Rousseau

I completely agree with this. It's quite staggering that the two players who have made a real impact at first-team level never player at the U-20 level (namely, Wilson and McKay), so it can only be good to get the others out and playing at a 'decent' level -- at least playing professionally against hardened men. It can only be good that our U-17's will be playing against youngsters 3 years older also.

It's about time someone made a change at youth level, because we've not really produced much for far too long. It really is so important to have a continuous stream of young players coming through.

Really? Try shipping out a dud who has three years of a contract left.

Good point. I was thinking about it with regards to protecting our assets: that breaks down when you don't want the asset!

In that sense, and Warburton's point, shorter contracts are better. Just make sure the buy-out clause is decent and there are rewards/incentives for performance and options for the club to renew.

Contract length is generally irrelevant, but hopefully we have sufficient buy-out clauses.

Ach, let both groups remain independent, from the club and from each other, and let them fight it out! I don't mean tit-for-tat name-calling and political games etc., but fighting to see who can accumulate the biggest shareholding. That's the ultimate goal. Why should it be hampered?

If he had good finishing and good touch he would unfortunately not be playing for this Rangers team.

True. Perhaps half-decent touch and finishing? You know what I mean.

Being lightweight in itself is not that problematic IMO, as long as you have other aspects of your game that makes up for it. Like I said, Clark's movement is good, but his finishing and touch is not up to scratch. If he had the touch and finish to add to his movement, then being lightweight wouldn't be an issue IMO.

Shame Hardie is away on loan: I would really like to see him get a few games. He might have got that with Waghorn out. I've got a horrible feeling Warburton doesn't fancy him. He's certainly not the 'type' (fast, running-type) that he prefers, but I'd hate to see another promising young player leave.

I always thought Clark's movement was very good, as he's always getting himself into good positions -- like we saw for the goal, running across the front post -- but his finishing is suspect unfortunately, squandering many chances. We could live with his sleight physique, because it's not all-important for a striker nowadays. If only he could find the net regularly.

Maybe with Waghorn injured -- hopefully not! -- he'll get a wee run in the side.

I agree completely with Tannochsidebear. I'm not really interested in a merger -- or at least not at the moment. For me, the most important thing is for the fans to have as many shares as possible. I agree that this is probably best served by both groups remaining separate.

Perhaps, when the fans have a decent shareholding (50%+), then there can be talk of a merger. The focus will have shifted to a more political role -- something RST seem to do well.

His touch has always been piss-poor; so has his finishing -- remember how many chances he misses. The only difference is that he's not scoring at the moment, whereas before he was chipping in with a few. It might not be tiredness, but a break might help him anyway.

Ach, c'mon. Great memories. (Did anyone notice, once he scores, he always seems to whirl away from the Rangers fans then realises where they are and turn back?)

Incidentally, that's 14 assists for Tavernier in the League; 17 in all competitions.

There seems to be a lot of distrust between the two groups (RF and RST), even if it's not overt I see it in any innocuous comment. Until this is improved, I doubt a merger will happen.

Being gutted! Arsenal are one of my favoured clubs.

Fair enough. It doesn't matter how you do it, just as long as you do I suppose. But to get so far with 10-men and fall at the last hurdle is gutting -- at least for the neutral.

Usually agree with you, Rousseau, but not today.

 

Have to admit that Leicester play football that is effective and pleasing to watch. Reminiscent of Ipswich Town in the early seventies.

Disagree with what?

I'm gutted for them.

I thought the Ref bottled it, with the Mahrez penalty (Monreal 2nd yellow) and then the Simpson 2nd yellow (probably a yellow but fairly soft I thought) seemed to follow several decisions going Arsenal's way.

I'd echo the sentiments so far: it'd be great to see Leicester win the league. I don't think it's game over if they lose today, though. It's a marathon, not a sprint.

I still think Tottenham have a sneaky chance. Going along very quietly, sitting second. If they get a good result against City, then they're in with a shout also.

Man Utd are actually getting worse.

The splitters are a very very small minority within the fans groups so I think you are taking too much notice of these guys(and it seems to be guys). Both of the major fans groups members voted overwhelmingly in favour of holding merger talks, obviously these members must vote again on the finalised plan before any new group is formed.

 

The talks are ongoing and must be held in confidence by all participants, the rest of us just need to have patience - all will be revealed in due course. I have faith in people like plgsarmy who are doing all the work in the background through their love of the club and belief in fans representation not to massage their ego's like some.

Perhaps I am taking too much notice of what, I agree, is a minority. This merger is a good idea, but I don't think it's completely necessary at the moment. I think increasing our shareholding is most important. I think having two groups striving for this goal is not a bad situation -- It could help us get there quicker.

Of course. I'm not a fan of complete transparency. I don't think every little thing should be made available, merely the outlines, proposals and decisions.

It's just frustrating to see what seems like squabbling towards a vague goal, when to me the model to copy is obvious (Bayern Munich). But, I suppose that's part of the problem: everyone having their own thoughts on the issue. I think that's why I'd like Rangers to take the lead, rather than a multitude of groups. Then again, a merger might help that.

This really is depressing; too many ego's.

