THE_Ibrox_Preacher

Cheers for the update.

We have McKay/Windass/Wallace/Hodson on the left. We have Forrester/O'Halloran/Tavernier/Hodson. That's crossing ability right there and imo it's silly not to utilise it by having someone to head them home or to hold it up.

In a nutshell, we need a first team CB and a CF/Target-Man brought in this summer. Those that are likely to be released or moved on over the next 2 windows are self-evident. CB; Mariappa or Nelson would do. CF/Target-Man; ??? I've not seen us linked with a CF/Target-Man, the odd pacey striker like Bradshaw yes but not someone to power home one of our crosses with a header (or even win a header) against the inevitable packed defence or 3-man marking. I don't really have any suggestions either, we're looking for a free with a good goalscoring ratio and who scores a good percentage of his goals from headers = might as well be looking for the arc of the covenant. There are a few frees out there with that kind of stature but even imagining signing them is a stretch i.e. Hugo Almeida. One with a good record but who went off the boil last year is Kevin Kurányi (Warburton wouldn't dismiss someone purely because they did fuck all last season) and he too is on a free. A loan "solution" to this area could be someone like Chelsea's Tammy Abraham, whether you can see that happening or not is another matter. Just for the record I'm not opposed to a slight & pacey striker, we need someone but the way I see it Waghorn is the allrounder, Miller reads the game and can find a yard of space with his speed (especially on as a sub or in big games), O'Halloran is the speed demon; who's the specialist for headers/wrestling a ball/lay-offs? There will be times when slight forwards/pace isn't the answer up front and Waghorn is an allrounder he's not someone you think "We need a tower to head one home today, Waghorn's the man!". Ideally, I'd bring in someone as a target-man and a goalscorer but I'm not greedy and I'll take the CF/Target-Man as preferred on account that it gives us more distinct options to what we have already.

So you don't have any argument against what I've said beyond that the young, "informed" and Scots don't care about facts, they care about personal preference and when democratic votes don't go their way they'll carry on regardless. I've put up several points/facts now and you don't have an answer to refute any of them, you may think they are simplistic and won't work etc. etc. but it doesn't make them any less true. Why you say people won't listen to facts/reason and hold the belief that they are "informed" I don't know.

What's stupid about the questions i asked you? Nicola Sturgeon says that Scotland being voted out of the EU by England and Wales is 'democratically unacceptable' and she is using that as a mandate to push for Scottish "Independence" and re-entry to Europe. The problems with that is Scotland rejected Independence voting to be in a Union with the UK where they could be outvoted, joining the European Union would be handing over Independence gained from exiting the UK, being in the EU makes it highly probable that Scotland will be outvoted on issues within the EU and Scotland has a bigger say in the UK than it would in Europe. Now do you have any argument at all to refute what I've just said or will you once again tell me how the young/Scots/"informed" are making the right choices, that people that voted for Brexit are "ignorant fearful little Britainers", that my points/questions are "stupidly simplistic" and that everything I say is a "strawman" and "crap"?

So you have no answer to my question.

Scotland's say in the UK is 1 in 11. Scotland's say in the EU would be at best 1 in 58. Explain to me how that is "Independence" and will ensure that Scotland never gets outvoted again?

The UK buys far more imports from Europe than it exports to all of it, the EU's importance in terms of trade has declined over the years. Scotland, on the other hand, exports 4 times as much to the UK as it does to the EU; considering the collapse of oil and the fact Scotland is borrowing on a favourable rate without the set-up costs of an "Independent" Scotland, it would be much, much worse for Scotland to leave the UK than leave Europe. I don't demand that any Rangers fan believe a certain thing or follow the politics of a football team etc. etc. I make my own mind up and I allow others to do that for themselves (as I should). If the "informed" young can't be made to see what is fairly obvious with the sensible debate then it's a bad day.

