Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside. - Page 337 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.


Speirs  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Speirs talking the truth or lying

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      10

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

On 07/06/2016 at 5:29 PM, giblet said:

So long as Rangers dont go Bat shit crazy again in the wages, that kind of ticket sales will sustain them pretty easily.

?? nae chance, warchest and aw that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlueGaz
28 minutes ago, Parklife said:

He can still die a happy man though. 

I agree. Played for one of the best clubs in the world and was given a role with them after his playing career ended.  But onwards and upwards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved watching him destroy dons in league cup final.  Memories of a great player.  Dont know about his coaching so cant comment but seems to me a bit like john kennedy at celts.  Career cut short(er) by deliberate malicious tackle from someone who couldnt lace their boots and club looking after him.  Will have made his money though!  onwards and upwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fermer said:

Loved watching him destroy dons in league cup final.  Memories of a great player.  Dont know about his coaching so cant comment but seems to me a bit like john kennedy at celts.  Career cut short(er) by deliberate malicious tackle from someone who couldnt lace their boots and club looking after him.  Will have made his money though!  onwards and upwards.

Bit of a major difference between him and Kennedy.  The major one being that the tackle didn't end his career.

Durrant didn't leave Rangers until 10 years later then had a very productive four year spell at Kilmarnock.  16 of his 20 caps were after the injury.

 

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, aaid said:

Bit of a major difference between him and Kennedy.  The major one being that the tackle didn't end his career.

Durrant didn't leave Rangers until 10 years later then had a very productive four year spell at Kilmarnock.  16 of his 20 caps were after the injury.

 

Shows you how good a player he was before the injury aaid.  Never the same again though.  Any reasonable person knows that.  Had the same injusy myself at 21 and although different levels always had that weakness.  Anyway, he's made more money than me !!  But he was never the same, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fermer said:

Shows you how good a player he was before the injury aaid.  Never the same again though.  Any reasonable person knows that.  Had the same injusy myself at 21 and although different levels always had that weakness.  Anyway, he's made more money than me !!  But he was never the same, that's all.

John Kennedy never played again.  That's a big difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

John Kennedy never played again.  That's a big difference. 

 

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

John Kennedy never played again.  That's a big difference. 

I know.  I was highlighting fact that the clubs looked after them.  Similarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fermer said:

 

I know.  I was highlighting fact that the clubs looked after them.  Similarity.

It's completely different.  Rangers didn't "look after" Durrant.

He was out for what 2 years there or thereabouts, played another 150-200 games for the club, then went to Kilmarnock where he played another 100 games.

They renewed his contract on more than occasion because they felt he was an asset to the club and they  then gave him a job as a coach - five years after he left - because they thought he could do a job. 

Ive no idea about the ins and outs of John Kennedy at Celtic but I guess after his injury they made him an offer, they would pay up his contract either and he could either walk away or they would give him a chance to start his coaching career.  I imagine that at any point since if he didn't look like he was an asset to the coaching set up they would have binned him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fermer said:

Loved watching him destroy dons in league cup final.  Memories of a great player.  Dont know about his coaching so cant comment but seems to me a bit like john kennedy at celts.  Career cut short(er) by deliberate malicious tackle from someone who couldnt lace their boots and club looking after him.  Will have made his money though!  onwards and upwards.

 

 

Cant comment on kennedy as I've not idea who injured him but saying that about Neil Simpson shows ignorance beyond belief. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

 

 

Cant comment on kennedy as I've not idea who injured him but saying that about Neil Simpson shows ignorance beyond belief. 

 

What bit?  Football is about opinions.  Ive watched the tackle countless times.  1.  Look on Simpsons face makes me believe it was deliberate.  2.  I firmly believe his career was cut shorter.  3.  He couldnt lace durrants boots?  In my opinion no.  Disagreement is all part of fitba'  But it's in the past.  Only reason it's reared again is because he is in the news today and someone made a bland comment inviting answers.  What bit do you disagree on just for opinions sake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlueGaz said:

I agree. Played for one of the best clubs in the world and was given a role with them after his playing career ended.  But onwards and upwards. 

One of the worlds best clubs ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

 

 

Cant comment on kennedy as I've not idea who injured him but saying that about Neil Simpson shows ignorance beyond belief. 

 

Kennedy was injured playing for Scotland by a Romanian player called Ganea I think.

The SFA would have been liable for the contract getting paid up as he was on Scotland duty at the time. So Celtic would not have been out of pocket.

It's also obvious that the tackle on both players was deliberate and intended to injure. Argue about it if you want, it won't change the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Kennedy was injured playing for Scotland by a Romanian player called Ganea I think.

The SFA would have been liable for the contract getting paid up as he was on Scotland duty at the time. So Celtic would not have been out of pocket.

It's also obvious that the tackle on both players was deliberate and intended to injure. Argue about it if you want, it won't change the facts.

I don't believe for a minute that either tackle was deliberately intended to injure.  Dangerous and reckless certainly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aaid said:

I don't believe for a minute that either tackle was deliberately intended to injure.  Dangerous and reckless certainly.  

Split second but I think deliberate in the heat of the moment (Durrant one).  Look at Simpsons face and body language.  What would a neutral jury think?  Jambo's, Hibees etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fermer said:

What bit?  Football is about opinions.  Ive watched the tackle countless times.  1.  Look on Simpsons face makes me believe it was deliberate.  2.  I firmly believe his career was cut shorter.  3.  He couldnt lace durrants boots?  In my opinion no.  Disagreement is all part of fitba'  But it's in the past.  Only reason it's reared again is because he is in the news today and someone made a bland comment inviting answers.  What bit do you disagree on just for opinions sake?

My disputed is about Simpson not being able to lace his boots, you obviously know nothing of Simpsons ability or achievements. 

 

42 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Kennedy was injured playing for Scotland by a Romanian player called Ganea I think.

The SFA would have been liable for the contract getting paid up as he was on Scotland duty at the time. So Celtic would not have been out of pocket.

It's also obvious that the tackle on both players was deliberate and intended to injure. Argue about it if you want, it won't change the facts.

facts? Really??????

its obviously debatable whether Simpson did it delibarately as people are debating it above. It's an argument I can't really be arsed with, especially with someone as narrow minded as you.

Edited by vanderark14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...