Rousseau

Ah McLeod...what could have been...

For me the worrying think is that these guys (McKay I'm think of; good touch, quick, technical, good interplay, but not too strong -- hopefully it'll come!) could be left out because they don't conform to the typical Scottish type of strong, tall and powerful. It's like Jack Harper at Real: he obviously has talent, but the Scottish coaches omitted him because he wasn't tall or strong enough. I think it's an out-of-date worldview. We need to move on. To do that we need a coach that is knowledgeable in this area, not another former Scottish-based player.

SPFL could confront Rangers over plans for play-off tickets

By Alasdair Lamont BBC Scotland

 

Rangers and the Scottish Professional Football League could clash over plans to let season ticket holders into play-off matches at Ibrox for nothing.

 

The SPFL prohibits clubs from allowing fans free entry to end-of-season games.

 

With 50% of gate money from each play-off game due to the SPFL, up to three home ties at Ibrox would generate hundreds of thousands of pounds to be shared out among all member clubs.

 

But allowing around 25,000 fans in for free would greatly diminish that sum.

 

The SPFL has offered no comment on the matter so far.

 

The 50% of the cash generated through gate receipts that goes to the SPFL is to be re-distributed to every club not involved in the games.

 

Rangers currently sit third in the Scottish Championship with one match of the normal league season remaining, which is against Hearts.

 

Hibernian are in second place at the moment, a position which decreases the potential amount of Premiership play-off matches from six to four.

 

Hibs allowed season ticket holders in for free last season when they lost out to Hamilton Academical in the play-off final.

 

They sought permission to do so from the SPFL board and were informed the rule breach would not be penalised on that occasion.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32490412

Let them in for a quid!

If the SFA are running scared of any person/institution over which they are supposed to govern then surely their position is untenable? It's a ridiculous position for a Football Association to be in. Only in Scotland.

Nevertheless, the King decision is not easy, but I don't foresee any problems. The main issue was the tax avoidance, which has since been settled amicably.

He is accountable, I'm saying what he earns is not of his doing and shouldn't be a factor.

It's not what he is earning, it's the fact he is earning whilst doing nothing.

10 games. He also holds the record for consecutive old firm defeats.

That was intolerable. I suspect it may may be beaten if we get promotion!

The part i find difficulty with is that he is allegedly a Rangers man.

It's the fact he is taking a wage that really frustrates me; the fact he was a failure as manager is neither here nor there. If he is a Rangers man, he wouldn't take a wage.

When we had a huge budget (compared to now) he was signing Capucho, Maniero, Mladenovic, Ostenstad, Emerson, Eggen etc so Christ knows what we would end up with. You would hope after taking us to 3rd in the league he will never have any involvement again. The later years under him were just absolutely brutal.

That's very true. He didn't actually buy most of the players I mentioned. I forgot about 3rd place. As I said: he's the same old type; doesn't excite me, in fact it frustrates me.

McLeish was OK. He didn't have much money, but the players were pretty good: DeBoer, Canigga, Arveladze (spelling?), Ricksen, Amoruso, Numan, Ferguson, McCann (Arteta?), etc. Not convinced he'd be any good with a reduced budget again. Anyway, he's the same type we've always gone for, what's it going to take for us to go down a different route? Doesn't excite me.

We need someone different. But then the issue is: will someone 'different' get the time?

We have to take some of the blame for not allowing a probationary period (is that the right word?). We have not had many moments where we can say ' we should have given that guy more time, he was on to something', but there have been hints, but we've been unremitting in our short-term judgement. I understand we demand to win every game, but perhaps it's time to let someone different have a period of 'failure' (maybe not as bad as that) to allow the team to push through into a new era. Van Gaal was awful at the beginning of the season, but now they look like they are finally building something special.

I keep coming back to Cathro; he's the type i'd like to see.

