Danny 9 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Danny:Bain (and Murray to be fair) chose to be on holiday when we need at least one of them to be around at one of the most important times of the season.I don't think anyone can disagree that it's imperative that we needed a defender immediately. That was never going to happen with Bain on holiday.Allow me to address this below in light of your further point...As for Murray saying PLG wasn't going to 'spend', well, who bought Webster and it wouldn't have been the first time Murray lies to make himself look good.Who bought Webster? Smith. If PLG said he was not going to spend or bring in any new players, then we have to take him at his word given Murray was the one to publicly state it. PLG has not denied it, so surely Murray is not lying here. Furthermore, if you recall, PLG did not even KNOW Webster personally - he left Hertz before PLG arrived at Ibrox. And spent most of his time in Wigan either on the bench or on the treatment table. So why would PLG have been interested in him? Smith knows/knew him, PLG did/does not.Furthermore, this all seems to suggest Bain had every right to take a holiday given he was not needed for January deals, and there is absolutely no way we can add his being on holiday coinciding with unexpected chaos at Ibrox over new year as a genuine example of incompetence.Any comment on the several other examples of his imcompentence in the piece as even I'll agree the holiday thing is minor in the grand scheme of things.It's not even fair or valid m8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Er, did PLG know any of the other players such as Sebo personally before he signed them? Does every manager base their new signings on personal relationships? As for suggesting Murray wouldn't lie or that PLG would lower his reputation further by admitting to being interested in Webster (and he was!) despite his contractural situation then that's very naiive considering the various debates that rage about even more important issues regarding the chairman.What's not fair or valid about the rest of the critique?The fact is Rangers FC are underachieving because of a number of factors. From the players, to the former manager, to the CEO and right up to the chairman - all these people have been underperformingand are all to blame for us languishing behind Celtic on and off the park.The manager has been moved on. Certain players are being moved on. As such, doesn't it make sense that the CEO should be equally fearful for his job? I'd say that's extremely fair and completely valid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueben_d 40 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 ever heard of videos? PLG was watching them of Rangers before he started, could well have spotted Webster at this point and has been on the radar ever since.Even if not PLG has advisors and speaks to people, im sure he developed plenty of contacts to alert him to particular players and provide videos of their previous games Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Exactly. To suggest PLG (or any manager) would not have been interested in a player because he didn't know him personally is quite frankly ludicrious.No matter - even if PLG wasn't interested in Webster and even if PLG had told the chairman that he didn't want any players, Bain should still have been at Ibrox during the whole of the transfer window. Why? Because we had players we wanted to move on which should always be done at the earliest opportunity. Not to mention the fact that if the undercurrent of problems at the club was so prevalent and highly charged, the CEO should have been an important figure in resolving relationships for the good of RFC.Bain is obviously entitled to a holiday but to take one in January seems very strange. But, it's a small point compared to the rest of the fair and valid orginal article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I think its unfair to blame Bain for the Webster situation. The registration issue would only have come to light when Rangers attempted to register the player. There would have been no way of knowing before hand. IMO the blame lies at the door of the SFA for hanging on to his registration when he was playing in another country. As for the BF & PLG saga, Danny already mentioned my point that PLG stated to David Murray that the squad did not need enhancing. He felt the players there were good enough to do the job. Therefore David Murray and Martin Bain had no reason to be at the club at that time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 1. Of course we should know whether or not a player can be registered. One can enquire beforehand before committing to such a transfer. Moreover, we have a history of making an arse of such contract situations - namely Sasa Papac last August and his UEFA Cup ineligibilty. Has no-one to take responsibility for these mistakes?2. We needed to get rid of certain players as well as bring in people in January. Although it's hardly the main point of the critique and I'm not sure why some choose to ignore the more relvant stuff), I think holidaying during such an important 30 days of the season is a bit daft - transfer activity or not. Who knows what opportunities would have came up in Bain's (and Murray's) absence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,057 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 I take it, it is Bain that sanctions the 'selling' of players for nowt. Celtic seem to get money for most players that go out of the door, no matter how crap they are, we end up paying guys off and getting rid for no transfer fee. What is going on at Ibrox, we penny pinch in buying and bidding for players yet are prepared to sign diddies on money so big no fecker will take them on current wages. I do believe this is part of Bain's