Deanow 72 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Well said theres a reason why the people from the past arent in the future as they say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef 436 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? cousin was rangers material, a good player who just lost his way a bit, deffo would have been a good asset to have Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iserdo 1 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Nae bother but miller still kissed the septic badge,because he says it in a paper,dosen't mean he didn't. You're obviously going to believe that no matter how many times you're told the truth, so not much point arguing with you. Try to find a video or picture of him doing it. When you can't, will that convince you? Not tryed looking yet,i'll try looking tomorrow and if i can't find 1 by saturday then i will be convinced Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? cousin was rangers material, a good player who just lost his way a bit, deffo would have been a good asset to have so if he lost his way and wasnt any good cause of that...how can he possibly be rangers material? oh aye he is shite but cumon cut him a break he will get better..bollocks to that reasoning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef 436 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? cousin was rangers material, a good player who just lost his way a bit, deffo would have been a good asset to have so if he lost his way and wasnt any good cause of that...how can he possibly be rangers material? oh aye he is shite but cumon cut him a break he will get better..bollocks to that reasoning. when i say lost his way, i mean he was a bit unsure what he himself wanted to do, and i aint saying bring him back am i? im saying he is rangers material, talking of the cousin that was here recently, not the one slugging it out at hull, he is a defferent player now due to the fact he aint getting to play, BUT he was good for us, done something a bit different than what we have now and i stand by what i say, the cousin from playin ghere, i would tak ehim back, fekk it man ill take him now and get him back to doing what he was, he may not have played every game but he was a pressence we lack, likes of dado Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rugal 0 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I wouldnt take back Hutton, ultimately he had 2 good seasons for us. Before that he was an utter bombscare, and has made no impact at Tottenham. As a club, Rangers should be aiming higher than that. Hutts would struggle to break into most EPL sides, and as a club Rangers are better than that. I don't care if we're finacially f*cked, if you give top wages to a player who ultimately won't improve the side vastly we will remain a mediocre side in Europe for decades to come. There are RBs in Serbia and other emerging nations who are twice the player of Hutton, for literally a fraction of the price. Why are we so narrow minded as a club, we got amazing money for Hutton and ran with it. aye well put laddie ive been arguing the same Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 when i say lost his way, i mean he was a bit unsure what he himself wanted to do, and i aint saying bring him back am i? im saying he is rangers material, talking of the cousin that was here recently, not the one slugging it out at hull, he is a defferent player now due to the fact he aint getting to play, BUT he was good for us, done something a bit different than what we have now and i stand by what i say, the cousin from playin ghere, i would tak ehim back, fekk it man ill take him now and get him back to doing what he was, he may not have played every game but he was a pressence we lack, likes of dado his presence was strong i agree, just didnt do enough for me. cheers for your view Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iserdo 1 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I wouldnt take back Hutton, ultimately he had 2 good seasons for us. Before that he was an utter bombscare, and has made no impact at Tottenham. As a club, Rangers should be aiming higher than that. Hutts would struggle to break into most EPL sides, and as a club Rangers are better than that. I don't care if we're finacially f*cked, if you give top wages to a player who ultimately won't improve the side vastly we will remain a mediocre side in Europe for decades to come. There are RBs in Serbia and other emerging nations who are twice the player of Hutton, for literally a fraction of the price. Why are we so narrow minded as a club, we got amazing money for Hutton and ran with it. aye well put laddie ive been arguing the same Who the fuck is laddie? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billythebear1986 307 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 what a load of shit! Kenny has been great since he came back. 4 goals against celtic alone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef 436 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 when i say lost his way, i mean he was a bit unsure what he himself wanted to do, and i aint saying bring him back am i? im saying he is rangers material, talking of the cousin that was here recently, not the one slugging it out at hull, he is a defferent player now due to the fact he aint getting to play, BUT he was good for us, done something a bit different than what we have now and i stand by what i say, the cousin from playin ghere, i would tak ehim back, fekk it man ill take him now and get him back to doing what he was, he may not have played every game but he was a pressence we lack, likes of dado his presence was strong i agree, just didnt do enough for me. cheers for your view cheers for appreciating my response to your view, appreciated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 On his day, Daniel Cousin was 'Rangers material' and he showed that. Just a pity he had a shit attitude, and only played when he wanted to. People look to his goalscoring record, but he's not an out and out goalscorer! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWoodburn 2 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I kind of agree with the OP as there have been quite e few who have returned and not made it 2nd time around for example:- Baxter Trevor Steven Hateley Colin Stein Dave McPherson Gordon Smith Derek Johnstone To name just a few. Trevor Steven Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSuedeSambas 54,200 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? I come to that conclusion because I watched him play Cousin had pretty much every thing you look for in the modern striker: he was strong, aggressive, had a decent turn of pace, good technique and although not a prolific scorer he was incredibely composed when he was had a sight of goal. IMO Cousin had two major dowfalls 1) he kept Boyd, a fans favourite, out of the big games 2) his attitude stank. Players with bad attitudes think too much of themselves and only turn up for big games. And going by his fall outs with various high profile club members in the past, as well as his performances for us against Lyon, Celtic (how many players have dominated the Celtic backline in their own cesspit like he did that day?) and against Man Utd and Arsenal for Hull, I think it all points to a player with a bad attitude. If he was as shite as some people make out then why did it only take him a year to earn a move to The Premiership? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? I come to that conclusion because I watched him play Cousin had pretty much every thing you look for in the modern striker: he was strong, aggressive, had a decent turn of pace, good technique and although not a prolific scorer he was incredibely composed when he was had a sight of goal. IMO Cousin had two major dowfalls 1) he kept Boyd, a fans favourite, out of the big games 2) his attitude stank. Players with bad attitudes think too much of themselves and only turn up for big games. And going by his fall outs with various high profile club members in the past, as well as his performances for us against Lyon, Celtic (how many players have dominated the Celtic backline in their own cesspit like he did that day?) and against Man Utd and Arsenal for Hull, I think it all points to a player with a bad attitude. If he was as shite as some people make out then why did it only take him a year to earn a move to The Premiership? fair play if that is your opinion. in my books he wasnt very good. i did not rate him. yes he was strong, but his attitude was shit, and he only tried when he wanted to...dont think iv ever been more frustrated with a player ( except bigfoot and lafferty) cheers pal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmrfc1873 48 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 At the end of the day, I don't care if you used to play for the club or not. I want the players who will improve the team in. Exactly, Ex-players, young players or old players are welcome at rangers at what ever time if they will improve the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,810 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? I come to that conclusion because I watched him play Cousin had pretty much every thing you look for in the modern striker: he was strong, aggressive, had a decent turn of pace, good technique and although not a prolific scorer he was incredibely composed when he was had a sight of goal. IMO Cousin had two major dowfalls 1) he kept Boyd, a fans favourite, out of the big games 2) his attitude stank. Players with bad attitudes think too much of themselves and only turn up for big games. And going by his fall outs with various high profile club members in the past, as well as his performances for us against Lyon, Celtic (how many players have dominated the Celtic backline in their own cesspit like he did that day?) and against Man Utd and Arsenal for Hull, I think it all points to a player with a bad attitude. If he was as shite as some people make out then why did it only take him a year to earn a move to The Premiership? I agree with most of that but I don't agree that people didn't like because he kept Boyd out of the first team. Darcheville also did and he was loved and a bit of a cult hero. Cousin was only at Rangers to earn a move to the Premiership and he only turned up in the bigger matches mostly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macleod1873 0 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Admin may move this to the transfer section if it is better suited there. After reading many posts about players like Cousin, Lovenkrands etc. returning to Rangers, i would just like to make this point: If a player cant hack it at Rangers first time (amdy faye), if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), or they leave Rangers (bazza) - then they should NOT come back, under any circumstances. One recent example is Barry Ferguson. He left the club thinking he was better, then came back. Never really rated him to be honest but once a player leaves Rangers they should not come back. I do not expect players once they come to Rangers, to stay at Rangers for the rest of their lives, im just