Even if we could by some miracle tempt him back, our team and the football we play would not suit him, and so it'll end up turning out like the first time: huge talent, great ability, but won't fit into the team. He plays well in a midfield three, so he has support. At Rangers he'd play (a) out wide, or (b) in a midfield 2 where he'd get run about because he does not have the energy. It's not his fault, but our teams, or more specifically our management; it's out of date.

A team has to compensate for players deficiencies to benefit from their talents, we just shoehorn players into a position with know knowledge of how it affects them.

I think the board just don't want public shares. How does that affect rights/share issue? It's still possible, surely?

Mols. forgot how good he was until I watched a couple of youtube vids. Superb player.

Any links?

I have nothing against him taking his wage/money lets face it anyone on hear who has ever been paid off ever said to their employers just keep my lying time and holiday pay I don't think so and it doesn't matter what the numbers are the thing that blemishes all'y record is the dire football played under his management and the state of the team when he left it was the worst team since the club was founded .

For me its the complete opposite: he cannot be criticised for being a bad manager, because he tried his best, unfortunately he wan't good enough -- neither was Greig; but taking wage when he's not doing anything -- and the amount -- is ridiculous. It's the wage that taints his reputation in my eyes.

His style might at times infuriate me but he's the best in the world so he can do whatever he wants.

 

Porto (2002–2004)

Primeira Liga: 2002–03, 2003–04

Taça de Portugal: 2002–03

Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira: 2003

UEFA Champions League: 2003–04

UEFA Cup: 2002–03

Chelsea (2004–2007, 2013–)

Premier League: 2004–05, 2005–06

FA Cup: 2006–07

Football League Cup: 2004–05, 2006–07, 2014–15

FA Community Shield: 2005

Internazionale (2008–2010)

Serie A: 2008–09, 2009–10

Coppa Italia: 2009–10

Supercoppa Italiana: 2008

UEFA Champions League: 2009–10

Real Madrid (2010–2013)

La Liga: 2011–12

Copa del Rey: 2010–11

Supercopa de España: 2012

Individual

Onze d'Or Coach of the Year: 2005, 2010

FIFA World Coach of the Year: 2010

IFFHS World's Best Club Coach: 2004, 2005, 2010, 2012

Primeira Liga Manager of the Year: 2002–03, 2003–04

Premier League Manager of the Year: 2004–05, 2005–06

Premier League Manager of the Month: November 2004, January 2005, March 2007

Serie A Manager of the Year: 2008–09, 2009–10

Albo Panchina d'Oro: 2009–10

Miguel Muñoz Trophy: 2010–11, 2011–12

UEFA Manager of the Year: 2002–03, 2003–04

UEFA Team of the Year: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010

World Soccer Magazine World Manager of the Year: 2004, 2005, 2010

LPFP Awards Best Portuguese Manager in Foreign Countries: 2008–09, 2009–10

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award: 2005

La Gazzetta dello Sport Man of the Year: 2010[166]

International Sports Press Association Best Manager in the World: 2010[167]

Prémio Prestígio Fernando Soromenho: 2012[168]

Football Extravaganza's League of Legends (2011)[169]

I agree. He is a genius at setting up teams to win. What I like best is that he tweaks his teams to exploit a weakness, or defend against an oppositions strength (Fellaini last week comes to mind; he put Zouma in midfield to battle with Fellaini and he was completely ineffectual!).

It's like Barca play to play, Mourinho plays to win.

You will always get people criticising the way a team plays: you have to play good football to be considered great. I disagree. You are great because you win. And there are many ways to win. He's the anti-Barca because he can win with 20% possession. How many teams can do that at the highest level?

How can we move on when we're broke and he's our highest earner?

I agree. He should not be getting a wage. A manager cannot be criticised too heavily for being a failure if he's done his best. No one should deny he tried his best. As I said: "One can't be blamed for not being good enough, just thanked and we both move on." That's what should've happened. I don't think his legendary status can be erased just because he wasn't good enough as Manager. The wage aspect is different. It's clouding his legendary status. Again, like I said: "I wish he'd give a reason so I can perhaps resolve my contradictory feelings."

