Kent

[DrLaudrup 4,865]

9 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

I don’t actually think he downed tools either. Just think he wasn’t that good, was absolutely drained of all confidence, and just became quite stale. Didn’t chuck it completely the way Morelos or Kamara did IMO. 

I’m with you on this. We saw best of him under Gerrard 55 season and run to European final. Gerrard always talked about numbers with him and that always held him back. He never scored enough and those returns got even worse latterly. Wanting a new challenge is something I’d not begrudge a player in honesty. I wonder if playing under Beale played a part too. It seems a few players just stopped trying, and unforgivable as that is you wonder what he’d be like in a Clement side (not that I’d want him back now). 

[DrLaudrup 4,865]

14 hours ago, CoplandRoad83 said:

From terrorising Dortmund in Europa knock outs to battling it out in a relegation dogfight with Rotherham and Huddersfiled in space of a few year.

Players would be best place to seize the opportunity they have at our club.

A lot of simple minded players don’t realise what they have until it is gone. 

[beararse 6,480]

18 hours ago, bluenoz said:

As a player, I think Sima is slightly overrated despite scoring nine goals so far. But his work ethic and commitment make him a better asset than Kent every day of the week. 

So bar his goal scoring, work ethic, commitment and being a better asset than our most 2nd most expensive signing ever Sima’s slightly overrated 😀😀😀

[graeme_4 35,417]

27 minutes ago, beararse said:

So bar his goal scoring, work ethic, commitment and being a better asset than our most 2nd most expensive signing ever Sima’s slightly overrated 😀😀😀

Can’t trap a bag of cement at times, and hasn’t scored in the last 6 games. I quite like him now, but I do think he’s a bit overrated based on a wee purple patch of goals. 

[Badger 8,876]

1 hour ago, DrLaudrup said:

A lot of simple minded players don’t realise what they have until it is gone. 

We might not offer the riches of other leagues and clubs - but only a few leaving us (or indeed them) go onto better things.

Being a Rangers player isn't easy because the demand is to win every domestic game. Few clubs around the world have a demand like that - you don't get afforded too many off weeks or form dips before people are on your back and...... We'll be on your back in a second at any suspicion you're not trying 100%.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,666]

In a purely devils advocate, hypothetical situation here if we got the chance to punt Lammers on loan in January and we replaced him with Kent for a similar financial outlay (club picking up a fraction of his wages) then would you take it? 

[graeme_4 35,417]

3 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

In a purely devils advocate, hypothetical situation here if we got the chance to punt Lammers on loan in January and we replaced him with Kent for a similar financial outlay (club picking up a fraction of his wages) then would you take it? 

Bite your hand off 

[G.E.C. 19,116]

2 hours ago, TheKingObv said:

Could make a decent argument that Fenerbache are bigger than us tbf.

He also played for Liverpool.

One game.

[RockwellGers 14,812]

35 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

In a purely devils advocate, hypothetical situation here if we got the chance to punt Lammers on loan in January and we replaced him with Kent for a similar financial outlay (club picking up a fraction of his wages) then would you take it? 

If Clement approved it I'd trust him. 

[Loyal72 12,371]

2 hours ago, TheKingObv said:

Could make a decent argument that Fenerbache are bigger than us tbf.

He also played for Liverpool.

How could you make the decent argument that Fenerbache are bigger than us?

We've more league titles, more trophies and more European honours, our club is older, we take more supporters away than most clubs in the world.

Nah, that's nonsense you're spouting there.

[ForeverAndEver 72,273]

44 minutes ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

In a purely devils advocate, hypothetical situation here if we got the chance to punt Lammers on loan in January and we replaced him with Kent for a similar financial outlay (club picking up a fraction of his wages) then would you take it? 

No

[ForeverAndEver 72,273]

3 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

How could you make the decent argument that Fenerbache are bigger than us?

We've more league titles, more trophies and more European honours, our club is older, we take more supporters away than most clubs in the world.

Nah, that's nonsense you're spouting there.

Are European trophies the only reason Man United, Liverpool and Real Madrid for example are bigger than us?

[Loyal72 12,371]

4 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

Are European trophies the only reason Man United, Liverpool and Real Madrid for example are bigger than us?

I'd think if you asked most people, yeah and the money that makes them stand out as "Super clubs"

Although I'd argue that Man United and Liverpool aren't much bigger than us, only 30 years ago Man United were struggling to compete with us for wages.

Real Madrid, just a European powerhouse. That's self explanatory. Massive royalty in football.

Manchester City on the other hand, finally got their European trophy, but smaller club than us.

[ForeverAndEver 72,273]

13 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

I'd think if you asked most people, yeah and the money that makes them stand out as "Super clubs"

Although I'd argue that Man United and Liverpool aren't much bigger than us, only 30 years ago Man United were struggling to compete with us for wages.

Real Madrid, just a European powerhouse. That's self explanatory. Massive royalty in football.

Manchester City on the other hand, finally got their European trophy, but smaller club than us.

