bmck

glass is definitely half full - of title winning champagne wouldnt count on us to not throw it away, he said covering his jinxes, but their elation to despair is almost a title win in itself

Fuck me, I think it's the rest of you that have blown this out of proportion.

man, nothing has happened. you said "thats disrespectful", i said "its not really", and you said "if its not disrespectful its just not right" and that was that. just like any other thing. no big deal.

To suggest an inexperienced kid who has done nothing and proven nothing could walk into our team is disrespectful to our current players imo.

Ithink you would have to be looking for it to find it. He was clearly just saying how good he thought he was, and it was maybe more disrespectful to read him uncharitably.

As JB pointed out himself he's always bottled it against us, so he's not proven he can play against better teams and players yet.

Thats like being a fan of Boyd and saying because he hasnt done well in big games in europe its disrespectful to the premiership to think, as I do, he could walk into most teams down there. If he had said "he certainly much better than the crap we have" it would be fair, but he gave good reasons about his positive attributes and what they are; if he is right, the very thing our midfield has been lacking.

As I said, he could compete for a place but not just turn up and stroll into our team. If he could he wouldn't still be at Hamilton.

Thats like saying the causes of noses are spectacles. His being at Hamilton doesnt prove he couldnt walk into our first team, it only proves he is still at Hamilton. Its only his ability that determines if he can make and improve a first team. JB seemed to be saying he thinks he has that ability, and its not disrespectful to say so. I dont think in this financial climate we should be gambling on unproven players, though, but thats not to say they couldnt be stars.

Could well compete for a place, but it is disrespectful to our team of champions and table toppers to come out with that imo.

 

How can it be disrespectful to say you think a player is better than the players we have? He is clearly impressed with him as a player, having watched him, and even said that his movement and positional sense were the particular things that we would benefit from; how can you turn that into having a dig at the team?

i had a look for this mod in the admin cp but cant find it to turn it off

The song's not sectarian by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

Looks good but as every Rangers fan knows we can't take a throw-in well enough to benefit...

 

Aye, the idea that we'd run over to get the ball from the ball-boy also struck me as a little bit unrealistic.

Oi, ya baldy (*1) tim (*2) - up yours (*3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just giving the troops an example of what is not allowed. :admin:

 

Very funny.... I see what you did there......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RELEASE THE HOUNDS! :devil:

There's been lots of talk about our needing more creativity; first time passing, movement into space, easy options for the player on the ball. Individual skill is in short supply, and it seems as if we don't have the money to change it and become a chance-creating team. Scouting systems will take years to implement. There is, however, an answer:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5qPOa-qag&feature=player_embedded]YouTube- ball boy assist for a goal - ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ????[/ame]

 

A team of well trained ball boys at child labour wages. Problem solved. :spl:

Most strikers can't take on players? Like who out of the 'very top ones'?

 

Raul, Larrson, Van Nistelrooy - any top striker who predominantly plays on the shoulders of defenders, and not dribbling at them. There are loads of this sort. Most of the sort who are any good at dribbling aren't out and out strikers - Ibrahimovic, Rooney etc. That's why when you rarely get someone who can do both consistently - the weird-toothed Ronaldo, arguably Eto etc - they're most exciting.

 

Daniel Cousin was no Drogba but he was capable of beating a man and shooting.

 

Cousin only very occasionally beat a man. He would out run or muscle them before getting a shot away - as I'm sure Boyd can do, the memory of him lifting it over the dude's head and rattling it across goal a few games ago springs to mind - but not run at them at beat them.

As for Boyd, it's not 'end of'. Modern strikers need to do more than just score nowadays, look at Drogba, Villa, Rooney, Torres as ideal examples. Boyd cannot play on his own up front, which has become the most common tactic in Europe. He cannot hold the ball up, bring others into play

 

I think he's done that pretty well recently. As good as Miller and/or anyone else e have.

 

or take on players and create his own chances.

 

Most strikers cant do that. Not even all the very top ones.

 

Boyd isn't a champions league level player though.

 

Just dont think we have enough evidence to decide about that.

McLeish was the first of the cutbacks managers. He seems to have done pretty well since leaving Rangers, signings included. Just hard to know what the contraints were like at Ibrox then, thinking of what we've learned in the years following. From Advocaat to McLeish the whole size of the club changed, but not the expectations.

Also King is only reporting what Duffy says , it isn't a court of law , and if you read through the rest of it there are plenty of contradictions

 

I dont know (and am still not sure why its important), but it doesnt seem ridiculous for king to leave that line in, even if its not fact. Like anything else, he has deadlines and its not inconceivable he either didnt notice it, or didnt think it was worth the effort to get it changed.

