Conor McGrandles

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

It could have been done right in 3 years, but i get your point. An extra couple of years "getting it right" could be worth 10 years if we just keep stumbling from one financial crisis to another.

 

I didn't agree with a lot of what Charles Green said but did agree that if we had properly given youth a chance on the way back, we could have had several young 20 somethings with over 150 games of experience instead we've got what? Lewis MacLeod, maybe Fraser Aird and I'm stretching at Aird I think

[calscot 0]

I didn't agree with a lot of what Charles Green said but did agree that if we had properly given youth a chance on the way back, we could have had several young 20 somethings with over 150 games of experience instead we've got what? Lewis MacLeod, maybe Fraser Aird and I'm stretching at Aird I think

 

The trouble is that we lost our best young 20 somethings as they didn't TUPE. The next level were the likes of Perry, Little, Heggarty, Crawford, Hutton, Aird, McLeod, McKay, Naismith and Hemmings along with Faure and Templeton.

 

All of them had game time to a greater or lesser degree with double figures, so I think that counts as several.

 

Unfortunately, many didn't make the grade and the results and performances were criticised. Moving up a league after that put more pressure on the management to win and so quite a few were considered not up to the task and some left.

 

We're pretty much left with the graduates of McLeod and Aird, Crawford and Hutton, and have another generation waiting in the wings. With stepping up yet another level and the pressure fully on, it will be difficult to give them much of a chance unless they really earn it and show that they are better than who is on the pitch.

 

Ironically, Hutton is one of our most criticised players by the fans...

 

Don't know about the 150 games thing as we haven't played that many since demotion, and it would mostly be considered a way of totally burning out young talent in any case. These guys have experience of reserve and age defined games as well as loan spells so it's not like they are not gaining experience by playing no games at all.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

MacLeod, Aird, Gallagher, MacKay, Gasparotto etc.

You would hope that we get the majority of the best.

 

Bet you we don't get a million for all 4.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

The trouble is that we lost our best young 20 somethings as they didn't TUPE. The next level were the likes of Perry, Little, Heggarty, Crawford, Hutton, Aird, McLeod, McKay, Naismith and Hemmings along with Faure and Templeton.

 

All of them had game time to a greater or lesser degree with double figures, so I think that counts as several.

 

Unfortunately, many didn't make the grade and the results and performances were criticised. Moving up a league after that put more pressure on the management to win and so quite a few were considered not up to the task and some left.

 

We're pretty much left with the graduates of McLeod and Aird, Crawford and Hutton, and have another generation waiting in the wings. With stepping up yet another level and the pressure fully on, it will be difficult to give them much of a chance unless they really earn it and show that they are better than who is on the pitch.

 

Ironically, Hutton is one of our most criticised players by the fans...

 

Don't know about the 150 games thing as we haven't played that many since demotion, and it would mostly be considered a way of totally burning out young talent in any case. These guys have experience of reserve and age defined games as well as loan spells so it's not like they are not gaining experience by playing no games at all.

 

150 games might be pushing it but if you take full seasons and and cup runs for the previous 2 seasons and then add this one it's not far away from 150 games albeit i'm not including injuries etc. But I think you'll see what I mean. A number of the players you mention should be more than good enough for our level and indeed could probably in the top division but due to a lack of devlopment they haven't progressed. I would lay that at the coaching staffs door.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Bet you we don't get a million for all 4.

Was just thinking seeing McGrandles go for £1m. Would any player in our squad command that fee? I seriously doubt it.

[calscot 0]

Was just thinking seeing McGrandles go for £1m. Would any player in our squad command that fee? I seriously doubt it.

 

I'm pretty sure McLeod would and suspect Aird would too. Wallace has already attracted offers around that. Templeton would probably command a million too. Problem is that players in the lower two tiers of Scottish football have not shown themselves at much of a level, I'm sure the values of some of our players will increase this season, even more so when we're back in the top tier.

 

Once there, most of our players would command at least million - if anyone is interested in buying them while they have quite a bit left on their contract.

 

In the SPrem, presuming we're at least regularly challenging for second place, any players that make it as a first team regular for us will automatically be command at least million as long as they have a few years on their contract.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

When we were in the SPL we struggled to get decent fees for players unless they were absolute standouts like Cuellar, Ferguson, Hutton, Wilson and Boumsong.

 

No chance would we get £1m for Aird or Templeton. Who could you see offering that kind of money for them?

[calscot 0]

150 games might be pushing it but if you take full seasons and and cup runs for the previous 2 seasons and then add this one it's not far away from 150 games albeit i'm not including injuries etc. But I think you'll see what I mean. A number of the players you mention should be more than good enough for our level and indeed could probably in the top division but due to a lack of devlopment they haven't progressed. I would lay that at the coaching staffs door.