The proportion of Unionists and Brexit supporters is probably unusually high in our support in comparison to elsewhere in the country, in turn, we risk subconsciously thinking that our support is representative of the rest of the country. The majority of our support faces a real and present danger of an "Independent" Scotland if we don't "fight" to win the argument/debate. Look at social media to see the generation of "new" voters and soon-to-be voters and you'll see some tremendously warped thinking lapped up by the majority. We have to get active in social media, up our game, make valid arguments, be respectful (as to give them no moral victory option and to show them up for the vile lot many of them are when they get abusive and we keep our cool/manners), highlight things the media and politicians don't, present a vision of the UK that people want, guide people on how to make the UK work, highlight the positives of the UK, point out the risks of Independence, tackle the SNP on their short-sighted policies that would be catastrophic if implemented, highlight the lies of Independence supporters/SNP/"new media" etc. etc. If we sit on our arses preaching to the converted (I'm as guilty of that as anyone) and deriding the opposition we could be in for a very tough time going forward, just look at how things currently are.

GK, CB, Someone to cover for both Wallace/Tav, Striker he said. GK - unknown. The press say Gilks. CB could be Mariappa as seen with Weir and co. RWB/LWB - unknown even to the press. Striker - unknown. The press say Bradshaw/Vaughen.

Warburton said the other day he was looking to sign players for those positions.

I think Warburton is evidently rounding out the squad to give options formation wise. With what we're currently got you could change the formation a number of ways without weakening the first 11, that's encouraging signs that there is more than a Plan B of doing Plan A better. As an example, the op's suggestion would likely be.. Foderingham/Alternate #1 or competition yet to be signed. Tavernier/RWB,LWB cover player yet to be signed, Yet to be signed but possibly Mariappa/Kiernan/Wilson, Hill/Kiernan/Wilson, Wallace/RWB,LWB cover player yet to be signed Crooks/Rossiter/Halliday Barton/Rossiter/Halliday Kranjcar/Holt/Forrester Forrester/O'Halloran/Waghorn McKay/Windass Waghorn/Miller/yet to be signed/O'Hallaron

I tend to think things are always lost in translation and that what was implied was more half-full than your half-empty, the recognition in a line that we're alive and well contrary to the belief of this country. Not that it's needed, I just find it amusing that the world over gets it while the bigoted, hate-filled country that we're presently a part of cannot/isn't-willing-to.

Not worried, I just find it amusing that the Spanish world know we're the historic Rangers when we have our own country in denial. Then the 'Protestant team' comment gave a wry smile and made me think 'getting rarer to see that comment'. You only notice you haven't seen it in a while when it pops up. Just one extract from worldwide coverage of the transfer I thought I'd share.

Just spotted this article from Deportes.Terra.ES; "The Rangers FC, current name of the historic Glasgow Rangers, has made official Thursday the signing of Croatian international Niko Kranjcar for the next two seasons from the New York Cosmos. ......Besides the Croatian, the Protestant city team of Glasgow has also signed the English Joey Barton (Burnley), Clint Hill (Queens Park Rangers), Jordan Rossiter (Liverpool), Josh Windass (Accrington) and Matt Crooks (Accrington) and Scottish Liam Kelly (East Fife)."

