So, the Jig is in for a wee while longer..

[Tannochsidebear 2,352]

I'm sorry, but all this guff about McCulloch having a good season last year doesnt wash with me.

 

I watched him closely on many occassions last season, and on many occassions, especially home games against the bottom 6, we win the game comfortably without incident, but McCulloch spends large parts of the game chasing (and not catching) Falkirk's central midfield whose short pass and move stuff was far too good for our millionaire mr versatile. The odd tackle (foul) here and there, and seemingly because everyone knows he is not a genuine centre midfielder, it is all right just to put in sufficient "effort" to make it all right.

 

Why doesnt this sort of stuff get picked up by most observers? Because he wasnt ever near enough to be seen to be off the pace and no doubt others got the blame instead.

 

The guy was useless at left midfield (the position he was signed for over �£2M for), and has proven useless at Centre half, striker, and centre midfield. I see from the reports of pre-season we are now trying to find him a new position of sitting just in front of the back 4 as protection. Lets hope his 5th different position in his Rangers career can see him finally earn his significant wages after 3 years of utter dross IMO.

 

Working hard should be a pre-requisite, not an achievement.

[johnnyk 158]

McCulloch had a good season last year for us simple as that.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Tannochsidebear is totally right there

 

Our midfield is regularly overrun by utter pish like Falkirk and Hamilton but this gets forgotten so long as we win the game

[Danny 0]

I'm not with the people who are taking this very badly but I am perplexed as I thought the reason Thommo left was we could not offer him and extension. Is Thommo on that much more money? And surley the younger player represents a better financial option in respect of sell on value etc.

 

McCulloch was cheaper?

[metlika 0]

Thomson probably was on a lower wage than McCulloch so expected a pay rise where as McCulloch would not.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

McCulloch was cheaper?

 

There's pretty much no chance McCulloch was on lower wages than Thomson. The only possible explanation could be if Thomson wanted a massive pay rise

[Danny 0]

There's pretty much no chance McCulloch was on lower wages than Thomson. The only possible explanation could be if Thomson wanted a massive pay rise

 

That's what I mean - Thomson's massive wage rise would have made him likely more expensive than McCulloch.

[Gazza_8 233]

Tannochsidebear is totally right there

 

Our midfield is regularly overrun by utter pish like Falkirk and Hamilton but this gets forgotten so long as we win the game

 

Surely they midfield are doing something right if we win the game?

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Surely they midfield are doing something right if we win the game?

 

The usual pattern when we win a game but were outplayed in midfield is that the opposition were toothless in front of goal

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

If you take our wage-bill just before Thommo left and call it �£0/week, McCulloch signing on will have likely added nothing to it and maybe even reduced it. thommo would have (probably justifyably) wanted a raise, meaning anything extra spent takes us above '�£0' meaning McCulloch on more than thommo, even after a raise for the latter, is 'cheaper'.