The_Kincardine Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: Stewart wasn't the most honest businessman in the world, but it wasn't financial doping. Your substantive point was that Souness tried to "undermine Scottish talent"...and your former director was the one who set the ball rolling here. Still, if you use the phrase, "financial doping" to make a serious point then I suspect you'll struggle to grasp that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 It changed the whole complexion of the game – even Celtic couldn't compete for years. That's merely excuses. Rangers' greed for success didn't need to be replicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Just now, The_Kincardine said: Your substantive point was that Souness tried to "undermine Scottish talent"...and your former director was the one who set the ball rolling here. Still, if you use the phrase, "financial doping" to make a serious point then I suspect you'll struggle to grasp that. There's a world of difference between a couple of Scandinavian imports and spending tens of millions of pounds you don't have. Hal Stewart wasn't claiming to be the richest man in Scotland at any point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Randy Giles said: That's merely excuses. Rangers' greed for success didn't need to be replicated. Ok, well the lack of competitiveness this situation (either way) created led to Souness saying repeatedly over a number of years that the Old Firm should leave Scottish football. Do you think that was healthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: It changed the whole complexion of the game – even Celtic couldn't compete for years. I'm very happy to go along with the line that says the Rangers revolution did long term damage to our game. That other clubs got into trouble too (not as much as Rangers obviously) is however their own faults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Genuine question: did the rangers moneyed revolution precede the similar process with sky and the premier league down south? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: I'm very happy to go along with the line that says the Rangers revolution did long term damage to our game. That other clubs got into trouble too (not as much as Rangers obviously) is however their own faults. Fair enough – I would agree with you there. The fault line is the question of competitiveness. Souness likes to pretend that we should have kept Rangers in the top league and then says they should leave Scotland because they're too successful. He was part of the beginning of this period of success which was based on unsustainable expensive singings, largely from outwith Scotland. He's not exactly well placed to talk about what we should do with Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, pandarilla said: Genuine question: did the rangers moneyed revolution precede the similar process with sky and the premier league down south? Not sure of the exact timeline, Pandy but it was opportunistic on Souness's part as English teams had been banned from Europe so it was easy to entice Roberts, Butcher etc. Also, if a manager was guilty of 'undermining Scottish talent' then (apart from Hal Stewart) Wee Dick is guiltier than most...and certainly 'imported' more players than Souness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, pandarilla said: Genuine question: did the rangers moneyed revolution precede the similar process with sky and the premier league down south? Yes. 1986 vs 1992. Murray didn't buy Rangers until 1988, but the spending was underway already under Lawrence Marlborough and David Holmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Just now, The_Kincardine said: Not sure of the exact timeline, Pandy but it was opportunistic on Souness's part as English teams had been banned from Europe so it was easy to entice Roberts, Butcher etc. Also, if a manager was guilty of 'undermining Scottish talent' then (apart from Hal Stewart) Wee Dick is guiltier than most...and certainly 'imported' more players than Souness. Journalists have actually bothered to question Dick Advocaat about this stuff, unlike Souness and Walter Smith. When we're talking about Scottish football, then yes, in that context they were imports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 18 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Your substantive point was that Souness tried to "undermine Scottish talent"...and your former director was the one who set the ball rolling here. Still, if you use the phrase, "financial doping" to make a serious point then I suspect you'll struggle to grasp that. And there's nothing wrong with the phrase 'financial doping.' It's good enough for Arsene Wenger, and you don't like it because it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Rangers are absolutely to blame. The club, Murray, other board members, the coaching and back room staff, the players and most particularly the fans, are all 100% culpable. The c***s. What are we talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, pandarilla said: Genuine question: did the rangers moneyed revolution precede the similar process with sky and the premier league down south? Yes, by several years. Where's your grasp of history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 7 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: And there's nothing wrong with the phrase 'financial doping.' Aye, ok. There's a thread dedicated to this dross. I thought P&B was growing up and moving away from the 'blame everything on Rangers' mindset but we clearly need to expect a touch of recidivism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Yes, by several years. Where's your grasp of history? I knew it was late 80s v early 90s but I wasn't sure about spending levels of the top English clubs in the 80s. Was it rangers that started off that whole (dare I say it) neoliberal phase? It was thatcherite in the extreme but was it being done down south first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 22 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: Fair enough – I would agree with you there. The fault line is the question of competitiveness. Souness likes to pretend that we should have kept Rangers in the top league and then says they should leave Scotland because they're too successful. He was part of the beginning of this period of success which was based on unsustainable expensive singings, largely from outwith Scotland. He's not exactly well placed to talk about what we should do with Scottish football. Totally agree on the last part. He's hideously unqualified to make any sort of analysis, despite - or perhaps because of - having been an excellent player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: Aye, ok. There's a thread dedicated to this dross. I thought P&B was growing up and moving away from the 'blame everything on Rangers' mindset but we clearly need to expect a touch of recidivism. 1 minute ago, pandarilla said: I knew it was late 80s v early 90s but I wasn't sure about spending levels of the top English clubs in the 80s. Was it rangers that started off that whole (dare I say it) neoliberal phase? It was thatcherite in the extreme but was it being done down south first? 1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said: Totally agree on the last part. He's hideously unqualified to make any sort of analysis, despite - or perhaps because of - having been an excellent player. Souness can't act like Scottish football is rubbish and Rangers are brilliant and pretend the two aren't connected and he wasn't involved. He was a fabulous player and I strongly approve of what he did to the 'signing policy' but he's far too much of a smug Tory with no sense of responsibility. He's neither the manager or the businessman he thinks he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: I'll happily blame him too. It's a fact that Souness was the first person to undermine Scottish talent by flooding a team with expensive imports. undermine scottish talent when souness left rangers his 25man first team squad contained 14 scottish players, including international class players such as johnston, mccoist, gough, ferguson, durrant, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, pandarilla said: I knew it was late 80s v early 90s but I wasn't sure about spending levels of the top English clubs in the 80s. Was it rangers that started off that whole (dare I say it) neoliberal phase? It was thatcherite in the extreme but was it being done down south first? The finances of English football had traditionally been quite a bit stronger, so when Rangers started bringing England internationals north (in part because of the European ban post-Heysel) people loved it, which I understand. It reversed the flow of players, but it wasn't based on sustainable income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 46 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: There's a world of difference between a couple of Scandinavian imports and spending tens of millions of pounds you don't have. Hal Stewart wasn't claiming to be the richest man in Scotland at any point. you do realise that rangers were in the black at the end of the 9iar era, long before ebt's and stuff, rangers with both souness and smith might have spent millions upon millions, but it was money that murray somehow found back then what he did after that period is something different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.