Scottish Football

[Mattyblue]

Why bother with a long term plan when you can just thumb through your book of Club Legends and pick one of them. 

[chaddyrovers]

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Thanks for the patronising undertone, I do understand that he had a lot of success, but he left 20 years ago. His career since has included being out of football for the last 6 years, and his last few jobs were failures with suggestions that he has been left behind.

So what? it's an interim appointment

12 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

You just keep repeating the same cliches without explaining why you think that is more important than actually just appointing the best possible manager available.

I just give up, you just don't get it yet again. 

[Gav]

17 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Thanks for the patronising undertone, I do understand that he had a lot of success, but he left 20 years ago. His career since has included being out of football for the last 6 years, and his last few jobs were failures with suggestions that he has been left behind.

You mention Rodgers, they are incomparable. Rodgers went back pretty much straight after leaving Leicester. Although it ended sour there, he initially did a really good job and won the FA cup. He was still a relevant person in football management, he was still an appointment that would have been probably the stand out candidate regardless of having been there before, in fact I may be wrong but I feel like Celtic fans were unhappy with how he left initially.

Appointing O'Neill is purely based on nostalgia, he wouldnt be under consideration if he didnt have history which is 20 years ago. Ferguson wouldnt be considered for Rangers if he hadnt been a good player, not even a manager. 

I know if it was my club, I wouldnt want an appointment based on nostalgia. I would want the best manager available based on his recent managerial career.

Nobody is patronising you, I can tell you don’t get it from your posts on the subject, but your opinion is as valid as the next poster.

Edited 13 hours ago by Gav

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, Gav said:

Nobody is patronising you, I can tell you don’t get it from your posts on the subject, but your opinion is as valid as the next poster.

Explain what I "don't get."

[Gav]

2 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Explain what I "don't get."

Sod off I’m watching the Old Firm ⚽😁

Edited 13 hours ago by Gav

[roversfan99]

.

Edited 13 hours ago by roversfan99

[B16Rover]

Getting a bit tetchy now

[simongarnerisgod]

in all my years of watchng football,this rangers side is the most disorganised and undisiplined team iv`e ever seen,that right back makes titus bramble look like paulo maldini

[Gav]

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Explain what I "don't get."

 

On 01/11/2025 at 11:21, roversfan99 said:

Hes (Martin O'Neil) totally out of touch with modern football, hes not managed for a while since a few really poor jobs he did most recently in his career.

What is this nonsense about "knowing the club?" Its just generic cliches and rubbish.

 

Lets start with this ☝️ 

Martin O'Neil walks on water in East end of Glasgow, with comments like this, you clearly don't get it.

 

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, Gav said:

 

Lets start with this ☝️ 

Martin O'Neil walks on water in East end of Glasgow, with comments like this, you clearly don't get it.

 

I acknowledged the job he did. I do get that he is loved up there. But it was 20 years ago that he left.

Alex Ferguson walks on water on the red side of Manchester but I dont see United trying to get him back.

My point was that no club should appoint based on nostalgia and former glories as a manager or player. You saying that isnt a counter argument, I have acknowledged that its because O'Neill (or in Rangers case, the suggestion was Ferguson) is loved up there that he has been appointed, certainly not on merit.

He may well end up overseeing a successful season, in fact he probably will. Even with a for their standards frugal summer, and even with Hearts starting well, their resources in a poor league will likely make the league title a formality. 

[Gav]

56 minutes ago, simongarnerisgod said:

in all my years of watchng football,this rangers side is the most disorganised and undisiplined team iv`e ever seen,that right back makes titus bramble look like paulo maldini

It’s the whole defense Sgg, it needs a complete overhaul.

Rangers just equalised with 10 men, how Celtic still have 11 is beyond me….

Edited 12 hours ago by Gav

[simongarnerisgod]

suffice to say,if hearts don`t win the spl this year,then nobody will ever win it again,rangers a complete mess and celtic not far behind😉

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I acknowledged the job he did. I do get that he is loved up there. But it was 20 years ago that he left.

why does that matters how long it was? 

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

My point was that no club should appoint based on nostalgia and former glories as a manager or player. You saying that isnt a counter argument, I have acknowledged that its because O'Neill (or in Rangers case, the suggestion was Ferguson) is loved up there that he has been appointed, certainly not on merit.

That's your opinion whilst others have a different opinion to yours, do you accept that? 

[roversfan99]

12 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

why does that matters how long it was? 

That's your opinion whilst others have a different opinion to yours, do you accept that? 

Because his CV in the past decade wouldnt have him near any serious job. Why dont United re appoint Ferguson? Surely we should try and re appoint Souness? Why dont Tottenham get back Harry Redknapp? 

Its not that I dont accept it. Its that I havent had it explained as to WHY that is the case.