We’re not even close to the levels of Man United or Liverpool. 
 

Don’t know why you’ve said finally, they won a European trophy before us.

[JackAlex93 11,669]

1 hour ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

In a purely devils advocate, hypothetical situation here if we got the chance to punt Lammers on loan in January and we replaced him with Kent for a similar financial outlay (club picking up a fraction of his wages) then would you take it? 

No. Don't want him coming back at all.

[Loyal72 12,371]

6 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

We’re not even close to the levels of Man United or Liverpool. 
 

Don’t know why you’ve said finally, they won a European trophy before us.

Not anymore no, primarily because of Sky and money - as I said to you, Manchester United in the late 80s and 90s couldn't get near us, in fact we were beating the team better than them, Leeds!

I could spiral off into another tangent about money ruining football but not gunna.

They did, but I was talking about their UCL win - didn't elevate their status, still smaller than us.

[rangersross 6,579]

1 hour ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

In a purely devils advocate, hypothetical situation here if we got the chance to punt Lammers on loan in January and we replaced him with Kent for a similar financial outlay (club picking up a fraction of his wages) then would you take it? 

Yes. I wouldn’t expect Kent to come in and be incredible, but the best case scenario in a January window (when you have limited resources like us) is to come out of it a bit better than you went into it. Incremental improvements to the squad. Unfortunately I think there’s a very, very small pool of attacking players who are 1) available in January  2) in our budget (probably on loan with no/little fee) 3) interested in coming here 4) likely to improve the squad. Kent might be one of them. 

[ForeverAndEver 72,273]

8 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

Not anymore no, primarily because of Sky and money - as I said to you, Manchester United in the late 80s and 90s couldn't get near us, in fact we were beating the team better than them, Leeds!

I could spiral off into another tangent about money ruining football but not gunna.

They did, but I was talking about their UCL win - didn't elevate their status, still smaller than us.

But based on your criteria about us and Fenerbache we’d be bigger than all three, no? Since it’s only European trophies that they all have over us

[Loyal72 12,371]

3 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

But based on your criteria about us and Fenerbache we’d be bigger than all three, no? Since it’s only European trophies that they all have over us

This is a weird angle mate, why are you trying to argue with me that our club isn't that big?

We are absolutely bigger than fener and that's the bottom line. 

Bigger than Man City too, absolutely.

When you talk about prestigious clubs in football, we are on that list.

[TheKingObv 10,670]

56 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

How could you make the decent argument that Fenerbache are bigger than us?

We've more league titles, more trophies and more European honours, our club is older, we take more supporters away than most clubs in the world.

Nah, that's nonsense you're spouting there.

Galatasaray and Fenerbache are massive clubs

The fact we won a European trophy 50 years ago and take more fans to away matches doesn't really mean a whole lot.

Just look at their online following. Online following can be misleading for clubs in England etc due the exposure of the league. But Fenerbache play in a small league with little exposure (like ourselves) yet have ridiculous followings online. 

 

 

[TheKingObv 10,670]

52 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

I'd think if you asked most people, yeah and the money that makes them stand out as "Super clubs"

Although I'd argue that Man United and Liverpool aren't much bigger than us, only 30 years ago Man United were struggling to compete with us for wages.

Real Madrid, just a European powerhouse. That's self explanatory. Massive royalty in football.

Manchester City on the other hand, finally got their European trophy, but smaller club than us.

 

[Loyal72 12,371]

Just now, TheKingObv said:

Galatasaray and Fenerbache are massive clubs

The fact we won a European trophy 50 years ago and take more fans to away matches doesn't really mean a whole lot.

Just look at their online following. Online following can be misleading for clubs in England etc due the exposure of the league. But Fenerbache play in a small league with little exposure (like ourselves) yet have ridiculous followings online. 

 

 

Online following is how we determine club size? Fenerbache doesn't even sell out their ground.

Avg attendance of 41k.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 66,712]

Fenerbache are a big club, but would say we are bogger by a fair bit.

[ForeverAndEver 72,273]

7 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

This is a weird angle mate, why are you trying to argue with me that our club isn't that big?

We are absolutely bigger than fener and that's the bottom line. 

Bigger than Man City too, absolutely.

When you talk about prestigious clubs in football, we are on that list.

Who’s tried to argue we aren’t that big? 

I never said otherwise, and I didn’t mention Man City being close to our size either.

I just think your criteria was stupid given we’d be bigger than the two biggest clubs on the planet using the same criteria.

[TheKingObv 10,670]

6 minutes ago, Loyal72 said:

Online following is how we determine club size? Fenerbache doesn't even sell out their ground.

Avg attendance of 41k.

It's not, no. 

But it's a decent indicator of the overall interest of the club on a global scale. And holds even more weight when they play in a 'small' league too.

They have about 20x the following online we do.

You're confusing loyal core fan base (ours is incredible) with size of club. They aren't synonymous.

I'm not saying they are bigger, but it definitely can't be concluded definitely that we are.