Great player; terrible Manager. He did his best, but it was not good enough. I think he went too far towards experience, whereas a mixture of youth and experience would have been better; it certainly would have placated the fans a little more. He did a lot, and he deserves credit.

However, he is still taking a wage. We cannot afford it.

He is a legend; he will always be a legend. He did so much good, and he tried his best; unfortunately it wasn't good enough. One can't be blamed for not being good enough, just thanked and we both move on. But there will always be that stain on his legend, at least over the short-term -- it'll be forgotten in years to come. I can't resolve these two feelings. I wish he'd give a reason so I can perhaps resolve my contradictory feelings.

As I said, financial difficulties may have various reason, reaching e.g. from burned down stands after a lightning stroke (insurrance was insufficient and suddenly you do no longer fulfill the league's criteria etc,) via mismanagement to downright and willfull overspending, tax evasion et al. At the end of the day, quite a few British clubs still have the single owner structure and if he does something heinous, why would punish the players, general staff and last ut not least the usually unaware support? Punishments should be dealt with at a case for case scenario with certain guidelines, not French Revolution style one judgment for all infringements rules.

Clubs should be punished for financial irregularities (overspending etc.), but FFP should limit that. If there is an external cause for a clubs financial difficulty, then they should not be punished. Case by Case scenario would be better. The Dutch FA are quite domineering in regard to the financial operation of their clubs - they actually step in I believe?

Rangers: The only club that could lose money by being promoted. Scottish Football is a joke.

We need to retreat into ourselves and stop bothering with these 'authorities'. We need to be self-sufficient and generate cash ourselves. Membership schemes like Germany etc.

There is a correlation with league position though, except Southampton. That's what it takes. It's not the clubs' fault.

You would expect that the authorities will help the clubs that get into financial difficulties (who may have various reasons). The above is more like kicking the already dying horse ...

What about Financial Fair Play? Or are we too small (Scottish clubs in general) in terms of revenue for it to take effect?

" the socks are, as always, traditionally styled to pay homage to the club's heritage while engineered to provide comfort and support in key areas."

 

The first picture on the site this morning were the traditional black & red but now they are white?

I watched the video from the link and they show white socks. But then Frankie says they aren't. Perhaps there are two colours?

The socks are white!

Modern football was invented in Barcelona in the mid-90s. Of this season’s Champions League quarter-finalists, four sides are managed by players who turned out for Barça in 1996: Pep Guardiola, Luis Enrique, Julen Lopetegui and Laurent Blanc. Within a couple of years, they had been joined by Frank de Boer and Phillip Cocu as well as the coach Louis van Gaal and his assistant Ronald Koeman. In slightly differing ways, the eight are apostles for the Barcelona way – or, more accurately, given the influence of Ajax on that style, the Barçajax way. However, there was another presence there, initially as a translator and then as a coach. In the Barçocracy of modern football, there is a fallen angel.

In the modern world, at least at elite level, José Mourinho stands alone. At the greatest coaching seminar the world has seen, when the game as we know it was shaped, but he did not draw the same lessons everybody else did. The other eight espoused the proactive, possession-based football seeded at the club by Vic Buckingham, developed by Rinus Michels and taken to new levels by Johan Cruyff.

Mourinho, however, was different. Mourinho believed in reactive football. He was the outsider, the outcast who now revels in his role as the dark lord. Saturday’s game against Manchester United was typical. Others, playing at home in a match that could effectively ensure the title, might have felt compelled to attack. Mourinho fielded Kurt Zouma, a central defender, in midfield, sitting deep and won the game with 28% possession.

Mourinho may have objected to Diego Torres’s biography of him but the passage describing his methods against the better sides was as true of Saturday’s win as it was of the victory over Liverpool that determined the destination of the title last season:

1. The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.

2. Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.

3. Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.

4. Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.

5. Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.

6. Whoever has the ball has fear.

7. Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.

