fun when they all bump into each other in the lift at Hampden. Cantwell publicly mocking Celtic's pet broadcaster might be coincidence, but again it feels like we've decided to get in their faces from the off. Beale clearly annoyed Celtic's last manager with some rather innocuous comments, perhaps we've decided to go all in on that this season. It's a strategy that should please many in our support, but does run the risk of making us look foolish if it only helps galvanise them.

No relegation in the major leagues as far as I'm aware. I've also read that some teams will deliberately lose so they can get an early pick in the draft. It's probably not a good comparison actually, while players do move teams the transfer market isn't like football's.

I imagine it's partly due to the precarious and public nature of a manager's job. In England the average tenure for a manager is now 477 days, I can't imagine it's very different in Scotland. If you know at the outset that you've pretty much only got 18 months in the job then I imagine the people who have the greatest affect on your role are the ones you're most likely to come into conflict with. Players cost manager's their jobs, it's probably easy to blame the person who chose those players, rather than yourself. Add in the public nature of a manager's job, constant scrutiny from the media and clueless fans waiting for the kettle to boil before starting work writing about them as if they have the first idea what they are talking about. Few jobs are so public and watched by people who think they know better. It's a wonder managers aren't in conflict with everyone all the time. in American sport the average MLB baseball coach tenure is 3 seasons, and in American football it's 4.3 seasons, in the NBA it's 3.7 years. It's not always easy to compare sports but structurally the American system seems to be what's coming into European football, so maybe we'll see a time where managers are given longer.

I read English's article and it was hardly a hatchet job, I'm surprised how touchy Celtic are. If Celtic don't start the season well it won't be long before the media and some of their support turn on them. I look forward to that.

They had to buy quite a bit of land adjacent and around the old stadium. They somehow even managed to get a compulsory purchase put in place on a decent sized steel fabricating business nearby, how they got that through I'll never know. The new stadium is adjacent to the old one and does overlap, but it's not exactly in the same place, a bit like us building a new stadium on the site of the Ibrox primary school across Edmiston Drive.

I don't think there's anything 'bad' about them, they're simply getting older and as buildings get older they incur increasing maintenance costs. I imagine they'll be fine for another 20 years albeit the money required to maintain them will take up a larger percentage of our costs. They're too small, demand outstrips supply currently, we'd sell another 10,000 or so seats based on season ticket demand. That of course could change in the future. I wasn't comparing our finances with those English sides, simply the reported costs of their new stadiums. They seemed more relevant than Danish or German stadium costs. I don't think I need to point out that the club haven't actually asked me to explore this, I was just a little bored while having a cup of tea earlier.

The cost of building a 'new' Ibrox is worth investigating, the Copland, Broomloan and Govan are over 40 years old now even if there have been changes to each over that time. Everton have estimated £500 million for their proposed new stadium. Spurs apparently spent around £1 billion on their ground. Brentford built a new stadium for £71 million. Some fairly big differences in costs there. I suspect we'd want to keep the Main Stand, so it's a 3 sided bowl or similar we'd be looking at. We wouldn't need to buy land, unlike Spurs and Everton, so that's a saving right away. We'd clearly need to borrow the money for the project, and if we assume the 'new' Ibrox would have a higher capacity and more corporate boxes to pay for the build. If we needed £250 million then in simple terms we'd be looking for £10million a season plus interest over 25 years. Not impossible if we add another 10,000 seats plus more hospitality. The danger is that the initial cost grows. That happened when we rebuilt back in the late 70s and it had a huge effect on the quality of the team on the park. Match day revenue continues to be our most important source of income, so investigating how to increase that makes a lot of sense.