not a fan of them returning. This goes for managers aswell, despite the success of Walter Smith. I would like to know other peoples opinions on players returning. Cheers lads. Daniel cousin not rangers material? Cousin is a brilliant striker but has proved his attitude stinks no matter where he goes. He would be at a far better club if his attitude was better because he is a fantastic footballer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanow 72 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I wouldnt take back Hutton, ultimately he had 2 good seasons for us. Before that he was an utter bombscare, and has made no impact at Tottenham. As a club, Rangers should be aiming higher than that. Hutts would struggle to break into most EPL sides, and as a club Rangers are better than that. I don't care if we're finacially f*cked, if you give top wages to a player who ultimately won't improve the side vastly we will remain a mediocre side in Europe for decades to come. There are RBs in Serbia and other emerging nations who are twice the player of Hutton, for literally a fraction of the price. Why are we so narrow minded as a club, we got amazing money for Hutton and ran with it. aye well put laddie ive been arguing the same Hahahahahaha :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingWilBEARy 4,319 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Admin may move this to the transfer section if it is better suited there. After reading many posts about players like Cousin, Lovenkrands etc. returning to Rangers, i would just like to make this point: If a player cant hack it at Rangers first time (amdy faye), if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), or they leave Rangers (bazza) - then they should NOT come back, under any circumstances. One recent example is Barry Ferguson. He left the club thinking he was better, then came back. Never really rated him to be honest but once a player leaves Rangers they should not come back. I do not expect players once they come to Rangers, to stay at Rangers for the rest of their lives, im just not a fan of them returning. This goes for managers aswell, despite the success of Walter Smith. I would like to know other peoples opinions on players returning. Cheers lads. I would take Cousin back in a second Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruddie 1 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? cousin was rangers material, a good player who just lost his way a bit, deffo would have been a good asset to have Before he played his first game, he said he was using Rangers as a stepping stone. 'Rangers material'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muff 245 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 if they are not Rangers material first time(daniel cousin), Cousin was Rangers material. how exactly do you come to that conclusion?...he was garbage, didnt score many goals. infact he was dropped from the team for ages, and his first game back was the celtic game...where he scored. id like to know exactly what part of him was rangers material? I come to that conclusion because I watched him play Cousin had pretty much every thing you look for in the modern striker: he was strong, aggressive, had a decent turn of pace, good technique and although not a prolific scorer he was incredibely composed when he was had a sight of goal. IMO Cousin had two major dowfalls 1) he kept Boyd, a fans favourite, out of the big games 2) his attitude stank. Players with bad attitudes think too much of themselves and only turn up for big games. And going by his fall outs with various high profile club members in the past, as well as his performances for us against Lyon, Celtic (how many players have dominated the Celtic backline in their own cesspit like he did that day?) and against Man Utd and Arsenal for Hull, I think it all points to a player with a bad attitude. If he was as shite as some people make out then why did it only take him a year to earn a move to The Premiership? I agree with most of that but I don't agree that people didn't like because he kept Boyd out of the first team. Darcheville also did and he was loved and a bit of a cult hero. Cousin was only at Rangers to earn a move to the Premiership and he only turned up in the bigger matches mostly. Darcheville got slated by a number of people on here, mainly the ones who backed Boyd to the hilt - if Boyd had a bad game, it was Darcheville's fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 darche lost his stride a little bit though most games. why we played him for as long as we did in the uefa final is beyond me, didnt play a full game in his life fs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the goal machine 7,810 Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Darcheville got slated by a number of people on here, mainly the ones who backed Boyd to the hilt - if Boyd had a bad game, it was Darcheville's fault. Fair enough, it was a very small minority though. Most people didn't like Cousin because of his attitude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clelandhattrick 8 Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 If Rangers had let me go as a youngster, I would have spent the rest of my career playing like Pelé to get a move back to my boyhood heroes. I don't think there should be any iron-clad rules regarding returning players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danablu 0 Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 As a general rule, maybe, but i think there are certain players i would have back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts