Rousseau

I appreciate the stop-start worry, which would be an issue. What about a cricket-style system whereby the teams have 3 challenges (or is it 2?) -- a bit like Tennis to be honest. The goal-line technology is very quick: a quick nod down at the watch tells the referee in an instant. For red card, in/out penalty decisions could we not just have a certain number of challenges? Challenge successfully, get the decision reversed (or upheld), but if you challenge unsuccessfully, you lose a challenge. It would stop the misuse of technology. In regards to the ''opinion not fact'' argument, could we not have 2 video referee's, where they give their opinion or interpretation of the law. If they disagree with the Referee on the pitch then the decision gets overturned? If there is a split decision, then the power rests with the on-pitch Referee. I really think there is a place for technology. We just need to make sure it fits with the sporting event, and doesn't disrupt the things that make Football special.

These lists are very subjective anyway, but it says something for an Italian paper to notice, or highlight, a British-based player (and playing in Scotland at that...in the second division!).

My response is not up to the standard you've set, but I will say: We can only hope.

I'm quite content with signing King. I'm not too pleased about a loan signing that we can't sign permanently, but that might change. However, I think he'll fit in very well: exactly the type we need. And, if nothing else, it's great for the LOLZ! I seen Harrison Reed a couple of times playing in the Europa League the year before last under Pochettino, and he's a tidy DM, playing short-passes, keeping the ball moving. To be honest, he reminds me of Murdoch in his stature and his style. Reed's stronger and more composed, though (how is it Scottish youngsters just don't look as physical as their English counterparts?). He'd be a decent acquisition, but again, I'd prefer a permanent deal -- although I'm not sure how likely that is, as he is highly regarded.

This is ridiculous: An baseless opinion from Boyd -- not the sharpest tool in the shed -- has been taken up by so-called "journalists" and has now become a story?! WTF?! Frankie's outlined the situation perfectly. I'm not sure how a half-decent "Journalist" cannot do the same. To take the individual cases: Diarougara we missed out on because we're not going to pay £1.5 million on a 28-year-old; and presumably, we're still in negotiations with O'Halloran, to find the right value. The latter is certainly taking it's time, but that's not unusual for a transfer. In regards to his future, that's just mischief-making: Warburton knows the situation, and I gather he's not unhappy.

I think it's the way of the future. It has to happen. We'll miss those controversies, but the games are of such import that we must see correct decisions. Well done to the Dutch FA for taking the lead on this.

Apologies if this is in the wrong thread, but it sort of applies. I like the sentiment from Massie.

Like an old friend you do not actually like very much, the Scottish government’s Offensive Behaviour at Football Act will not go away. It is five years since this offensive piece of legislation was passed and time has done nothing to lessen either its absurdity or its offensiveness. To recap for readers who, for doubtless honourable reasons, have not kept up with one of the more extraordinary speech-curbing measures passed by any UK legislature in recent years, the bill’s premise is that creating new kinds of thought and speech crime can eliminate thoughts and speech deemed offensive. (Some past reflections on this execrable bill can be found here, here and here.) And so it came to pass that the Scottish police, with the full backing of the Crown Office and the Scottish government, began their programme of harassing football supporters whose only crime was to behave as football supporters. The singing of songs – speech, that is – would henceforth be deemed a criminal offence if the police could be satisfied that said songs were in some dubious sense ‘offensive’. It cannot be stressed too often that the law, as interpreted by the judicial system, rigs the game against any defendant. It allows – and I am not kidding here or making this up – for imaginary persons to be conjured into existence who might have been offended had they, you know, actually existed and been present and thus in a position to be offended or incited to public disorder by the singing of a football song. In Scotland, these days, you can offend people who do not exist. It takes the definition of a victimless ‘crime’ to hitherto unknown heights. In a better, more sensible, society this would be reckoned laughable. That is not the society we inhabit, however. This, after all, is the Age of Hurt Feelings and if you hurt my feelings it is only proper that you pay a price for that. To take but one of any number of examples that demonstrate the idiocy of this bill, consider the fact that a song sung by football supporters could be considered offensive but were the same song sung by rugby supporters at Murrayfield it would not be reckoned offensive. Remember too, that ministers were initially not sure if singing the national anthem might be grounds for arrest and prosecution. So, the law is arbitrary and capricious and such a mess that conviction rates are lower than for almost all other offences save cases of rape and sexual assault. Because, jings, what’s offensive to some tender-brained folk is not at all offensive to sensible people. Earlier this month the Scottish parliament’s public petitions committee considered an appeal for the bill to be reviewed. This petition submitted by the Fans Against Criminalisation pressure group (an organisation chiefly consisting of Celtic supporters but one that should be supported by all football supporters and, indeed, by people with no interest in football), led to scenes of low farce and high idiocy. This was entirely predictable. Kenny MacAskill, justice secretary at the time the bill was passed, was present. Subscribe from £1 per week Let’s go to the official transcript. For reasons known only to himself and a higher power, Mr MacAskill demanded to know if the petitioners considered the targetting and murder of catholic police officers in the Royal Ulster Constabularly (and then the PSNI) a sectarian matter. What this had to do with the singing of anthems at football matches was not clear. Undaunted, Mr MacAskill trudged on, suggesting it was ‘perfectly reasonable’ to in some way link actual murders in Northern Ireland with the singing of traditional Republican songs in Scotland. Awkwardly, he could not – or would not – actually name any of the songs about which he seemed so concerned. A minor detail, I suppose. But then we should not expect Mr MacAskill to understand the issue. Because the root of the matter is not the content of the songs – no, not even those, as he put it, ‘that venerate the killers of British soldiers’ – but, rather, the right of individuals to exercise their right to speech. The actual words don’t matter. The committee’s convenor, Labour’s Michael McMahon, then asked a good question: ‘What would you think of a motion in the Scottish Parliament urging the commemoration of the Easter Rising when it would lead to your arrest if you were to say the same thing at a football match?’ Well, quite. According to Mr MacAskill that would be different (perhaps, Father Kenny, even an ecumenical matter?) It is a ‘question of context’ since ‘making a political statement at a political gathering is one thing. Shouting something offensive at a crowd, where people could be distressed, is another.’ Alas, how it is another matter entirely was never explained. As FAC’s Jeanette Findlay observed, Mr MacAskill supports the erection of a statue of James Connolly the better to commemorate his role in the Irish uprising even as he also supports the criminalisation of football supporters who sing songs that could be understood as commemorating, even saluting, Connolly’s service in the Easter Rising and eventual martyrdom. Liberty for Mr MacAskill but not for the lumpen republican proletariate, I suppose. Celtic supporters have born the brunt of this shamefully illiberal bill. As the Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, noted in 2013, political chanting falls within the remit of the bill (an unusually honest admission of its speech-curbing nature but one that, characteristically, he failed to recognise as a problem). Asked if holding and expressing an Irish Republican identity was now potentially criminal, he replied ‘Potentially criminal under this Act, yes.’ So, of course, is its opposite. If it can be criminal to express Republican views it is equally criminal to express Loyalist views. I’ll grant Mr MacAskill this, however: the context in which these views are expressed really might matter. That is, the singing of ‘sectarian’ songs at football matches should not necessarily be understood as a declaration that, say, Rangers fans really wish to be ‘up to their knees in ****** blood’ or that Celtic supporters necessarily really support the provisional IRA. Rather these are simply anthems of identity and declarations that we are different from them. In this fashion, singing is little more than the expression of affiliation. Again, the actual words don’t matter very much. Indeed, they might matter less inside a football ground than outside it. I certainly cannot see why a football supporter’s fondness for James Connolly or the IRA is more offensive than a politician’s support for the same. But even if it were generally reckoned offensive, so what? A civilised and free society can cope with the expression of views it considers retrograde and even offensive. That’s one of the ways in which you can tell it is a civilised and free society. By that standard, Scotland is neither free nor civilised. In a better country, politicians would be ashamed of criminalising political speech, footballing anthems and, even, in other circumstances, jokes. It is typical of Kenny MacAskill and everyone else who supported this bill that they remain proud of it. It’s not about football and it’s not about sectarianism. It’s about speech. Which is why everyone should be concerned by it. And also, I would suggest, why supporters of every football club in Scotland should sing a medley comprising the Roll of Honour, The Sash, The Boys of the Old Brigade and Derry’s Walls. Make them arrest everyone. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/scotlands-free-speech-opponents-remain-as-hypocritical-as-they-are-illiberal/

Adam is a better player than Ferguson. Ferguson was a better player for Rangers, but that's not Adam's fault: he was played in the wrong position and wasn't nurtured. Adam was forced into a 4-4-2 where he can't play, as he doesn't have the energy to play CM or LM. He needs to play in a 4-3-3, where he is supported and can dictate play, pinging passes here and everywhere (usually pin-point). As soon as Le Guen came in -- a continental manager with an eye for the technical -- he was given more game-time. (Although, he was still utilised LM, which was still not appropriate for him.) Ian Holloway almost created a new role for him to use his talent: ostensibly playing No.10, but he would often just drop deep behind the two holding players, dictating play and starting attacks from deep. I think it's the same with most young players in Scotland: they're shoehorned into a certain position, often an out-of-date role, which doesn't suit them. Add that to the technical deficiency, then it's no wonder we (Scotland) struggle.

I'm offended that being offended is seemingly wrong. I may disagree with another's opinion, I may be offended by it, but I'm not going complain for them to be censored. It's a very slippery slope when we start tinkering with freedom of speech. As Voltaire says "I [may] Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."

McGregor was a stand-out last season, but most of his game was on the back-foot, making last ditch tackles, outmuscling players etc. His touch and distribution with the ball was poor, so doesn't conform to Warburton's preferred player profile. However, his physicality might have been useful to retain, and he might have been decent dealing with those troublesome counter-attacks. I think it comes down to his distribution and ability on the ball: Warburton prefers an offensive-type centre-back, one that will step out and begin attacks: McGregor doesn't fit.

It was one of the very few games where we were able to show what we could do on the counter and with space to exploit. McKay has really matured: his touch was always good, but his decision making and execution has been top-notch. He's got all the attributes to play the No.10, which we might see more of.

CAPPIELOW -- A ponderous attacking display was slightly redeemed by an improved defensive performance and mental fortitude. When in possession, Rangers were lifeless, lethargic and wasteful with the ball; several players were guilty of giving the ball away. The 'germanic' flavour to the Morton defensive set-up posed problems, and a willingness to break with numbers could have had its rewards. The game turned on its head following a farcical red-card for an 'over-enthusiastic' celebration. The subsequent game was in complete contrast to the usual Rangers game, where they finally got to show what they could do on a counter-attack, creating several glorious opportunities. Rangers ostensibly lined-up in their usual 4-3-3. Holt missed out through injury, with Law coming in to join Zelalem and Halliday in central midfield. A back four of Tavernier, Wilson, Kiernan and Wallace played in front of Foderingham in goal. McKay, Miller and Waghorn made up the front three. Morton, who had won just one of their three games since the 2-2 draw at Ibrox in December, had to overlook on-loan Ranger Luca Gasparotto for the game; O'ware dropped into the vacant centre-back position, with Bobby Barr stepping in to a 4-4-2 come 4-5-1 formation. Morton pressed with a front two when Foderingham or the Rangers centre-backs had the ball, potentially causing problems. Rangers' first phase circumnavigated the press successfully by splitting the centre-backs and dropping Halliday deep to make a makeshift back-three, which allowed the ball to be played around. From there the Rangers passing only deteriorated: several players were guilty of gifting the ball to Morton. Generally, this was Rangers' own fault, with a lethargic start to the game and sheer complacency in the pass, but Morton must be given credit for the 'Germanic' style of their defensive block. The Morton second-striker often dropped deep to make a 4-5-1 when the first press was unsuccessful. Instead of staying compact, with the wide midfielders tucking in, they adopted a Borussia Monchengladback-style defense, whereby the wide players stay wide, to cut off the easy pass wide -- a common occurrence when a team needs to switch play. Morton's midfield three then shuttled across to the ball side. As a result, Rangers struggled to to play the pass wide, which is generally their first move to get the wingers and full-backs in the game. Tavernier and Wallace were forced deeper to get the ball, which left Waghorn and McKay isolated. Theoretically, the space is then in the inside channels, as the wide players stretch the pitch to cover the flanks. Rangers could never move the ball quickly enough to expose this space (Holt would have been ideal with his positional awareness). The Rangers central three were too narrow also, adopting a 2-1 shape, with Zelalem at the tip and Law dropping deeper beside Halliday. With the wide pass cut off, the ball was forced centrally into a congested area. Even the long diagonal was restricted as the full-back tracked McKay closely. Morton were keen to attack with numbers on the break, but a combination of adequate defending and poor passing meant Rangers dealt with everything. Kiernan has improved visibly of late: his distribution was always decent, but his defensive ability left a lot to be desired. He has started to track his man more, instead of getting drawn into space. He was quick to cut out forward passes from the Morton midfield, stopping attacks dead. He's still too eager to make a challenge, when staying on his feet would be better. Generally, the possession was good at 60-70%, but it was safe passes across the back line. Eventually, the ball was moved a little quicker and Zelelam and Miller started to find the space in the channels which allowed a few attacks to develop; Miller missing a guilt-edged chance. The goal was fortunate, but Halliday did well to find that yard of space in the inside-channel by moving the ball quickly. His shot deflected into the path of Miller, who out-muscled his defender to poke it home. Rangers never built on this at the start of the second-half, returning to the