I for one am very encouraged by the comments from Mr. Warburton as I had just a few days ago been explaining to my pal that I reckoned we needed 5 players if we were genuinely challenging. Don't get me wrong I'm hardly panicking, we're in a position where deadline day/desperation/white-elephant signings are most unlikely but you also have your own idea of what we need to be credible this season and things like being quiet with regards to Central Defenders had us all sitting with slightly baited breath. The way I was looking at speaking to my pal was the following; Foderingham while clearly a step up on previous keepers, is at least going to need someone that can potentially challenge him for the jersey. A keeper is said to be worth something like 10 points alone to your season and a case could be made for bringing in a better keeper than Foderingham has been seen to be thus far. At the very least you need someone to challenge him and be capable of filling-in to a standard where regardless of injury Rangers push on towards the title. Looking at the way we were cut apart last season by even mediocre strike-forces (enough times to take notice) you'd be hard pushed to find me a Rangers fan who wouldn't concede the point that in a standard year of going for the title Wilson and Kiernan aren't good enough to be first-team. Now Clint Hill may provide some of what I'm about to highlight but it would be unfair to expect a man of his seniority to provide it all. Wilson and Kiernan between them don't appear to marshall the defense, there isn't a resolute header-winner between them, neither of them appears to be the Mr. Reliable that is always between the opposition and the attempt on goal, there is nothing in terms of cover, neither have over the whole of the season shown themselves to be particularly error free and one must assume that is more likely to be exposed than suppressed in a better division. As said Clint Hill might provide a chunk of this however if we are genuine in our title challenge we must assume that Wilson and Kiernan won't step up and be prepared for that, as such a clearly first team quality CB is required. Clint could be anything over the course of the season but assuming he is first-team and plays the whole shebang you still need someone else capable of a league-winning season alongside him or someone who at least can challenge Wilson/Kiernan and give cover to injuries - we certainly do not have the bulk of that at present. Ideally, you bring in someone head and shoulders above Wilson/Kiernan relegating them to being the cover but also forcing them to up their game if they want to feature. We have Wallace and Tavernier, now we both know they can be defensively suspect but more to the point who is the cover for them? If we can find someone who can cover both as LWB/RWB and that player can snap at both their heels then we'd be making a shrewd signing for bookings, injuries, and bad performance patches that happen. I can't quite imagine Wallace getting dropped but yellow cards total could happen and Tavernier could need a break at some point. It's lunacy to not have someone as cover for them both that would not be seen as an obvious weak link. CF - Warburton says striker I believe however a CF or striker is required IMO. None of our forwards is the man you know will beat two SPL CB's to a cross ball header and that's a problem for me, if we're going for the title against a better standard of opposition then you need to unlock the defenses with what you have and Millers game is finding a half-yard, Waghorn seems to be a right-sided forward and a bit of an allrounder but neither of them is that target man that Mckay/Windass or Forrester/O'Halloran can cross to, I'm not saying they'll never get on the end of one just that the teams we will be playing will be better than last season and they will employ the same tactics while pulling off feats of defending that only a hatred of our club could induce. With this in mind, you want that Prso/Hateley type on the books and I don't think we've been linked with him yet. We are linked with Bradshaw, however, he seemingly gives you the nippy striker that Miller once was (and arguably still is), O'Halloran could do this though and if we're adding strings to the bow I'd prefer that CF that gives our players someone to aim for even in a packed defense. Maybe Warburton wants Bradshaw for the nippy striker role and he'll aim for the 'big man' but he seemingly favours the former than the latter at present. Regardless of the truth we do at least need one credible option to Waghorn/Miller and Windass looks like an alternative to McKay on the left and O'Halloran is yet to set the heather alight may be more of an alternative to Forrester on the right or a utility forward than someone we look to for goals. In my assessment we needed 5 players, Warburton seems to be suggesting 4 but he missed out CM; Niko is said to be coming in, however, and in my view we needed another Midfielder so he counts. I know we've been linked with midfielders galore however it was the bulk of our problems last season offering dick all in defense and in attacking lacking impetus and ideas was a regular occurrence. Barton and Crooks give us grit (missing out the Liverpool boy here because I have no idea what he is in reality) and Niko, in theory, gives us the invention; the conduit between getting the ball and giving Miller/Waghorn something to work with up front. If we bring in Niko and the other 4 we have a team/squad that can go second with ease and can offer a challenge at least for the title. The race will be on and that I think we were all a little worried wouldn't be happening. Some of the players aren't viewed as being obviously title-winning class however when you look at what Warburton is signing, they are strings to our bow; where we're weak he's bolstering, where we have someone good he's brought/bringing in better or someone who will push that player into being better. I look at our options and think 'shrewd' is what is being screamed by our transfer activity, not 'money, money, money' or 'pot-less' but 'shrewd'. Foderingham/Alternate #1 or competition yet to be signed. Tavernier/RWB,LWB cover player yet to be signed, Yet to be signed but possibly Mariappa/Kiernan/Wilson, Hill/Kiernan/Wilson, Wallace/RWB,LWB cover player yet to be signed Crooks/Rossiter/Halliday Barton/Rossiter/Halliday Yet to be signed but possibly Kranjcar/Holt/Forrester Forrester/O'Halloran/Waghorn McKay/Windass Waghorn/Miller/yet to be signed You don't have to be SAF or Walter to see how we could change formation with ease to just about anything giving us a different stick to poke the opposition with, while not seemingly weakening our line-up. I'm not even touching the real possibility that players on the fringes might push through at some point giving us a further increase in options beyond the existent depth they provide. Now we can say that even with the players yet to be signed, we haven't exactly signed players that leap off the page as being winners (out with Barton) in a "normal" SPL push but unlike a "normal" season we have a very capable head of recruitment in Frank McParland and as such you have to factor that into to the equation when predicting the capabilities of our new team. One thing for the assistant and the manager to get it wrong but to get it wrong with McParland there too, it seems far more likely that our pace in the transfer market is indicative that we've identified what we need and we've gone out and sought it. Clint Hill isn't someone who, coming up for 38, screams 'solution' just now nevermind going forward but there's a multitude of reasons why he could be a sound signing (including the possibility that he switches to coaching us). Hill's signing reminds me of this scene...