It seems to me we are muddling through with many variants of the same idea from many groups. Instead, should we not be following the Bayern Munich model; one that works supremely well? (This Guardian article is long, but quite revealing of the Bayern model: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/dec/09/bayern-munich-bundesliga-global-expansion-karl-heinz-rummenigge)

I think the Club needs to take the lead by creating an advisory board/committee (the club already has three committees for various things) which should be made up of representatives from all of the different groups. This advisory board can then make recommendations to the club board. For example, Bayern Munich's advisory Board stated that they did not want any more than 30% of the club shares in foreign hands (they only sold around 15% of shares in the last 6 years to fund the 360m Allianz arena, which they have almost paid off).

Of course the difference between Rangers and Bayern is that their fans own 82% of shares; they have the power. We must seek to build our shareholding. If the Bayern club board don't do what they suggest, then they get voted out at the next AGM. Simple.

Then, Bayern have a membership scheme whereby the members pay 60 Euros (I think per year) for various benefits (Welcome gift (every new member receives the welcome gift of a personalised scarf!) Discount at club shops (10% discount on all full price items), BAYERN MAGAZIN membership, Priority ticketing services, Concessionary match tickets, Admission to FC Bayern museum). They have 220k members paying this small membership, alongside season tickets (these are some of the cheapest in Europe contributing to sold-out matches).

Fan group independence is not the priority IMO; and, one group is ideal, but not necessary at the moment. We fans need a substantial shareholding so we have the power. Then the Club should be taking the lead, so we can have a professional mediator instead of constant bitching back and forth between groups. The Bayern model works and it's there to copy. Why aren't we doing it?

(Apologies -- it's a bit of a rant, but this whole process is depressing. Everyone seems to be fighting for their own egos, both individuals and groups. Pull your finger out.)

Ooft, vertical football at its most extreme!

The OP wasn't suggesting that, as you know. Merely opening the debate as it is obviously being considered elsewhere online.

 

My personal take on it is very simplistic.

 

We throw around the "legend" status far, far too easily. Legends aren't made by simply having a contribution to the Club. Legends are those who have significant contributions and who cement themselves into the fabric and lore of the Club. For example, Gazza was a tremendous player and I have even found myself calling him a "legend". But do I actually consider him a Rangers legend ? No, I don't. I don't think being here for less than 3 yrs really qualifies you as a Club legend. Mercurial talent that produced the goods for us on many an occasion. But legend ? Legendary status is something that very, very few should have. Otherwise, as mentioned previously, it diminishes what legend actually means.

 

Is Kenny Miller a Rangers legend ? Absolutely not IMHO. He has been a contributor and whether we consider him someone who pays for the wage or not I think that you can see that he has a great desire to win and that comes through in his moaning . But scoring some goals (88 isn't too bad to be fair) and winning some trophies doesn't make you a legend.

 

Legends to me are players such as the Barca Bears, Baxter, Gough, Goram, McCoist, Cooper, Laudrup (we only had Laudrup for 4 yrs but I think he earned legendary status) etc etc. The very notion of including Kenny Miller's name in that exalted company should have us all embarrassed.

 

In the same manner that I am embarrassed that Miller is, in some quarters, being considered a legend, I am also embarrassed to hear that McCulloch is too.

 

As for the Hall of Fame - I think we run the risk of diminishing the luster of that too. You don't add people to your hall of fame every year just because you have an awards ceremony. If people aren't considered hall of famers then they shouldn't get voted into it. It should be something that everyone involved in the Club should be considering our best ever players. Ray Wilkins, for example, was a great player - but should he be in the Rangers Hall of Fame given he only played 96 games for us ? Souness only played 73 games for us but I suspect his inclusion was for more than just his playing performances.

 

It is all subjective admittedly - but I like my Legends and Hall of Famers to be people that I consider "greats". Miller doesn't come into that category for me, but I still appreciate his contribution over his 3 stints with us.

I totally agree about Miller (and your narrower definition of legend), but I'm struggling to see the difference between Laudrup and Gascoigne. I suggested individual contribution to the team (as per Rabi-Duck's definition of Legend), as well as longevity, as a basic definition (Trophies are not necessary for legendary status IMO). So, with the above players, both provided a decent individual contribution, single-handedly winning games etc., but neither were here for very long. I'm just wondering why Laudrup can be considered a legend, but not Gascoigne?

Ooh, do off-pitch issues come into it? (I know Gascoigne has had some issues, but he is a bit of a tit.)

That was unbelievable, 9-men winning like that (and the Walter fist-pump). Miller's contribution there does elevate him somewhat. Icon?

I like RabiDuck's definition: "should surely be someone who's made a clear, tangibly individual difference to the squad he's played in".

I don't think trophies come into it, although it does tend to follow, generally speaking, with Rangers; but, like Pete says, one can be a legend without necessarily winning many trophies.

Longevity needs to come into it also, as without this they're just good players, or perhaps icons: Negri made a "tangible, individual difference to the squad", but it was only one year; he shouldn't be considered a legend, but could be considered an icon (Mols, Albertz et al come into this category IMO).

Laudrup is tricky because he was only here for a few seasons (4?), but I think most would argue his contribution and ability more than makes up for this.

Miller has neither, really. Maybe a case for longevity, but it's only 5 years tallied-up, so maybe not.

I always thought that 'legendary' status only really applies retrospectively. We'll only really judge his contribution once he's been gone a decade or so.

Greig , Cooper , Laudrup

 

kenny miller??

 

FFS

If we're measuring 'legend' by those guys' standards then we'll never have a legend again!

On gut instinct, I'd say no; valuable and important, but not a legend.

However, what is the definition of a legend?