McCoist, Rangers Youth.

[AlBear. 8,499]

17 year old Ryan Hardie made his Rangers first team debut tonight against Falkirk in the League Cup.

A lot has been said about Ally's 'philosophy' stifling the Rangers youth in their progression. Here is a list of Rangers youngsters who have all made their competitive debuts in the Rangers first team under McCoist, or those who have became first team regulars under him, since May 2011.

R. Perry.

C. Hegarty.

D. Cole.

A. Little.

K. Hutton.

A. Mitchell.

K. Hemmings.

K. Naismith.

S. Gallacher.

B. McKay.

L. Macleod.

R. Crawford.

F. Aird.

C. Gallagher.

T. Walsh.

L. Gasparotto.

D. Stoney.

A. Murdoch.

C. Telfer.

R. Hardie.

That's 20 players, in just over 3 seasons, who have either been given their first team debuts or become first team regulars under McCoist.

Is this an acceptable amount of youngsters being given the chance in the first team, or are we expecting more from Murray Park and the manager?

[Balgreen Bear 15]

A few minutes here and there is not a chance. In 3 and a bit years as manager, 2 have had a chance. The average age of our favoured team in the bottom tier was around 28, in the second bottom tier it was the same and this year similar again.

You are bumping your gums about a kid getting on for the last 5/10 minutes tonight ignoring the fact our more experienced players were all injured, that was the only reason the kid was there, in fact the manager favoured playing a midfielder up front(according to you) instead of this young striker.

[AlBear. 8,499]

A few minutes here and there is not a chance. In 3 and a bit years as manager, 2 have had a chance. The average age of our favoured team in the bottom tier was around 28, in the second bottom tier it was the same and this year similar again.

You are bumping your gums about a kid getting on for the last 5/10 minutes tonight ignoring the fact our more experienced players were all injured, that was the only reason the kid was there, in fact the manager favoured playing a midfielder up front(according to you) instead of this young striker.

The likes of McKay, Crawford, Aird, Perry, Macleod, Hegarty, Little, Hutton, Mitchell, Naismith all made a significant amount of appearances in the first team over this time.

[j1mgg 3,766]

5 mins at the end of a game isn't a chance

[Balgreen Bear 15]

The likes of McKay, Crawford, Aird, Perry, Macleod, Hegarty, Little, Hutton, Mitchell, Naismith all made a significant amount of appearances in the first team over this time.

Most of them are not even youth players. A couple are almost in their mid 20's. There is also a huge difference between significant amount of appearances and a chance Albear. Most of Crawford and McKays apps were from the bench, minutes here and there. Naismith and Mitchell did not get a proper chance.

[Del 667]

The likes of McKay, Crawford, Aird, Perry, Macleod, Hegarty, Little, Hutton, Mitchell, Naismith all made a significant amount of appearances in the first team over this time.

I am all for a bit of positivity and mixing things up a but but I think this is a little bit far fetched...

Little and Scott Gallagher are 25, Ross Perry is 24...I wouldn't consider them "youth or youngsters"

Guys like Hegarty, Naismith and Hutton were played out of necessity and quickly dropped...they were good enough but guess what a few of them were all given length contract extensions wasting more money!!

[Smile 26,622]

The Original Poster must be having a laugh here, why would he expect this post to be taken seriously.

[sasa5stefan1lamont 7]

"Theres only two danny stoney's! Two Danny Stonney's!"

[AlBear. 8,499]

The likes of Aird and Macleod, obviously the most successful, have made over 60 appearances each. Crawford, McKay have made 40 odd appearances each.

The likes of McKay, Macleod, Crawford, Walsh, Aird, Stoney, Hardie, Gasparotto, Murdoch, Telfer were all given debuts between 16-18 years old.

Even the older ones like Hutton, Cole, Naismith, Perry, Hegarty were given plenty of chances to state their worth.

Yes it's due to the situation we have found ourselves in that these players have been thrust into the team. Injuries of course play a part aswell.

Many on here have complained about sending youngsters out on loan when they should be in our squad and given time in games when we are on course to win, so we can't sit here and not compliment our youth getting a shot, even just 5-10 minutes, after good displays outside the first team.

It's up to youth players, fringe players, to take their chances when they come. Look at Nicky Clark.

The point was that these young players were given chances by the management team, are these numbers acceptable? Or do we expect more to be coming through? Or like the first few posts indicate, should we be giving fewer numbers more opportunities in the starting 11?

[AlBear. 8,499]

"Theres only two danny stoney's! Two Danny Stonney's!"

I just think he's that good I named him twice.

[Balgreen Bear 15]

Well when we get back to the top tier next summer we are going to need a whole new team so you tell us, is that acceptable? We certainly can't afford one. 3 years in part time leagues, almost £100m spent and next to nothing to show for it. I find that abhorrent and so typical of us.

I believe we have kids currently at the club who are better than the players who get picked every week. That is my opinion. I am gutted we haven't given more a real shot at the first team.

[AlBear. 8,499]

The Original Poster must be having a laugh here, why would he expect this post to be taken seriously.

Honest, open question about whether it's acceptable or way behind expectations.

I believe we have had the opportunities to blood more youths, particularly the last couple months the last two years. When you look at the numbers it's not like we haven't been trying to progress youths though, which is a constant rhetoric for many on here.

Yes, the experienced players are ahead of them. But then you look at the likes of Macleod, Aird, Clark etc and see that those who burst their guts to force themselves into the team will benefit, and we'll benefit as a team from that desire.

[AlBear. 8,499]

Well when we get back to the top tier next summer we are going to need a whole new team so you tell us, is that acceptable? We certainly can't afford one. 3 years in part time leagues, almost £100m spent and next to nothing to show for it. I find that abhorrent and so typical of us.

