David Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Yeah, they made a bid of around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Because we've no money and decided to keep Webster instead. Don't get me wrong, I'd have preferred that we went for him; Weir surely has to go after this season, he is just too old now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bettencourt Posted January 16, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 16, 2011 So you two have been having an argument with me in a thread I haven't even visited for God knows how long? That's ridiculous. Hardly. Try actually reading next time. Â Funds or not, Jimmy Calderwood did fantastically well as Aberdeen boss. That's a fact. Did he spend all that cash in a season? No, he did it over the space of years. The grudge you hold against me purely because I hold an opinion justified by results is ridiculous, Martin. It's pretty laughable that you continue to try and rubbish a man whose left the club, and seem to go as far as to blame him for Mark McGhee's attrocious record. Calderwood was a success, fact. Any objective football fan can see that. The fact you're obsessed to the point you've actually changed your sig to quote me pretty much shows the ridiculous, blinkered, obsessed kinda football fan you are. Firstly I don't hold a grudge against you. You are an Aberdeen fan - correct? Â I don't blame anyone other than Mark McGhee for his appaling record. Although I stand by my point that Calderwood left the club in a total mess. As you probably can guess I desperately wanted McGhee to be a success at Aberdeen but even i can admit the majority of his transfers were a joke and his time can be seen as nothing other than a complete failure. Â As for quoting you in my sig - If you didn't know if what I said was true then look it up or don't reply. Did you think I had just made up some ridiculous stats to try and catch you out? I couldn't look it up, I was accessing the site on a phone. Calderwood didn't win anything, but so what? Look at managers like Craig Levein at and Dundee Utd etc. Managers who didn't win anything, but were undisputedly successes for the club. Aberdeen don't have a divine right to win something, and in a league featuring the Old Firm all they should be expected to do is achieve something. We did that every season with Calderwood. He had a budget to spend, so why rip on him for spending it? He'd be stupid not to. Hibs have brought in relatively big money players at the time and recently, Dundee Utd and Hearts too. Yet Jimmy Calderwood had us hold our own each year, qualifying for Europe and even causing a few upsets while we were there. Â He did an ok job. What annoys me is that you and some others make him out to be the fuckin messiah. He was an ok manager who did an ok job with the funds he recieved. Â Also, my friend Martyn seems to look things up on his phone ok, he does it every spare moment he gets. Â Anyways, Calderwood's two managers ago and he isn't involved in Scottish Football at the moment (nor do I expect him to be significantly in the near future) so roll on the future! Â Also don't forget he was very coy the way he left Kilmarnock knowing fine well they were skint and he'd have to work with little or no money if he'd hung around which would show him up and damage his stock. Â The fact that he hasn't managed to find a new club is significant. Although some people will claim he's holding out for a bigger and better team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Some are suggesting he might come into Rangers after Walter leaves to assist Ally. I hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bettencourt Posted January 16, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 16, 2011 Some are suggesting he might come into Rangers after Walter leaves to assist Ally. I hope not. Â Well JC's huge reputation for playing sublime total football will go hand in hand with McCoist's plans for the team, non? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cogitoergozoomo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Great victory for Celtic today. We look so much more dangerous in front of goal when Hooper plays, his goal was a superb effort. Him and Stokes surely have to be considered the front line for us now - whenever they have played together their link-up play has been excellent and they lay on a lot of chances for each other. If you look at the starting line-up, we had a very young team out:  Forster - 22 Wilson - 26 Rogne - 21 Majstorovic - 33 Izaguirre - 24 Forrest - 19 Brown - 25 Kayal - 22 McCourt - 27 Stokes - 22 Hooper - 22  Average age of well under 25. I am very impressed with Izaguirre, Kayal, Hooper and Rogne in particular who all have very bright futures ahead of them. I don't see any reason why we can't win this league.  It also gives Lennon the chance to stick two fingers up at those who said he abandoned the going British and Irish approach he talked about when taking over.  Only 4 out the 11 are foreigners and arguably two of them (who Lennon signed) are our best players.  The bench, Ljungberg excepted, was also young and British/Irish.  Wilson on a pre contract, Charlie Austin and James Vaughan are the latest players to be linked.  All very encouraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members martyngnr Posted January 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 17, 2011 SPL clubs have agreed on a 10 team top league....  