Why do i get the feeling this thread is turning round in circles.

 

I'm not sure, but that you have the feeling is incontestible.

The simple fact is very simple, as Murray showed yesterday, he gets what he wants his voting power ensures that.

Murray is still in total control, can't put it more simply than that.

 

The question is not whether Murray is in control - as if you're telling us something new, and we don't realise he owns the entire club - but whether it's a good thing that he is. We're Rangers supporters, not Murray-supporters.

I can almost feel another Murray triumphant interview coming on, it would be par for the course.

 

I don't think many people are denying Murray's awesome at interviews; he's just distinctly less awesome at running football clubs. It's about whether you get your opinion on him from his words or his actions. I wouldn't be suprised if you were right and he's still well in control, which inspires my awe in him as a businessman - as a Rangers supporter, I'm much less impressed.

i dunno. that kb is a homebird is speculaiton, i think. i would put up with a horrible muslim country for a year if it got me whatever 12 times 36k is. and to play under rijkaad. they are a huge club. wouldnt move form rangers obv if the option was available, but its daft to think its out of the question he would go. i think.

Maybe Murray planned it that way he escaped today unscathed as reported to me by a friend who was there, indeed AJ lauded him, two out of four isn't bad even for Murray an alleged victim of the bank.

 

so you are saying he is a victim of the bank and could only get two out of four of his appointments?

The main 'bone of contention' was with one agenda item which was the formation of a Special Tasks and Purposes Committee. People interpreted this in different ways and ultimately led to the resignation of the Chairman, followed by 6 others. At this point the facts become opinions. Some thought it was an attempt to undermine the Chairman, others saw it as merely trying to make sure that the RST operated within its' rules and kept it's focus.

 

I have no wish to slag off anyone who resigned but I am unwilling for those who remained to constantly be portrayed as the bad guys in all this.

 

I dont think they are being portrayed as the bad guys. Using your own words, at the point where facts become opinions, the people who saw it as an attempt to undermine the chairman think of it as a coup, whereas yourself, presumably, and others who also post here and whose opinions get a fair hearing, saw it as an opportunity to ensure the trust kept within its rules. The reason you will find the former being more widely discussed is because they came out and said it, wheras the latter, like yourself until now, kept quiet about it. Chinese whispers only exist when people, for whatever reason, decide not to speak clearly for everyone to hear. All the whys etc are the debate we are having. Glad you made your first post, and if you want your username changed we can sort that for you

I could be wrong Barry but I didnt think those that resigned said it was due to a coup. Could be wrong though

You are wrong, which really tells the whole story of this debate. People deciding how much and what should have been said or not said before even knowing what was said. A whole ten seconds of digging uncovered:

 

"What followed was essentially a coup d’Ã?©tat to ensure the control and/or removal of the senior office holders by the faction detailed above" resignees statement

I might be naive, but i still dont get why people think resigning because you felt the trust was taken over by a coup is not opening up. What more is it people could conceivably want? The statement outlined the mechanism, the motivation, and what happened afterwards with the abuse etc. I think people enjoy the feeling they are being lied to, and getting to indignation when they dont get every little sordid detail that would make their heart content. Its absurd.

I will repeat i have never read the real reason just the bullshit reason.

 

Ehm. OK. resigning over a coup is bullshit in your universe? holding out for a raping or something?

Sorry i have never read a real explanation about anything. I read speculation in the papers but never from the horse's mouth. Maybe i am missing something?

 

Yup, you are missing the statement they made about why they left. Im fairly sure it was a newsnow article posted from here.

I totally agree with you if it is just a normal resignation but if these people have accepted the responsibility to represent 5000 supporters and do so for a number of years then surely when something happens that upsets the daily running of things enough for them to resign, then they also have the responsibility to explain their motives to the people who voted them on to represent them. My opinion.

 

When you wrote this did you realise that this is precisely what the people who resigned did, or are you talking about the remaining trust members and Im missing the point again?

It refers to some of the people who seized control of the RST 18 months ago. Not the guys who left.

 

Ah. That makes sense. Thought we were talking past each other - I wasnt clear enough in my first post at all, reading it back. The ridiculous turn Im referring to is that people who left on a matter of conscience, and made a statement about why they left, somehow have more to do to maintain their honesty and integrity than what they did. As for the trusts response of thanking those who left and electing never to talk about it; well people can make of that what they will.