I believe we have kids currently at the club who are better than the players who get picked every week. That is my opinion. I am gutted we haven't given more a real shot at the first team.

£100 million? I know we have been less than frugal but don't know where you got that number.

The likes of Macleod and Aird will have made close to 100 appearances for Rangers by the end of this season. Ideally? Yes, I would have wanted maybe 2 or 3 more to be at the same level. But it hasn't worked out that way. Players develop at different rates and the likes of Gallagher, McKay, Crawford, Walsh, Murdoch etc could very well make that step in the coming years. Besides Crawford they are all still teenagers.

By definition I try to be a positive person. Rather than look at the failures, many of those players I listed are no longer Rangers players, I prefer to focus on positives where I find them.

[Balgreen Bear 15]

£100 million? I know we have been less than frugal but don't know where you got that number.

The likes of Macleod and Aird will have made close to 100 appearances for Rangers by the end of this season. Ideally? Yes, I would have wanted maybe 2 or 3 more to be at the same level. But it hasn't worked out that way. Players develop at different rates and the likes of Gallagher, McKay, Crawford, Walsh, Murdoch etc could very well make that step in the coming years. Besides Crawford they are all still teenagers.

By definition I try to be a positive person. Rather than look at the failures, many of those players I listed are no longer Rangers players, I prefer to focus on positives where I find them.

The accounts and 120 day review.

By December 31st 2013 the club had spent around £70m since Green and his pals took over and we began this journey from the bottom. Add another year and a half to that before we get out of the first division and it's not unrealistic to believe we will have spent close to if not more than £100m. It's pretty straight forward. Almost £40m will have been just on the football team, to get out of part time leagues? That is horrendous.

Our main problem, though it is one, is not players developing before they hit the first team squad, we have some decent kids coming through, it is our managers compulsive need to sign experience. From Kyle and Sandaza to Zaliukas and Simonsen. Unnecessary costly dross. There are loads of those examples. We have signed so many players in the last 3 years that we simply did not need, several of whom we actually had to let go again.

Gallagher is not a teenager mate.

I, like many others, do not see many positives. MacLeod is undoubtedly one but one positive in 3 or 4 years is not impressive, it's embarrassing. It is simply not good enough.

[WilliamFyfe 1,438]

Boys like McKay, Gallagher need game time like Macloed gets

About 10 games solid, let them kick off

[King Jela 20,582]

Daft thread. McCoist is a poor, chequebook manager.

[Thewhitesettler 2,711]

Well when we get back to the top tier next summer we are going to need a whole new team so you tell us, is that acceptable? We certainly can't afford one. 3 years in part time leagues, almost £100m spent and next to nothing to show for it. I find that abhorrent and so typical of us.

I believe we have kids currently at the club who are better than the players who get picked every week. That is my opinion. I am gutted we haven't given more a real shot at the first team.

You're getting boring going on about this all the time. Let it go, before it eats you all up inside.

Maybe it has done so already?

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,778]

Just marking this thread for laterso i can rip it apart

[scarkev 3,540]

It's threads like this that get people's backs up on the lack of youth getting a proper chance and although you think your defending your messiah the reality is it just exposes and highlights the lack of progress we have made in terms of developing youth whilst being out of the top flight.

[nedged 58]

And nine have been put out the door by Ally and his jobs for the boys approach. Another five out on loan. Not a high return for an expensive training facility. And as previous posters have pointed out and as happened with Ryan Hardie last night, ten minutes at the end of the game is not enough. Just ask Charlie Telfer.

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

And nine have been put out the door by Ally and his jobs for the boys approach. Another five out on loan. Not a high return for an expensive training facility. And as previous posters have pointed out and as happened with Ryan Hardie last night, ten minutes at the end of the game is not enough. Just ask Charlie Telfer.

10 mins in the first team at 17 is a good start though. I'm hoping that we as a club have learned from the Telfer incident and will give youngsters more game time as subs until they are ready to start.

[bluebear24 84]

The accounts and 120 day review.

By December 31st 2013 the club had spent around £70m since Green and his pals took over and we began this journey from the bottom. Add another year and a half to that before we get out of the first division and it's not unrealistic to believe we will have spent close to if not more than £100m. It's pretty straight forward. Almost £40m will have been just on the football team, to get out of part time leagues? That is horrendous.

Our main problem, though it is one, is not players developing before they hit the first team squad, we have some decent kids coming through, it is our managers compulsive need to sign experience. From Kyle and Sandaza to Zaliukas and Simonsen. Unnecessary costly dross. There are loads of those examples. We have signed so many players in the last 3 years that we simply did not need, several of whom we actually had to let go again.

Gallagher is not a teenager mate.

I, like many others, do not see many positives. MacLeod is undoubtedly one but one positive in 3 or 4 years is not impressive, it's embarrassing. It is simply not good enough.

well going by your method of rounding up. That's a 30 million jump to 100 million. So you could flip that on its head and say we spent closer to 50 million than we did 100 million... Just saying

[Balgreen Bear 15]

You're getting boring going on about this all the time. Let it go, before it eats you all up inside.

Maybe it has done so already?

What has? On about what? My club wasting tens of millions? Let that go? I don't think so.

well going by your method of rounding up. That's a 30 million jump to 100 million. So you could flip that on its head and say we spent closer to 50 million than we did 100 million... Just saying

No, by the time we return next summer, which is what i said, we will have spent much closer to £100m than £50m. That is a fact you cannot argue against.

[The Dude 20,026]

10 mins in the first team at 17 is a good start though. I'm hoping that we as a club have learned from the Telfer incident and will give youngsters more game time as subs until they are ready to start.

It was more than enough for far better players than Ryan Hardie.

[JograBear 1,074]

McCoist plays youth shocker!