Diamond Scot

The national manager has to look to the short term future aswell when picking a squad. Most people would agree that Ralston is currently in the Celtic team because they have nobody else. He has played well however Celtic are reportedly in the process of buying at least one right back. Rumoured to be a Croatia internationalist. The likeliehood is that Ralstons game time will be significantly reduced going forward. So where is the benefit in dropping your current 1st choice right back only to potentially have to call him up for the next squad when Ralston loses his Celtic place? Thats no way to manage a player. If Ralston somehow keeps his place and form once a new RB is signed then Clarke can have more confidence picking him in the future. Im all for calling up young players but theres a balance to be struck.

Comes as no surprise. I remember a workmate I had about 15 years ago. He was about 19 and a big Rangers fan. Went to all the home games etc. He wasnt generally ok, biased towards his team but that was about it. He then started to go to away games on the supporters buses and within 6 months was a completely different guy. Would reguarly be openly bigoted, played loyalist tunes in the works van at full blast and generally just a horrible individual to be around.

Everybody has their own views but I really struggle to see people have such negative views about the style under Clarke. I think we have a good mix of trying to press when we lose the ball, passing it around / through the lines but also going long when theres an opportunity. Obviously there are times when the players make the wrong choices, going long when its not on etc but thata on the players more than the manager imo.

Thats a different argument though. One that you would be right to make.

I think theres times when it makes sence. For example if you have a promising right back aged 20 amd another aged 18 then it makes no sence to call them both up to the U21s where only 1 of them will play.

I stand corrected. I remember him not tearing up trees and fans and pundits not being impressed but he must have done better than that. That being said I still dont think he has done or will do anything that merits a call up.

Not harsh at all. Just realistic. 2 or 3 good games for Celtic shouldnt get you in the running for a call up. He was horrible at Dundee Utd. Emded up not even being a consistent starter for them Paterson has consistently played well for Rangers when he has played and also performed well for the U21s. He is being kept out the side by a very good player. Ralston is only playing because Celtic literally have nobody else atm. They are in the market for a right back. If Ralston keeps the new signing out of the team and goes onto have a cracking season then fair enough, have a look at him but thats highly unlikely to happen given what we have seen on him to date.

Ralston should be nowhere near a call up. He has never made the grade at Celtic or impressed anywhere else. He will be back down the Celtic pecking order as soon as they buy a new right back in this window. We need a settled squad thats hard to break into. Paterson and ODonnell should be the right backs with Hickey or Doig coming in at left back for Taylor who isnt and has never been good enough. Obviously with Tierney likely to start at left back. Of the Euros squad id also be looking to phase out Fleck straight away and possibly Gallagher if a replacement can stake a better claim.

Aberdeen should be capable of making that many changes for a game against Raith. Ive said it loads of times on here. Aberdeen and other teams like Hearts / Hibs etc have a mentality problem. They dont have the arrogance / drive to perform at the required level. Not 1 Raith player would make it into the changed Aberdeen team. Aberdeen were so comfortable in the first half after then initial 10 minute 100mph football at the start. Sides with a strong mentality go on and kill the game. Guys like McCrorie / Mcginn and Hayes would have reguarly beat lower league opposition playing with similar standard players in the cup for the Old Firm.

Along with 2 other U23 players who didnt get on. Palace have lost loads of players and are in the process of builidng a squad. I might be wrong but id be surprised if he makes the bench at the end of the transfer window.

My understanding is that they dont have to. Obviously it would be good practice to but it would be a courtesy rather than a requirement. Rightly or wrongly Rangers have an issue with the SPFL board / other clubs. They have obviously decided to play by the letter of the law in all dealings with the league and to an extent other parties. (Charging journalists being another example). Obviously for the good of the game this isnt ideal however I can understand why they have taken this approach. They believe the spfl isnt run properly (which imo its not). They think they are big enough to survive and prosper by not cooperating with the league / other teams. Thats their decision and as long as they stick to the rules theres not much anybody can do. Its the spfl boards job to make the rules better, or in this case seek to clarify the rule 17 point before ploughing ahead with the sponsorship deal having already recieved Rangers notification. Presumably on the assumption that Rangers would fall in line. Rangers probably believe that if the sponsorship deal breaks down that it will have more of an impact on its competitors than themselves so its not wild in a business sence but in a sporting sence its very poor practice.

Reading between the lines it looks like Rooney is trying to get him moved on. He is probably one of the higher earners and Derby cant register new players until they release some.

Im not asking about the good of the game though. Im asking why no chairman have made the motion for something that their fans want and would have no detrimental impact on their club? (If you are correct that there would be no financial loss) I just cant get my head around why this would be. Maybe the odd chairmain who is out of touch with his support but surely every single non old firm chairman doesnt fall into that category. Some clubs are even fan owned now. Why havent they tabled a motion?