 

I see where you're coming from but the proof of the pudding was in the eating, and many of those players showed they weren't quite good enough for the fans, or the manager while playing in the fourth tier, never mind the second.

 

I'm not sure how you know about their development and progression, but for me, I don't think it's usual to automatically develop a load of young players that can guarantee a title off the bat. I also don't quite see the point of developing players who are good enough for the lower three divisions but not good enough for the top, and not just the top tier, the top of the top tier.

 

There is no club that I know of that is developing half a team of players who can play at the top. If there was one then Celtic would have at least one real challenger who didn't require much of a budget.

 

As I've said before, logic dictates that if it's that simple then everyone would be doing it and we'd end up as nothing special and neither would Celtic. However, lots of teams do actually do it to some extent. None of them canter to the title of any of the leagues never mind challenge Celtic. There is more of a chance of winning the lower leagues than competing in the top tier using this model, and as Rangers have actually shown in real life, with some good players beside them you can win the bottom league with a bit to spare, but despite this, there's no other example where it can be done in a fashion acceptable to Rangers fans.

 

I'm none the wiser of how some people think it should be done and what makes us so special to do it better than others. People complain that we win because we have more money, the problem is that appart from a bigger crowd (which can also be detrimental when they are unhappy), the only real difference we have is more money than a lot of our rivals. Maybe location in a big city with access to a greater number of youngsters in catchment distance also helps.

 

We should probably be employing the best youth coaches around but it's not like top trumps where you know who is best by looking at them. I'm sure the Rangers job commands a top salary and so should in itself attract the best, but who is chosen has a lot of factors, some of them not objective.

 

For me, I don't see how excessively playing young players who are not up to the grade is going to help their development. I'm also of the belief that to develop the best you need to limit how many are in the team for them to benefit.

 

For an easier example, how about cycling? Supposing you have cycling club with three groups, A, B and C, each one faster than the other. Now supposing everyone wants to graduate up to the next level. If you remove the B group members and let all the C group riders ride in the B group, all you get is a B group that rides at the pace of the C, nothing more. You promote the best half of the C group and you'll still get either a slower B group or one that fractions off into two groups - a B+ and a B-. You promote the two best riders and they will either try their damnedest to keep up, listen to the more experienced riders, try to emulate them, and learn a lot about riding faster; or they will be unable to keep up, get dropped, and learn they need to put in more work in the C group before they are ready. If you keep putting the latter in the B group they will lose confidence and motivation not learn much at all.

 

The thing is, you're talking about moving half the C group to the A group - to develop them. For my thinking, that won't work.

 

For me, the likes of McLeod is the exceptional young guy who's moved straight to the A group and easily keeps the pace while learning and getting faster all the time. That doesn't mean that others of his peer group can do the same nor benefit from trying every week.

[calscot 0]

When we were in the SPL we struggled to get decent fees for players unless they were absolute standouts like Cuellar, Ferguson, Hutton, Wilson and Boumsong.

 

By "decent fee" I infer you mean about £8m at a time when the English record was about £32m, we're talking about £1m when the record is now £85m for Gareth Bale. We're now effectively talking about peanuts for the richer clubs. I doubt you put McGrandles into the same category as those you mention.

 

No chance would we get £1m for Aird or Templeton. Who could you see offering that kind of money for them?

 

I suspect the likes of Norwich who've just done so for a Falkirk player who was apparently one of our rejects. Hearts definitely thought Templeton was worth more than £1m, enough to turn such an offer down. Even if to quote some terrible English on here, "he has went [sic] backwards" since he arrived at Ibrox, history has shown that there are plenty of managers willing to take a punt on a promising young player who isn't doing so well, for a discount on his last fee. Especially when £1m is so little for a player these days.

[Rangersitis 0]

By "decent fee" I infer you mean about £8m at a time when the English record was about £32m, we're talking about £1m when the record is now £85m for Gareth Bale. We're now effectively talking about peanuts for the richer clubs. I doubt you put McGrandles into the same category as those you mention.

 

 

 

I suspect the likes of Norwich who've just done so for a Falkirk player who was apparently one of our rejects. Hearts definitely thought Templeton was worth more than £1m, enough to turn such an offer down. Even if to quote some terrible English on here, "he has went [sic] backwards" since he arrived at Ibrox, history has shown that there are plenty of managers willing to take a punt on a promising young player who isn't doing so well, for a discount on his last fee. Especially when £1m is so little for a player these days.

 

Where are all those managers then? They will be well aware that our cash-strapped club will be easy to deal with, so why have there been no bids accepted/declined?