I used to think this, almost everybody does on the outset I think, however, it can be both extremely amusing and informative about the mindset/delusions of our enemies.

It didn't do us any harm approaching last season, and as they have been promoted as winners of the Championship it legitimises last season and this seasons friendly. Premier League opposition and Barton makes it perhaps a little more interesting.

Anyone think Miss Ranger is overpriced in the 8.10? I do personally, a few unknown quantities in the race and promising types but the distance is something Miss Ranger has been crying out for a go at for some time.

That fucks that idea then but still we need someone of similar ilk because they simply get carved up too often against lower level opposition, IFchallenging for the title is the least of our intentions then we need at least someone who is far better and evidently capable over the course of a full season against better opposition week-in-week-out.

I think it's easy to say both need to be replaced and I've voted as such. Truthfully though if the right CB is signed then he could replace 1 of them and the entire defense could be on a whole new level. What's clear with Kiernan and Wilson is that neither are commanders, you can't say that one of them will go for a header nevermind win every header, you can't say that one of them organises the line, you can't say that one will be there to make the interception. Such a player coming in could make all the difference. Now I'm not going to claim I know much of the guy's ability but Damien Delaney to me is an example of someone whose contract is up, he has been playing the vast bulk of seasons for a good number of years, he has knowingly been on low wages and offered very short term deals (since before he joined Palace) and yet if you look at Palace's defensive record they were top 7 on goals conceded. He obviously reached the cup final with them and as I understand it he is one of their top assists men. Seeing what we have just pulled off with Barton, I can imagine that Delaney knowing he will not likely top the cup final of last season and most likely will fight for survival, might look at a 2 year deal with us and the opportunity that gives him to go out on a high, big club, win something, possibly experience Europe etc. etc. He's only an example that I've used a few times but he fits the bill of being obviously good enough while seemingly being in reach, I think he is as close to ideal as you're going to get to raise the bar in defense.

I should know to steer clear of "contributing" to such a thread, however, I'm tired and in my moment of weakness here's a suggestion off the top of my head, not for a player but here goes; to the rough tune "When we say Fenian, we don't mean Cath-olic, We mean the Brotherhood of the Irish Re-pub-lic, The ones that attacked the British, the terrorists of their day, But they were unsuccessful like their son the IRA. Glory, Glory Hallelujah..."

Tongue in cheek here but what percentage of celtic players have made sectarian or racial hate speech?....followed by what percentage of those have the authorities punished?

What I'm about to highlight is by no means the best example but it does inpart highlight how this country is being indoctrinated to look at our identity a certain way in opposition to the reality. The following is taken from a BBC piece on the Euro's, now read the reasoning behind the Irish Republic (highlighted red box) and compare that to the reasoning for the other sides. Now it may be innocent enough on the part of the author, it could be entirely subconscious, it could be anything other than sinister in its subliminal message but let's call it like it is, the piece suggests that there is a stronger relationship with Scotland and Ireland than the other Nations in the United Kingdom. There's no denying that there is people in Scotland with Irish ancestry, there is even a sizable number of Irish living here; the insinuation in this fluff piece however is that this exists between Ireland and Scotland and not between Scotland and any of the other home Nations, hence some players for Northern Ireland is the reason given there, England is basically said to be a question mark on the back of a seeming dislike and Wales are merely an underdog like ourselves. So what percentage is "...many Scots......kinship...Irish"? According to the 2011 Census for Scotland; "In Scotland, a majority (83 per cent, 4.4 million) of the population stated that they felt they had a Scottish national identity, either as the only national identity they felt they had or as one of several national identities. Just over 62 per cent of people felt Scottish only, 18 per cent reported they felt both Scottish and British and a further 2 per cent felt they were Scottish in combination with some other identity. Eight per cent of people felt they had a British national identity only, 2 per cent felt English only and 2 per cent felt they had some other combination of UK identities (excluding Scottish). Four per cent of the population of Scotland felt they did not have any UK national identity." The answer therefore is less than 2% while the facts show that there is a stronger bond between Scotland and the Union Nations. I did look briefly for the census data that showed many of those who consider themselves to be Irish actually have no birth/recent-ancestry showing that to be the case but I couldn't find it. It's an interesting insight as to the "kinship" of Scotland and Ireland but is such a small number of people in reality that not even that would be worth stating as a reason to support Ireland. Now I'm not saying that people can't or shouldn't support the Irish Republic, I'm merely highlighting that within public life, the media, governance etc. etc. there seems to be a drive/willingness/agenda to make Scotland and the Irish Republic as synonymous with one and other in the big picture of public consciousness when in reality there is stronger ties culturally, historically, ancestrally etc. etc. with other Nations within the UK. If you look up Irish-Scots, there is a wikipedia that proclaims the estimated number of Scots with Irish ancestry is 1.5M, and you could perhaps say "Aha, there's the proof, case closed" if you are in favour of insisting that the Scots/Irish are somehow brothers over and above the relationships shared by Scotland with the other UK Nations however you will struggle to find details of Welsh-Scots, English-Scots and the Northern-Irish/Ulster-Scots; for all that is known there is equally strong number links in those relationships; one can understandably go as far as to say there will be a far bigger number in Scotland with English ancestry and vice versa, proof would be indicated at least by the 477K English living in Scotland compared to that of 23k Irish. According to research in mapping the DNA of the British Isles we're all one people with no preferential relationship, at least on that genetic level; this doesn't insinuate a closer tie between Scotland and the rest of the UK but it further dents the insinuation that the Scots and Irish are somehow joined at a higher genetic/ancestry level. The NY times commented on these findings in 2007 to report "Britain and Ireland are so thoroughly divided in their histories that there is no single word to refer to the inhabitants of both islands. Historians teach that they are mostly descended from different peoples: the Irish from the Celts, and the English from the Anglo-Saxons who invaded from northern Europe and drove the Celts to the country’s western and northern fringes. But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles , Saxons, Vikings and Normans." I know this Euro fluff piece by the BBC is meaningless and I once again acknowledge that the statements made within it could be considered throwaway and harmless but this isn't the only example of this emerging "push" to see Scotland and Ireland viewed by the populace as somehow natural brothers above the relationships we hold elsewhere, we have the SNP opening an embassy in the Irish Republic, the SNP and Sinn Fein exchange tactics and experience, there is a seemingly constant desire to give special treatment to the group considered as being "somewhat Irish" within Scotland at present, there is an active and sizable number pushing for Independence and highlighting our common ground (or supposed common ground) with Ireland to do this; it's not hard to imagine that if our society pedals this myth persistently at a level whereby it is continuously fed to the public at large as being fact, then we could have a Nation of Scots confused in who they view as being our closest family/friends. You have to ask who benefits from Scotland being seen as "basically Irish" and what exactly is it that they benefit? According to the census data furthered from what I previously quoted "4 per cent of the total population stated their national identity as ‘Other identity only’ (i.e. no UK identity), 32 per cent of those were ‘White: Other White’, 22 per cent were ‘Asian’ and 21 per cent were ‘White: Polish’." In that vein you could argue that there is at least as many in Scotland who would be supporting Poland in these Euro's as supporting Ireland through "kinship", as a consequence perhaps Poland should have been an option at least.

I'm dreadful for remembering specifics after a while but I'm surprised to see no mention of Amo, we all forget just what an individual man-wall he was in games in Europe/v-celtic, not saying he was the best ever but honestly watch a big game from his time and just watch him snuff out attacks single handedly like Death in an old folks home. No one and I mean no one is going to name any of our less favoured servants but every dog has its day and the day for Broadfoot (to name but one) was V Werder Bremen at home, he was our best defender as we survived an onslaught or German engineered attacks, as Martin would say "Wave after wave after wave!". So neither are mentioned in the sense that they are the best individual performances but to highlight some things that are yet to be touched upon.