It feels a little like 'toys out the pram' from us because the Conference League idea was rejected so strongly. If the Lowland League was good enough last season and the season before I'm not sure why it isn't this coming season. Ironically with Linlithgow and Albion Rovers joining the league is arguably stronger than it's ever been, it's certainly on a par with League 2 quality wise. I'm still not sure the B Teams idea is the answer but young players need to play first team football, or be in squads where first team football is a realistic possibility, I agree with that. Football at that level isn't great and most should be playing aThat requires systemic change and as the clubs won't vote for proper change we're going to continue having the same conversations. When we were stumbling around the fishing villages and market towns of Scotland trying to find our way back to the SPFL Celtic had no real challenge and were able to play youngsters. During that time they developed Tierney, Callum McGregor, Ryan Christie and James Forrest into first team and international players. Since our return and sorting ourselves out on the pitch they've not developed a single young player worth mentioning. That's not a coincidence. The jeopardy of the SPFL, where 2 sides fight for the title, the losing manager almost certainly getting fired, and every other side potentially facing relegation and financial catastrophe creates an environment where experienced journeymen are preferred to mistake prone youngsters. Half the sides in the SPFL changed manager during the last season. A further 3 only appointed their current manager during the season before. Scottish football is doing everything it can to ensure young players get nowhere near first team football.

I was reading a review on a recent book on him just last week, oh for the days when Fife coalfields produced international players with regularity.

I'm old and don't always follow some of this chat, but are we saying he's a 6'3" dribbler who doesn't score many goals? I suppose Aribo could have been described similarly.

As in Pollok and Yoker, teams like that? I doubt it, the days of Junior (few of them are Junior anymore since league reconstruction) clubs developing players is largely gone. Most players come through at senior sides and 'drop down' to that level if it doesn't work out for them further up. To be honest there's little difference in quality in those playing in the West and East Of Scotland League and the Lowland League and Divisions 1 and 2. Player regularly move between them.

POTS - Tillman; consistently above average all season, no one else was. Flop - Matondo; might still come good, but enormously disappointing signing so far. Most Improved - Sakala; looked like he'd no future with us at one point, improved to the point that with a touch more composure he might become a star... Unsung Hero - Tav; 55 appearances (more than any other player) and 18 goals from fullback despite a dip in form and struggling with injury at times. Best Signing - Colak; joint top scorer this season with Tav and vital goals in Europe. Lawrence looked good before injury, Souter looked good after injury, Cantwell and Raskin haven't played enough matches yet, all 4 of them may prove better signings in the long run.

I think this confirms what we already knew, namely that pod contributors know nothing.

No real surprises. Kai Kennedy looked like he was destined for great things at one time, but during his spells out on loan he's simply not kicked on. He should still have a career in football at Championship/League 1 level, but can't help but feel it couldn't have been more. Likewise with Charlie Lindsay, he was (may still be) the youngest ever player for Glentoran. He's another I thought had a real chance at one time. It must be hard for these players, even if it wasn't a surprise. I can't imagine being that age and being told you're not good enough to do the thing you've always assumed you would do.

For a lot of players there's financial incentive in making international squads. Not only from whatever the SFA pays them but from personal sponsors and also from their club contracts. Often a player's contract will have levels (games played/cups won/European qualification etc) and making international squads is often one of them. A player who is a current full international also has a higher value than one that isn't, even if it's for a 'poorer' footballing nation like Scotland. International football is seen as a higher level of competition than domestic league football and enhances a player's transfer and salary value.* I can understand why we're nervous about two players with poor injury records playing more football when we'd prefer them to rest. I suspect both quite like playing international football, it's a different type of challenge for a player. Whatever your views on Steve Clark he's done well with Scotland and we've a reasonable chance of qualifying for a tournament, something almost every professional would like to be part of. *Some 20 or so years ago there was a scandal in Brazil when it was discovered their national team manager was getting paid by agents to give random players one cap. These were players who would normally be nowhere near the Brazil squad. These agents were then able to tout their player to European clubs as a 'Brazilian international' and command a larger fee and salary for an often very average player. One team who fell for this were from Glasgow, they bought a Brazilian international centre half to some fanfare. It turned out he was the most aptly named player of all time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Scheidt

That's interesting. I thought he was poor last night and his crossing is surprisingly bad for a specialist full back. A bit like Sakala he works hard but I'm not convinced by him yet. Still early days in terms of playing time of course.