Gordon inspires confidence and has played at the top level. Id be all for playing Clark in either the nations league or against weaker opposition to get him some experience.

I think you are mistaking the question im asking. Nowhere have I predicted financial doom for any club or said the Old firm were a positive for the league. Im simply asking why, if non old firm supporters are so in favour (which they tend to be) and if there would be no financial downside to an increased league with fewer games against each other. Why has it not been proposed by non old firm chairman? Why wasnt the opportunity seized to change the voting strucure when Rangers were out the top flight? Why wasnt the covid shutdown seen as an opportunity to force change? Surely it would be a no brainer for non old firm chairman to push this through or at least constantly propose it. The only viable reason I can see is that there must be a financial downside. Because as you say the experience of having the old firm visit town isnt a pleasant one.

I go back a decade because thats when the vote took place. How many votes have clubs brought forward since? Thats my point. There must be a reason why clubs dont want to increase the league size, change the number of times they play each other etc. Clubs had another chance to push through change at the ending of the 19/20 season but again kept things as they were. Infact a new TV deal was agreed which keeps things as they are. Are non old firm clubs acting against their own financial interest?

No and ive suggested previously how I would chamge it within what I believe to be the current restraints. Again I ask, if finances and everything were fine when Rangers werent in top league, why did Aberdeen reject changing the voting structure (which basically gives the Old Firm a veto). Why havent chairman made motions to change the structure away from what it currently is. They must know the thoughts of their fanbase? Why do Chairman move season their own fans to open up more of the stadium to the Old Firm. Why wasnt league reconstruction seized upon when the Covid situation presented them with an ideal opportunity. Either financially Chairman dont think its as viable as you do or they dont care what their supporters think as they prefer the Old Firm to dictate what happens with the league. Which imo would be a strange position for them to take.

Said for a long time that Marshall isnt good enough. He has always been a back up keeper at International level. Gordon should be 1st choice, McLaughlin 2nd if he is playing reguarly but if not then the backup should be somebody like Zander Clark. We really need to see some more GK talent coming through soon though.

Why hasnt it been done then? I think theres a clear difference between what fans want and what the owners of their clubs want. If clubs wouldnt lose money in attendence money or TV deal then clubs would havr voted to increase the league several times by now. It would be in all clubs interests outwidth the Old Firm. So why do we never hear of it being tabled as a motion? Theres no reason why clubs like Aberdeen, Dundee, Dundee Utd, Hibs and Hearts shouldnt have full crowds every home game and thereafter no reason why they shouldnt be able to challenge the Old Firm. Its only the last 20 odd years that the Old Firm have consistently been 1st and 2nd every year. Why did Aberdeen vote against changing the voting structure? Surely that would have put the power in the hands of the other clubs?

I confess I dont know the numbers involved but ive always wondered what difference this would make. Most fans who favour splitting the gate money also want a bigger league with playing each team twice. So instead of a bottom half team getting 3 home games against the old firm where they keep all the gate receipt, they would get 2 home and 2 away where they only get half the money. And for club like Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts. Would what they gain from the old firm not be lost to clubs like Ross County, Hamilton etc. Ie Hearts would be giving half their 15k attendence to Ross County and getting half of 3k in return. Im not sure if any other league adopt this model. How does it work for season tickets etc. Would the Old Firm effectively have to hand over half their season ticket money to the other clubs? Theres something really unfair about that to me.

Value changes with time though. I said thr same thing with Josh Doig. If Ferguson was brought in for little money (cant remember what fee he was but assuming it wasnt massive) then its only normal for him to get a low wage. He has developed and his value has increased as evidenced by Aberdeens own valuation so its only proper that his wages increase as a result.

I go from thinking that theres a good player in Wright to wondering why he is on the park about 20 times per game. If he ca become more consistent and learn about movement etc then he has the attributes.

Hart was brilliant at Man City however that was a good number of years ago. He has since failed to establish himself at Burnley and Spurs. He is still better than what Celtic have at the minute though. Ive not seen McCarthy do anything of note for many years. Will probably be solid in Scotland but nothing special. Not even sure if he would play if everybody is fit.

Its reported as being to do with Douglas Park who obviously has car showrooms so Cinches direct competitors. From what ive read, Rangers dont have an issue with the deal as such but dont believe that the deal requires any commitment to displaying the logo on their shirts or at the stadium. If that is correct then whoever has drafted the contract has made a major balls up.

Sounds like Burnley and Watford are the frontrunners. Burnley would be a good move as he would learn loads defensively and probably also his best chance of getting into the team.