Rangers v Hamilton - Our mission, should we choose to accept it...

[BrahimHemdani 1]

der Berliner;637403]

Others are adamant (if not to say stubborn) and want to keep wounds open and have some salt handy.

 

 

 

I agree, as in posts #177 & 193 above.

Edited August 8, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Funny as I was told about Waghorn when we were still interviewing managerial prospects.

 

It has as much to with the match as who someones agent is.

 

I don't see what's funny about that at all, they have the same agent, as I said.

 

The five players to whom you refer have absolutely nothing to do with Rangers v Hamilton Academical; the agents of players who did play in that match, two of whom have been severely criticised for their defensive frailties certainly is relevant albeit indirectly, in a discussion about how and why they arrived at the Club.

[Waltersgotstyle 307]

I supported Llambias efforts to bring Rangers costs under control but I most certainly did not support any action in conflict of interest with Ashley or his companies and as soon as it became known that no due diligence had been carried out on the loan players I roundly condemned that.

 

Sorry but that sentence is just laughable.

 

Llambias neglected Rangers - he did not put in any "effort" to cut costs.

 

As for due diligence - due diligent was certainly done - but not none that was to benefit Rangers Football Club.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

On the contrary, including Mr Sandy Easdale.

You say that but you supported his every action no matter how disgusting. While attacking king at ever turn.

 

You may have convinced yourself your being even handed but your not fooling me nor anyone else I suspect.

[der Berliner 3,744]

You say that but you supported his every action no matter how disgusting. While attacking king at ever turn.

 

You may have convinced yourself your being even handed but your not fooling me nor anyone else I suspect.

 

I do think that stretches it a little. And be that is it may, and people have differing opinions of one another, we should at least try to bury the hatchet at some point and not whipping people with what they thought (or what other people assumed they thought) in days gone by. Not helpful.

 

EDIT: We allow each other next to bipolar opinions on our players, so why would we not allow at least differing opinions about our high-ups too?

Edited August 8, 2016 by der Berliner

[craig 5,199]

Why would I support someone who would have finished Rangers, the Club I have supported for well over 50 years and have travelled to watch in 21 countries in Europe?

 

In particular I certainly do not support Chris Graham or Craig Houston who some see as heroes but both of whom come into the category you describe as far as I am concerned.

 

We may well disagree on the relative merits of certain characters in the saga of the last 4 years but to suggest I have some kind of death wish for the Club is as nonsensical as it is offensive.

 

I supported Llambias' efforts to bring Rangers costs under control but I most certainly did not support any action in conflict of interest with Ashley or his companies and as soon as it became known that no due diligence had been carried out on the loan players I roundly condemned that.

 

Why oh why would you bring Craig Houston or Chris Graham into this ??? Your personal vendetta there is exposing yourself to be very bitter.

 

This thread needs to revert to topic and quickly, otherwise it will be closed.

[craig 5,199]

I don't see what's funny about that at all, they have the same agent, as I said.

 

The five players to whom you refer have absolutely nothing to do with Rangers v Hamilton Academical; the agents of players who did play in that match, two of whom have been severely criticised for their defensive frailties certainly is relevant albeit indirectly, in a discussion about how and why they arrived at the Club.

 

Chris Graham and Craig Houston have absolutely nothing to do with the game either but you saw fit to bring them into this. It is unbecoming.

[craig 5,199]

I don't see what's funny about that at all, they have the same agent, as I said.

 

The five players to whom you refer have absolutely nothing to do with Rangers v Hamilton Academical; the agents of players who did play in that match, two of whom have been severely criticised for their defensive frailties certainly is relevant albeit indirectly, in a discussion about how and why they arrived at the Club.

 

Would the same suggestion be getting made if we were talking about Jorge Mendes, agent to Ronaldo , di Maria & Nani ? I doubt it.

 

One of those players criticized for their defensive frailties had an excellent game on the weekend - Tavernier was excellent both in defence and attack.

 

You state in a later post that you aren't suggesting any malfeasance - yet in your original post about agents, players and MW that is EXACTLY how it comes across, as a suggestion that there was some form of collusion and under-hand tactics at play.

Edited August 8, 2016 by craig

[SteveC 150]

I'm sorry Steve, but I don't know what you mean by "RC".

 

I mean two things, firstly that some might think that the mutual agency is more than just coincidence. I would suggest that it would be naïve to think that Key Management did not alert MW to the availability of players on their books.

 

Secondly, it was my understanding that Wigan wanted a young player that was on the books of Key Management and the quid pro quo was that they agreed to offload some or all of the players to Rangers.

 

I'm fairly sure that I posted all that at the time.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting any malfeasance.

 

But equally I am fairly sure that these players would not have ended up at Ibrox had MW not been the manager.

 

"Recall Correctly" - you wrote "IIRC" ion the post I was answering....

Edited August 8, 2016 by SteveC

[craig 5,199]

Anyway, back on topic.

 

It was our first game back in the top flight. We dominated possession without really creating that much in clear chances. I don't think we played too badly but the tempo needs to be higher. We also simply cant have passengers - and on Saturday both Miller and Kranjcar were passengers.

 

We need a proper striker IMHO. I know we talk about a "fluid front 3" but if they all are doing their work outside the box who gets on the end of that hard work ? Dare I say it.... we could actually be doing with a Kris Boyd type striker - a poacher if you will. Otherwise all of our work gets undone when we have very few options in the box at that crucial moment.

 

I didn't think we defended that badly - the goal was poor and was the result of a couple of unfortunate mis-haps. Hill trying to get in front of the Hamilton player and simply poking it to Crawford was one - Kranjcar going to ground when Wallace was tracking behind him was another - and finally I also felt that Wallace over-committed to the near post - looked to me like he actually over-ran the near post so wasn't really defending the goal even if Crawford had shot prior to the pull back.

 

Foderingham had a couple of decent saves but very little to do overall - Accies likely could claim the same about their keeper, though I think we worked him a little more than Fod was worked though not by much.

 

First game back and we dropped two points. The players will be more than aware that the performance and result wasn't what was needed. The management team, too, will be more than aware. The season is 38 games long. Some concerns, yes. Major worries, no. All of these things can be overcome.

 

I don't think Hamilton will be the cannon fodder that some seem to think they are.