SlimJim

This is why I’m very wary of the attitude of some fans that take umbridge to any criticism of the “club”. The BBC for example were on to Charles Green fairly early on and were shouted down by the fans. Objective journalism, where it exists, should not be decried. I do think there is an anti- Rangers agenda among selected journalists (including at the BBC) but people need to scrutinise what’s being said before knee jerk reactions.

52 minutes ago, Thinker said:

I think if we had decent TV money we'd be able to improve our squad very rapidly. We'd be one of the best supported teams in any Atlantic League set up.

 

I don't really see anything happening in the immediate future, but the gap between the "big leagues" and the rest widens with every year that passes. It's a problem that's only going to get worse until the smaller football nations address it - either that or write off the notion of serious European football.

Agreed, it’s perfectly obvious it’s a whole new ball game if the set up changes. Our current team would have no bearing to that in a new league and we’d be in the top 4 supported clubs, no problem, and probably number 1. I’m not sure it’s going to happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

57 minutes ago, Thinker said:

It's kind of understandable that the Dutch would feel that way as their league is by far the healthiest of the potential Atlantic League participant nations. (They have the most teams drawing a decent crowd). Any setup where each of the countries involved gets the same representation (e.g. 3 teams each) is bound to be of limited (or no) benefit to Dutch football.

 

Maybe it would be better to either just invite the 20 best supported clubs in the Atlantic zone - or to make the number of clubs each nation gets proportional to its population. I think either of those works out something like 6 Dutch, 4 Belgian, 4 Portuguese, 2 Scottish, 2 Danish, 2 others (Swiss? - would it be feasible to include teams from Sweden and Norway given that they play Summer football?)

The 3 teams is only for the first season then it’s based on results. The Netherlands could have six teams by the 4th season if they were good enough.

33 minutes ago, Bill said:

Good points but I imagine the money (corporate advertisers, TV companies) will follow them when they go. However you label the elite group, they're only elite because of their value as corporate brand-props. And however you reconstruct what's left, it will remain in the poorhouse unless new sources of major funding can be found. Without oodles of income there's a real danger of football becoming a sport again.

It’s TV money and the clubs we’re looking at in the Atlantic League come from big cities and will be the major clubs of their own countries. This means advertising revenue, not of Champions League level but close to the individual leagues of the big nations (England and Spain aside). There’s no suggestion this is in place of CL just the new bread and butter set up of the smaller nations.

20 minutes ago, Frankie said:

What sums?

 

How much would Sky or BT pay for Rangers v PSV or Celtic v Ajax or Basel v Bruges?  Could they persuade Amazon or Netflix or Youtube instead?

 

Sorry, I don't think there's a silver bullet here.  Not saying it wouldn't work just that there's not necessarily a pot at the end of that particular rainbow.

 

 

I think broadcasters would be top dollar for Rangers v PSV and Rangers v Celtic in a bigger league, too. There’d also be Sporting Lisbon, Porto.  It could be Scotland, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway. The advantage of having Norway and Denmark is the other countries could potentially displace their six.

2 minutes ago, pete said:

The Dutch have totally no interest in the Atlantic league at this time. The old Chairman of PSV was for it years ago and entered into talks. They don't see the Atlantic nations teams as being step up from the teams in their own league

That’s a bit short sighted considering the sums that would be available. No Dutch team will win the Champions League with the status quo.

10 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Seems a reasonable idea to me but I reckon people would soon get fed up of games against such opposition as they are here.

 

I much prefer Rangers staying in Scotland in terms of a week to week basis - though a well run British and Atlantic Cup might work.

Fair enough but i don’t think we’ll ever compete in the Champions League without some big changes. I guess it’s how content we are just to win in Scotland.

I saw a post on Follow Follow about this. I’d have 3 teams from 6 countries, with the bottom 3 teams of the 18 relegated regardless of country and the 6 winners of the feeder leagues play off for 3 places for promotion (losers get big cash bonus). That way each country can get as many teams as they are capable of in the big league. Games on a Saturday, Champions league places for top 4 etc, but keep domestic cups. Decent cash to be filtered into feeder leagues. Thoughts?

33 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

He's been spoken about for so long you would think he is much older, so I think the club should be fair to him and give him a chance or thank him for his time and allow him to go elsewhere(not on loan)and fulfill his potential.

Going on loan can be a planned route to the first team, it isn’t usually a sign a player is unwanted.

1 hour ago, Gaffer said:

Players have to take their chance to shine in training.  A number of our managers have declined to use him so I think it's fair to say he's had chances.  Some players can play for other teams but can't handle the pressure of playing for Rangers.  I'm not saying that's definitely the issue with him, but there's nothing I've seen of him to suggest he should get more first team action for us.  If he had everything as you suggest, I'm sure he would have been used more.

