Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.
11 Jun 2026 14:10:43
So it's RB Salzburg
Just seen this now - all over the media channels
If you go with what there saying you'd think it's going to happen
I hope we can sort it out
Don't want Rohl staying if he wants away and if we blocked it having an unhappy manager doesn't bring success.
11 Jun 2026 11:57:02
Rb salzburg pushing to get Danny Rohl apparently
11 Jun 2026 12:03:11
Let him go.
11 Jun 2026 13:32:11
Yep, cheerio, he was starting to sound like Martin.
11 Jun 2026 14:44:00
Starting to sound like Martin, where does this come from, Burgher?
11 Jun 2026 11:49:50
Rohl away to Salzburg?
11 Jun 2026 16:10:07
Tom, where does it say Rohl is away? I've got a heavy wager on it, let me know, mate, so as I can show it to the bookie. Yeeha, yeeha. Will need to take you for a pint, all expenses on me.
10 Jun 2026 08:38:10
According to a belgian journalist we've actually had a £2.1million offer for westerlo's American right back bryan reynolds turned down 😲 It also states in the report that the player has allegedly given Rangers the green light that he wants to sign us, but Rangers will now have to decide if they are willing to up the bid to westerlo to get them to accept 🤔
10 Jun 2026 10:05:01
Maybe be Charai in his ear telling him to take it. 🤔👍
10 Jun 2026 15:46:44
Hopefully fork.
09 Jun 2026 08:42:24
I was just reading that a referee from Somalia has just been denied entry to the US. He was due to referee at the World Cup. It made me think that if referees from Somalia are good enough for the World Cup and referees from Scotland aren't good enough, that should make everyone think that we have a major problem with the quality of our referees.
Not nearly good enough, is it.
{Ed001's Note - gone from casual sexism to casual racism now.}
09 Jun 2026 09:03:31
Guy was voted African referee of the year. Shame trumps a numpty, denying the lad a chance to referee at what would be the pinnacle of his career.
09 Jun 2026 09:49:44
FIFA should now send Omar Artan to Mex or Canada to do games.
09 Jun 2026 09:49:51
He's the top rated African referee and has been denied what would probably be the pinnacle of his career by an administration run by a bloated, spray tanned idiot! Our referees don't deserve to be there based on numerous howlers in our 3rd tier domestic league.
09 Jun 2026 10:18:40
Well said, Iron. I actually can't stand that man, the way he speaks to world leaders/women etc. is nothing short of disgusting. He's vile. They have far too much power and go around abusing it far too often, constantly strong arming countries to appoint leaders that will work better for them, or just outright kidnapping if they don't get their own way.
It's a disgrace for that poor referee.
09 Jun 2026 10:38:58
Don't disagree blue, but it's FIFA's tournament and they're equally to blame if not more. I loathe FIFA. I'd love all the National Governing Bodies to tell them to f*** off, they're ruining football. It's not their game to ruin.
09 Jun 2026 10:53:26
Is it not the national governing bodies that make up FIFA or am I totally wrong?
09 Jun 2026 12:09:48
If the guys there, on merit, he should be there. Absolutely.
If he's there based on some reverse racism, or in female terms reverse sexism, then they shouldn't. Absolutely.
Nobody in the world should have a job based on anything other than ability. Nothing else.
09 Jun 2026 12:24:00
He's there because he's a top African referee, just happens to be from Somalia and that's on the banned travel list.
{Ed001's Note - the top African referee Fork.}
09 Jun 2026 12:25:06
It actually feels like posters are deliberately trying to out do each other in completely outlandish posts.
09 Jun 2026 12:41:38
Do u mean me EHL?
I'm happy for anyone to do any job as long as they are given the job on ability alone.
Far too many positions in the world these days are filled with people who are only there to fill the PC positions.
Ability should be the only criteria for a job, nothing else.
If it's 6 black men or 6 females or 6 white men or a max, it shouldn't matter. Only ability.