slow, lethargic play in the early stages of the game. Morton in contrast pressed harder, and were more confident. This forced a change from Warburton: switching to a 4-2-3-1, with Forrester coming on for Zelalem -- who had a decent game, but was wasteful like everyone else -- to take a wide-left role and Shiels, dropping into a holding-role alongside Halliday, coming on for Law. McKay moved into the No. 10 position. Morton continued to press, however, and despite dealing with attacks adequately enough, they did look like scoring. The double-pivot acted as a half-decent shield, forcing Morton wide and into attempting long-range shots. This allowed Rangers to counter: something we've had to defend against consistently but never really had opportunity to do ourselves. And this they did with good movement and speed. A well organised, three-pronged counter, with Waghorn and Forrester stretching the play and the ball carrier (usually McKay) driving into the central area, created the opportunity for the pass wide or a shot from the middle. The second goal came from this counter, with McKay playing a one-two with Miller (a goal and an assist, but still some think he's useless!), before clipping the ball into the top corner. Halliday was red-carded in farcical manner for celebrating a little too enthusiastically. In retribution for the way Morton celebrated at Ibrox after getting a point, Halliday raised his fist to the Morton end before turning to bask in the euphoria of the Rangers support. This all happened in the middle of the pitch: hardly provocative behaviour -- It was certainly nothing like James McClean for West Brom, goading the Sunderland fans from 5 yards away! Ball came on for Miller, and slotted into the holding role alongside Shiels and McKay to make a three-man defensive block. Waghorn and Forrester played wide, tracking back when needed, but always trying to press. Forrester was hard-working but still looks off the pace. The game followed the same pattern, as Morton pressed for a goal and Rangers sat back to counter. The cool head of Shiels was important to keep possession at times, draw fouls and create a couple of chances. His work-rate was brilliant, along with McKay, Forrester and Waghorn. The four were instrumental in creating several glorious goal-scoring opportunities. It shows what Rangers can do when there is space. Wilson, as usual, was calm and composed (although wasteful at times), winning back the ball a couple of times. One wants the calmness and composure, but he's often too calm, and not quick enough to cut things out. It was a slow and technically deficient game from Rangers; slow and lethargic for most of it. Morton deserve credit for their ingenious defending, and their willingness to press for a goal with the man advantage. The pleasing aspect was the clean-sheet, and the mental fortitude to see us hold on -- and continue to create several chances -- in the face of outrageous refereeing decisions. It's a learning curve with these players, and they're certainly growing in stature. It's not what you do when your playing well, but what you do when you're playing badly: it's the scrappy 1-0's (or 2-0) that wins titles.

It was only clear from the replay that there was no contact. At full speed it looked a certainty. Diving and 'drawing the foul' are ubiquitous in the modern game, for good or bad. However, what on earth is Mertasacker playing at? Lunging into a last-ditch tackle when he's the last man, when he has no chance of getting the ball? Would it not have been better to lose a goal but retain 11 men? Mertasacker is at fault. I always agreed with Gary Neville's analysis of these situations: don't dive in, because the player is going to go down; stay on your feet.

Although I'm fairly disappointed to miss out on Toumani Diagouraga -- especially after finally being able to spell his name! -- but I'm quite pleased that we haven't gone over our valuation. Brentford's asking price was several 100k's over our bid was it not? Leeds have certainly over-paid, and for a player that will have no resale value. I don't want us to start paying over-the-odds on players. There are many players at this level that we can approach that match our valuation. We do not have the money to throw about, so it makes sense to get value for money. Whether these guys are good enough for the Premiership or not is a different question. Ultimately, we'll not know until they are tested. We can make an educated guess, based on the fact that the English Championship/League One is presumably of a higher standard than all but one of our Premiership sides. I still believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. While we may be assembling a team of players that on the surface may not be of the same standard -- and certainly not the same 'value' -- as those acquired by Celtic, it doesn't necessarily mean that we won't be able to challenge them. Moreover, just because a player is playing at a certain level, doesn't mean he is of that level. We look to be acquiring players with a certain ability or skill-set to contribute to our philosophy, while also possessing potential to improve. Bournemouth and Brentford etc. have done very well at acquiring players from lower leagues, and utilising their skill-sets to improve their teams as a whole.