remit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Bottom line is that Bain is responsible for the contracts...2 players - Webster & Papac2 fuck upsEnough said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Exactly. To suggest PLG (or any manager) would not have been interested in a player because he didn't know him personally is quite frankly ludicrious. Almost as ludicrous as blaming Bain for taking a holiday during January and the Barry fiasco occurring then.Tell you what, why not blame him for the Saddam hanging too? He's equally to be held accountable for that by your bizarre logic.You know what's crazier? The rest of your post was alright, but that single point undermined everything you said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 ever heard of videos? PLG was watching them of Rangers before he started, could well have spotted Webster at this point and has been on the radar ever since.Even if not PLG has advisors and speaks to people, im sure he developed plenty of contacts to alert him to particular players and provide videos of their previous games I have indeed heard of videos.Care to date exactly when Webster was originally frozen out at Hearts, friend? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangeclement 574 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Youn may be right but its SDM who employs the man. Thats right and he also employees all the players that are currently at rangers, should we just sack them all and start from scratch? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orangeclement 574 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Er, did PLG know any of the other players such as Sebo personally before he signed them? Does every manager base their new signings on personal relationships? As for suggesting Murray wouldn't lie or that PLG would lower his reputation further by admitting to being interested in Webster (and he was!) despite his contractural situation then that's very naiive considering the various debates that rage about even more important issues regarding the chairman.What's not fair or valid about the rest of the critique?The fact is Rangers FC are underachieving because of a number of factors. From the players, to the former manager, to the CEO and right up to the chairman - all these people have been underperformingand are all to blame for us languishing behind Celtic on and off the park.The manager has been moved on. Certain players are being moved on. As such, doesn't it make sense that the CEO should be equally fearful for his job? I'd say that's extremely fair and completely valid. mmm.. its already been said that plg tried to sign him before he moved to Austria Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Besides, when I said 'personally' I wasn't suggesting he was having tea and scones with these people. I just meant being well aware.And as far as I know, he was not well aware of Webster. But the literal definition of my comment seems to have been taken to engage in an argument of semantics. I'm sure there are other forums for such vacuous debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 12, 2007 Author Share Posted January 12, 2007 Hmmm, you want to argue about semantics while dismissing a whole argument because of one small point you disagree with. A point I've already admitted isn't vitally important to the final conclusion of the piece. You also have the gall to suggest we mistook your vacuous transfer theory about managers knowing players. Well, despite your backtracking, I can assure you that PLG was well aware of Webster and his abilities. Indeed, I'm sure any manager of a Scottish team would know every Scottish international player very well - foreign manager or not. Maybe not to the tea and scones stage, but certainly well aware.You disappoint me Danny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Hmmm, you want to argue about semantics while dismissing a whole argument because of one small point you disagree with. A point I've already admitted isn't vitally important to the final conclusion of the piece. Only when brought to task on its stupidity. If you're capable of making such an erroneous point to 'enhance' your point, then I can't take seriously a word you say. Which is just as well really.You also have the gall to suggest we mistook your vacuous transfer theory about managers knowing players.Don't have the temerity to discuss gall when you're the one using the flimsiest and most comical evidence to make your point.Well, despite your backtracking,Do you REALLY think I meant PLG had sat down to tea and scones with Webster? If you do, I can only assume you resent people disagreeing with you.I can assure you that PLG was well aware of Webster and his abilities.Can you indeed. I dunno about everyone else but I'm convinced Indeed, I'm sure any manager of a Scottish team would know every Scottish international player very well - foreign manager or not. Maybe not to the tea and scones stage, but certainly well aware.Conjecture will never support your argument for as long as reasoned debate exists, Frankie.You disappoint me Danny.None of your posts ever disappoint me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manticore Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Christ Danny you can be like a dog with a bone sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Christ Danny you can be like a dog with a bone sometimes. (smooch) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricardopatrese 0 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 One of the most boring threads I've reaad in a long time.Where's the FISH when yo need 'im! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 One of the most boring threads I've reaad in a long time.Where's the FISH when yo need 'im! You trying to bait me son? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts