Originally Posted by misawa97:
“No matter how many times you say it doesn't change the fact the club knows as Rangers FC was liquidated and this is a new club.
Did you go the burnley game? Reading reports I see burnley pressed high and the Rangers struggled to deal with it. Was that the case?”
1----No, the club wasn't. The Plc was. And incorporation does not equal that either, as the sporting club and Plc remain two legal entities. As proven legally in a court of law. IF Green had not managed to start a new Plc and transfer over the Rangers assets inc history (which sounds odd but is legally a requirement), THEN we would have died. As we would have had no stadium to play in, or continuing history. Its the Plc that owns the bricks and mortar assets and on paper the history. Yes, we came close, far too close, to dying. Never again. But we managed to survive. If we exist for another 1000 years, the year of 2012 and how we got there should never be forgotten. Never again.
Celtic fans should remember the shambles of their club 1990-94 and how easily they spiralled out of control and how 2012 could have happened in 1994. Without that literally last minute BoS loan, it would have.
2--Yes, I was. It was a disappointing performance, at least for 60-65 mins. With the later subs, we started to play and ended the game much better, with more drive and a better shape. Burnley played well and looked sharp, but we frankly made them look like Barca. Was there a gap?. Yes. PL vs SPL. But not imo as much as it is or should be. Burnley and Celtic are the two best teams we will play this season, so that's a saving grace. They were surprisingly good, but we did flatter them with a poor performance.
Where we danced too much around the box, they were quicker and sharper and ruthless.
First 60 mins, we gave up far too much space in midfield. Failed to press enough. Not enough movement overall. Waghorn too wide, Miller not moving enough. McKay blew a bit hot and cold. The subs looked much sharper. Rossiter looks a wee gem, tough wee lad as well at 19. Dodoo looked quick, O Halloran has great pace.
Now the defence: AWFUL. Only Wallace played well at the back. Tav had a nightmare, and needs to improve or imo we go with the better if less flashy Hodson. Hill was surprisingly poor (maybe just a bad day), Kiernan had another suspect game, Wilson fine when he came on. Everyone knows that our CH's are our Achilles heel. On Saturday, they were exposed too often by clever passes. Hill at 37 maybe fine but as an older player losing pace, needs a younger quality CH and Kiernan isn't it at SPL/Euro level. Wilson is left footed like Hill so that's out. IMO pay the damn wages Adrian Mariappa wants or look for someone like Kyle Bartley. Nothing drastic is needed, just two CH's with pace and positional nous.
Ironically, we may already have the answer: Crooks. He is 6'4, a big big lad, and from what I have seen, is strong, physical, has pace, reads the game well, and for a British defender, has two good feet and passes the ball very well, either out of defence or as a DM. However, I'd still prefer him in midfield with Barton and get another quality CH.
Saturday WAS a wake up for some fans. Too many think Barton and Niko means we are heading back to the level we were, when we won leagues and competed in the CL as a serious club. We aren't, we are a vast improvement on 2012-15, but far from the finished article, still a work in progress. Rangers and Celtic essentially need to have teams far too good for the SPL, teams of a top EPL quality, teams that are designed to compete at European level. IMO Celtic aren't or at best barely are, and we are still behind Celtic.