[chaddyrovers]

34 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Because his CV in the past decade wouldnt have him near any serious job. Why dont United re appoint Ferguson? Surely we should try and re appoint Souness? Why dont Tottenham get back Harry Redknapp? 

Yet again you are going OTT over an interim appointment that is logical 

34 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Its not that I dont accept it. Its that I havent had it explained as to WHY that is the case.

I just give up with RF99. You just dont get it 

[Upside Down]

I honestly don't understand why 'knowing the club' would make a jot of difference when choosing a new manager long term.

For an interim appointment for a few matches when you're in a tail spin, I get it. We saw it here many times with Tony Parkes. Figures like that can galvanise the place and get everyone pulling in the same direction. 

Long term it doesn't matter and really what is there to know about any football club that can't be gleaned from a quick 5 minute skim on Wikipedia.

Celtic - Catholic separatists 

Rangers - Protestant loyalists 

Main objective, beat the other lot.

Any more than that will be picked up whilst on the job. 

Did Souness or Dalglish 'know' this club? I don't remember that mattering at all.

The only thing that is important is what will be happening on the pitch. Nobody will give a fuck as long as the results are good.

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, Upside Down said:

I honestly don't understand why 'knowing the club' would make a jot of difference when choosing a new manager long term.

For an interim appointment for a few matches when you're in a tail spin, I get it. We saw it here many times with Tony Parkes. Figures like that can galvanise the place and get everyone pulling in the same direction. 

Long term it doesn't matter and really what is there to know about any football club that can't be gleaned from a quick 5 minute skim on Wikipedia.

Celtic - Catholic separatists 

Rangers - Protestant loyalists 

Main objective, beat the other lot.

Any more than that will be picked up whilst on the job. 

Did Souness or Dalglish 'know' this club? I don't remember that mattering at all.

The only thing that is important is what will be happening on the pitch. Nobody will give a fuck as long as the results are good.

Absolutely. Its a tired old cliche spurted out often by poor quality pundits.

In Celtic's case, any joe bloggs would likely guide them to the title to be fair with the resources they have. And if its literally just a couple of weeks interim appointment, makes little difference.

But in general, why do people deem it as so important? In what scenario does it outrank just getting the best possible manager to get the best possible results? What is so important "to know" about the club that requires an ex manager or player when the club would have been run by and employing different people.

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

Yet again you are going OTT over an interim appointment that is logical 

I just give up with RF99. You just dont get it 

I dont. And not in the patronising way you imply, where I am just being a bit thick.

Ive yet to see an explanation as to why specific clubs benefit from someone who "knows the club" rather than just finding the best possible manager ignoring whether hes been there before.

[Gav]

36 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

 

Ive yet to see an explanation as to why specific clubs benefit from someone who "knows the club" rather than just finding the best possible manager.

You’re seeing it right now with Martin O’Neil! A man you’ve slaughtered over the past few pages of this thread.

One more thing, I said Scottish football is unique in this, I think chaddy said the same and I firmly believe that. 

[roversfan99]

16 minutes ago, Gav said:

You’re seeing it right now with Martin O’Neil! A man you’ve slaughtered over the past few pages of this thread.

One more thing, I said Scottish football is unique in this, I think chaddy said the same and I firmly believe that. 

How is that an explanation? That a team has appointed someone they used to have on what is for the moment a purely interim basis. Which could well be an attempt to appease the supporters or quite possibly a case of the owner/chairman pulling in a favour and asking an old mate to cover the team while they look for someone proper. A man who has been left behind in footballing terms, no job for 6 years, his most recent jobs being failures and big questions over whether he has been left behind.

Scottish football isnt unique, youve seemingly just got a soft spot for it, but even if it was, I dont get why it specifically suits someone who knows the club. O'Neill hadnt played for or worked for (as far as I can see) Celtic before he had his successful spells in the early 2000s, so he didnt know the club then.

My point is, why is it so important to "know the club" when deciding upon who to hire. What does that even mean? That hasnt been answered. The club he knew will have changed massively in 20 years. 

 

 

[Gav]

You’re asking for explanations and ignoring them 99. 

Good evening sir.

[Upside Down]

1 hour ago, Gav said:

You’re seeing it right now with Martin O’Neil! A man you’ve slaughtered over the past few pages of this thread.

One more thing, I said Scottish football is unique in this, I think chaddy said the same and I firmly believe that. 

The only thing unique about Scottish football is how Mickey Mouse it is, has and always will be.

 

Clayton's left boot coming in 

3

2

1

...

[roversfan99]

37 minutes ago, Gav said:

You’re asking for explanations and ignoring them 99. 

Good evening sir.

You nor chaddy have explained WHY it makes sense to prioritise "knowing a club" in appointing a manager. Nor why its especially important for those clubs.

O'Neill didnt know the club ahead of his hugely successful spell there that ended in 2005. Wasnt important then.