He’s an u21 give him a break.

3 hours ago, trublusince1982 said:

Not worth more than a £1000 a week. Cardoso is a better all round player happy to see him get a chance plus Alves should be back soon so bates will be third or fourth choice.

Short term thinking here.

21 minutes ago, cooponthewing said:

Crystal Palace probably the pick of them. Good luck to the guy. This will come back to bite us in the ass. He has everything and has never been given a proper chance.

it remains to be seen if they were there for Hardie. He does have a passing resemblance to Ian Rush in the way he plays.

1 hour ago, Gaffer said:

Would you give him more than 18 months on a contract though Ian?  I agree with what you've said.  I like him and he's done a decent job for us, but I can't see him developing enough to keep other players out.  If we keep progressing financially the way we are, you'd like to think we could afford a strong centre half.  I just don't see him being in our first team next season if that's the case.

We need, as a club, a core of capable Scottish players, with an idea about what playing for Rangers means. He’s a defender that has proven he can defend , let’s keep him.

He’s very close to the end of his contract. It needs sorted. 

Great news, his level has increased a lot in recent months.

1 hour ago, craig said:

Doesn't necessarily make him slow.  Depends on whether they are unnaturally fast too.

and which way he was pointing.

9 minutes ago, pete said:

As I said a 1 year contract but I would hate him to be taking a wage for 4 years and not playing, or us paying for him to play for St Mirren or the like. He is good in the air and a reasonable man marker but going against that he is slow and once an attacker is past him he waves goodbye. He cannot pass over 10 metre's or it is to an opponent or into touch.

He isn’t slow.

7 hours ago, pete said:

I am going to put the cat amongst the pigeons and say, I don't think he is near good enough to play in Europe or take us on to the next level. Unless he will accept a 1 year contract, I would release him. We really need better players.

We need a core of Scottish players topped up with quality foreigners. Bates is easily good enough for the league. I would get rid of the foreign players who are not up to scratch, first.  Bates is only 21, remember. 

41 minutes ago, DMAA said:

My primary point is really on the size of the squad. I don't think that goal of constant success is furthered by having so many average players in the squad. And I think there's evidence that it would be furthered by having a thinner squad which would allow a young player to come through now and again. Both by allowing our young players to go to the next level like McCrorie has and also by saving wages which would allow higher wages to be offered to first team regulars. The quality over quantity argument.

 

So to give examples I mean;

• Having 1 senior goalie instead of 2, on the off chance Wes gets injured will Alnwick really be so much better than Kelly/McCrorie as to justify his wages? I'd guess not
• Having 3 senior centre backs instead of 4, with Aidan Wilson making the bench when one of them is injured
• Having 4 senior centre mids instead of 7 (Barjonas making the bench when we have 2 injuries)
• Having 5 attacking midfielders instead of 6, with Atakayi/ Middleton/Burt competing to make the bench in the case of an injury or two
• Having 2 senior strikers instead of 5 (they are competing for one place at the moment), with Rudden/Dallas making the bench when one of them is injured

I don't mean it needs to be exactly like that I'm just explaining the principle. The principle being when injuries hit, the best players from the development squad have the huge incentive of competing with each other for a place on the Rangers bench.

 

I’d agree apart from goalkeeper. I think this will probably happen under Murty, once surpluss players in first team and youth are moved on.

absolutely 

23 minutes ago, Blueger said:

They won't let him go on loan, he could have gone on loan to championship sides who wanted him but Rangers wouldn't let him go, again, I am saying too much and it is probably getting quite obvious who he is but to be honest I am at the stage where I don't even really care any more, am considering going to the press.

It isn’t obvious who it is. Is there a reason given why the loans weren’t allowed? 

https://www.premierleague.com/news/402106

36 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Exact same age, but definitely not a replacement. Morelos is an all rounder, McBurnie isn't so would have to get a lot of goals in the air to accommodate and a lot of assists for the likes of Cummings and Murphy.

McBurnie has scored a barrel load of goals with his feet, he’s not just a target man. He’s got a good touch and is mobile. I’ve seen him plenty for a scotland u21s and 19s, plus MOTD on occasion. Morelos is a goal scorer but has a poor first touch and not great pace.

it’s a no brainier if we can get McBurnie and the reported cash for Morelos. He’s not here for the long term and i could easily see him taking the huff if he doesn’t get a move. McBurnie would love to play for Rangers and has the potential to be better than Morelos.

1 hour ago, Blueger said:

Cracking player, have seen him playing for Scotland youth teams many times, great addition to academy squad and potential for first team.

Agree. The Norwich manager seems to think he left for first team football. I’ve seen him legitimately knock players over with ease at u19 level, and he’s a bit like a squat Oliver Burke. Real pace and power and a great left foot. He must be close to the first team.