It’s true that earlier in the season, Chelsea were more expansive. When Diego Costa, Cesc Fábregas and Nemanja Matic were fit and in form, they attacked and racked up goals. The talk was all of how, after the regular failures to break down massed defences last season, Mourinho had taken decisive action. As the squad has tired and form has waned, as the finish line has approached, though, he has reverted to type. Chelsea have been struggling for form and consistency all year and yet, in the 12 league games since the 5-3 defeat by Tottenham on New Year’s Day, they have conceded only seven goals and dropped only six points.

There was a concern earlier this season that Mourinho might be losing his touch. Against Manchester City (home and away), United (away), Southampton (away) and PSG (home and away), Chelsea took the lead, sat back and ended up conceding equalisers. It could even have happened on Saturday, Falcao hitting the post with 11 minutes remaining. However, even if Chelsea have been unusually vulnerable at times in a lead this season, Mourinho hasn’t changed – and it could be argued that Saturday was vindication.

From right to left, the then Barcelona manager Louis van Gaal, assistant coach Ronald Koeman, keeper's trainer Frans Hoek and assistant trainer José Mourinho during a friendly in Amsterdam in 1999 Facebook Twitter Pinterest

From left to right: the then Barcelona manager Louis van Gaal, assistant coach Ronald Koeman, keepers’ trainer Frans Hoek and assistant trainer José Mourinho during a friendly in Amsterdam in 1999. Photograph: VI-Images/VI-Images via Getty Images

Anyway, the sense is that it’s not entirely a matter of utility: Mourinho has his sides play that way because he enjoys it. Cast out from Barcelona, overlooked by them when they appointed Pep Guardiola in 2008, he is now the anti-Barcelona, determined, like Milton’s Satan that, “glory never shall his wrath or might; extort from me,” vowing “To wage by force of guile eternal war, irreconcilable to our grand Foe.” Every defensive performance, every win with limited possession, is a blow against Barça.

There’s probably no game Mourinho has enjoyed so much as Internazionale’s Champions League semi-final second leg at the Camp Nou in 2010, when his side, down to 10 men for more than an hour, had only 19% possession and lost 1-0 to win 3-2 on aggregate. Who needs the ball?

Mourinho is not a pragmatist in the way that, say, Fabio Capello is, changing approach according to his players and, where necessary, adopting reactive, defensive tactics. Rather his preferred way of playing is reactive, which is why he sold Juan Mata. He may have been Chelsea’s player of the season in each of the two previous years but he had no place in Mourinho’s conception of football.

The paradox is that if Mourinho really has allowed his philosophy to be defined in opposition to Barcelona – he is that which they are not – then he is still allowing Barcelona to dictate terms, creating a dichotomy where there could be multiplicity. It is not that there is the Barçajax school and Not-the-Barçajax school; it is that the Barçajax school is one way of playing among an almost infinite variety, as represented by Jürgen Klopp, Carlo Ancelotti and Diego Simeone among others.

And that, of course, is testimony to the astonishing influence of Barcelona over modern football. Mourinho cannot escape his upbringing as a coach; even as a rebel, it is Barcelona he is rebelling against.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/23/jose-mourinho-the-anti-barcelona-chelsea-pep-guardiola

Impossible to predict as both Hibs and us have been so inconsistent.

 

1. Can we beat Falkirk? Yes but it's not a certainty.

 

2. Can we beat Hearts? Again, yes but it's not a certainty.

 

3. If we finish 3rd can we beat Queen of the South in the play-off quarter final? Yes we can but it's certainty a difficult task over two legs given the league results.

 

4. Can we beat Hibs if we finish 2nd or 3rd? Of course but league results also suggest it will be tough.

 

5. Can we beat Motherwell in the play-off final? Recent games against them suggests so and this may, in fact, be our easiest game.

 

 

Overall, one has to say the odds of us being promoted are against us. We should be beating all these teams but it's far from a formality.

It goes to show: there is no gulf in class between top Championship sides and the bottom dwellers of the Premiership. It makes the case for an extended top division.