Can't comment on the veracity of the source (that O'Halloran has agreed personal terms), but I do believe that personal terms can be agreed before a fee agreement between clubs. Arsenal did it with Sanchez, and Man Utd with Pedro (before that deal collapsed). Most recently, Pato has agreed personal terms with Chelsea, despite no agreement of fee between clubs.

Could he not be another Holt? Not wanted because he doesn't fit, but could perhaps fit our philosophy?

You're absolutely right. I am guilty of defining the guys in question as 'journalists', when in fact they're more like columnists; exactly the thing I was trying to argue (D'uh!). 'Journalists' should "be able to write something without having to twist the truth to some nefarious agenda", but I just don't think that's what these guys are. Of course, a definition is not the real problem, which I think you've hit upon: that it's not just some bias, but a "Goebbels style propaganda using lies, fallacy, exaggeration and systematic omission to attempt convince the reader of a completely false representation of the truth". It is 'yellow' journalism, exacerbated by the internet. If internet users are 'savvy' enough to recognise click bate, then why are we bothering about it? Shouldn't we just ignore it for the tripe it is, and let it destroy itself?

I wonder if bears would take him back? I would say he fits the philosophy, but he's shown no loyalty and might be getting shafted by a side bottom of the premiership (that's not necessarily a bad thing as he maybe doesn't fit Mixu's style).

I disagree with banning journalists. The moment we -- or anyone -- starts banning the press, it is a very slippery slope. I firmly believe in the freedom of the press. However, as the prejudice in this guy's coverage is clear, I don't see why we can't just fight back in the same way. Pull him up on it. Rangers should release statements detailing where he is wrong and why/where they believe he is distorting the truth. I'm not sure how effective it would be, but surely it is better than banning the press.

I have always questioned the label 'journalist' when it comes to our own press (sport). What these guys produce just doesn't align with my conception of Journalism. It seems to me they are merely commentators, writing their regular opinion piece that just happens to contain a item of news: in short, they're columnists. For what it's worth, every reporter (in the broadest sense of the word) is biased; no matter how objective one tries to be, prejudice will rear it's head. I think our problem is that we obviously don't agree with their anti-Rangers perspective, inevitably so. I don't think hiring/encouraging a pro-Rangers reporter will overcome the deficiencies of the anti-Rangers cabal -- despite us probably agreeing with it/them. It's still the same medium. It's hardly necessary to provide a pro-Rangers feed, for there is already a Rangers twitter feed. Moreover, other game reporters -- in terms of reporting incident by incident: "Zelalem scores a 25-yard free-kick" etc. -- are hardly biased one way of the other: it's basic reporting of a game incident. It's when they start 'judging' on the off-field problems that their bias becomes hard to stomach. I think what we need is a better standard of writer. We need to demand journalists that'll state, as eloquently and as objectively as possible, what happened. Leave the opinion-pieces to the columnists. That is what they are there for, to provide their opinion. If you don't agree with it, don't read it. Cricket writers are a better breed, I think, simply because they don't descend into opinion; they merely report what happened in a supremely eloquent manner. 'Journalist' seems to be a catch-all term. There needs to be greater demarcation between roles: columnists shouldn't be the only 'reporter'. (Good read BTW. I got a mention!)

"What squad number will Michael O'Halloran have?" What a question. Quality investigative journalism in action...

A pan-European league would be very exciting, but how would European qualification work? Would the CL and EL just do without some of the 'biggest' teams? And would clubs be happy to forget about Europe?

To be honest, I didn't think Law too bad last year, relatively speaking. The stats confirm he contributed a disproportionate amount. However, the overall standard was poor, so in absolute terms he's not at the level we ultimately need. I still think he can still contribute this year and next -- hopefully more of a squad player next year though!

A quick goal-per-game calculation has McCoist on 0.6, Forrest on 0.7, therefore Forrest's record is better. But, surely longevity must count? I couldn't possibly comment on 'quality' of striker as I missed both (or the majority of McCoist's). Interestingly, Boyd comes out at 0.7 also (if the 2nd stint is excluded)... Just saying.