BBC Clicky  The 12 Scottish Premier League clubs have reached a broad agreement at a meeting at Hampden for a 10-team top league and a second tier of 12 teams. The SPL will now consult the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Football League to progress the idea.  A top tier of 14 teams had looked the most likely alternative to the 10-10 arrangement proposed by the SPL after some clubs had voiced reservations.  But Monday's meeting suggests those clubs are now convinced of its merits.  A statement released by the SPL after the meeting said: The Scottish Premier League clubs today reaffirmed their commitment to the work of the Strategic Review Group to develop a structure for the whole of Scottish football.  "Broad support was given to progressing a 10-team Premiership and a 12-team Championship at the top of a pyramid for Scottish football as the preferred option.  "The SPL clubs have asked the executive team to further develop aspects of these proposals and to update the Strategic Review Group's report." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 I'm not surprised by this, and I'm not overly fussed either, but I'm going to back to that "change for change's sake" thing that was used earlier. Â I actually liked the idea of the 14 team league with the split. Â I'm a little confused as to why the 10-12 combination is better than the 10-10 combination, or why clubs who's chairmen were so dead against the idea that they were getting angry have all of a sudden decided it's a good idea. Fictional waves of money being talked about? Â EDIT: Incidentally, what say do the SFL teams have on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buba3d Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 un fecking real, that shower of shite is draggin the scottish game into the med, cheers thanks a lot. greedy bastards  who ever gave those pricks the power to let them vote have ruined this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaka Demus Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Money talks. That's what happens when your countries league is filled with poxy, provincial clubs. Â Doesn't make a difference to us or the Tims, we'll still win the league every year and keep the league afloat by bringing in the TV money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 Money talks. That's what happens when your countries league is filled with poxy, provincial clubs. Doesn't make a difference to us or the Tims, we'll still win the league every year and keep the league afloat by bringing in the TV money.  Aye, see, this second point might well be the clincher, and to a lesser extent Hearts and Hibs, because Sky have said that there would be more money on the table if there was four of each of them derbies a season. Now, with that in mind, that might still not happen because Hibs are in real danger of relegation I reckon. New manager in and nothing's changed, while Craig Brown seems to have sparked a mini revival at Aberdeen and St. Mirren are stepping up. If there's two spots for relegation, Hibs are in trouble, because I can see Hamilton as dead-certs for the drop.  What this means for us down in the slums is a 44 game season. This is a confuser for me, as it seems that it was this that made a difference, and I don't see how. Will the extra two home games a season really make much of a difference for a team who has just dropped down a league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I've said it before, and i'll say it again, you can have a 2 team league, or a 40 team league, it'll make no different unless you install wage caps, transfer limits and structured youth funding. Â Wage cap levels the playing field and encourages spending money on Youth Development, which in turn creates a closer league, more important games per season, and thus leading to larger average crowds. If you add on things like a 16 team league, and speciality events (ala the allstar games in the States), it gives the fans diversity, which is what we want. Â RIP Scottish Futba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 RIP Scottish Futba. Â If I see this one more time or anything like it, I'm going to punch something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 What this means for us down in the slums is a 44 game season. This is a confuser for me, as it seems that it was this that made a difference, and I don't see how. Will the extra two home games a season really make much of a difference for a team who has just dropped down a league? Â Massive parachute payments for the relegated teams, making them yo-yo teams like in England with West Brom, Middlesboro etc. Â Edit - RIP Scottish Futba...make that punch for Longmuir please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Deaq Posted January 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 17, 2011 I've said it before, and i'll say it again, you can have a 2 team league, or a 40 team league, it'll make no different unless you install wage caps, transfer limits and structured youth funding. Wage cap levels the playing field and encourages spending money on Youth Development, which in turn creates a closer league, more important games per season, and thus leading to larger average crowds. If you add on things like a 16 team league, and speciality events (ala the allstar games in the States), it gives the fans diversity, which is what we want.  RIP Scottish Futba.  So you want to cripple the old firm by bringing them down to the level of everyone else? In doing so make the biggest attraction in the SPL just another SPL club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.