09 Jun 2026 12:55:37
FIFA should just him games in Canada and Mexico to stick 2 fingers up at the Americans.
09 Jun 2026 13:24:56
Stevie, if he's the top African referee, that's his merit, mate. He's obviously worked hard to get to where he is. It's a disgrace.
09 Jun 2026 13:50:16
100% agreed, Stevie. It's a disgrace, it could be any other way.
09 Jun 2026 14:00:38
He can't MPH. Collina has arranged a full camp for the refs and assistants in Miami. They all have to stay there for security apparently.
09 Jun 2026 14:13:02
Bb4, it would seem that he has mate, so it is a bloody shame for the guy. Agree fully.
09 Jun 2026 14:14:54
That's what I meant Ed, it's a disgrace the way he's getting treated👍
09 Jun 2026 14:45:01
Stevie, I hear this point of view almost every day.
Ability absolutely matters and should always be central to hiring. But I think it's worth separating two ideas that often get blurred, equality and equity.
Equality = everyone is treated the same.
Equity = people are given the support needed to compete fairly.
On paper, "hire purely on ability" sounds straightforward. But in reality, not everyone has had the same access to opportunities, development, networks, or even the chance to demonstrate that ability in the first place.
That's where equity comes in. It's not about lowering standards or bypassing ability. It's about making sure the playing field is level enough that ability can actually be seen.
For example:
- Someone from a less traditional background may not have had the same early opportunities, but could have equal (or greater) potential.
- Bias, often unconscious, can influence who gets noticed, mentored, or promoted.
- Hiring "the best" can sometimes unintentionally default to hiring "the most familiar."
So when organisations talk about diversity or representation, the intent (when done properly) isn't to ignore ability; it's to remove barriers so ability isn't missed.
The goal should be 'the best person gets the job, but everyone has a fair shot at being seen as "the best".'
That's the difference, and quite a significant one at that.
{Ed001's Note - very well said.}
09 Jun 2026 14:57:57
A lot of places, including my work, do 'blind' CVs.
That way, you don't know who has applied, and those that are successful for the interview stage are done on merit alone.
09 Jun 2026 15:05:20
Mph, that for me is the best way forward, yes.
Ehl, I see what u mean, and I really couldn't disagree with what u say. My only argument would be that for someone of lesser ability to be given the chance, that means someone of greater ability does not, and that for me is wrong.
09 Jun 2026 17:04:39
EHL_that is the clearest and most rational explanation of this particular topic I have seen to date.
I'm going to break cover a little bit and admit to being a CXO in various organisations before I retired a couple of years ago. I spent the best part of 20 years trying to get that very point across to board members and investors, and CEOs, often leaving me with less hair than I started with.
If you haven't already, you really need to consider getting yourself on the trajectory for C-suite. Your combination of hands on experience and depth of knowledge gives a level of credibility that is rare and much sought after in leadership positions.
I'll also be very happy if I've managed to post this on the right thread for a change!
09 Jun 2026 17:05:56
Ehl - I agree that everyone should have a fair opportunity to compete, and I don't think many people would object to removing genuine barriers that prevent capable individuals from succeeding.
Where I become concerned is when the conversation shifts from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome.
The problem with "equity" is that it often begins as an effort to ensure fair access, but in practice it can lead organisations to evaluate people partly on the basis of group identity rather than individual competence. Once race, gender, or other demographic characteristics become factors in hiring, promotion, or representation targets, we move away from judging individuals as individuals.
Ability, character, work ethic, and competence should remain the primary criteria. If there are barriers preventing people from developing those qualities or demonstrating them, then address those barriers directly.
Improve education, mentoring, access to training, and recruitment practices. But don't compensate for past disadvantages by introducing new forms of preferential treatment.
The danger is that organisations start pursuing demographic balance as an end in itself. At that point, merit becomes secondary to identity, and people begin to question whether appointments were earned or awarded. That damages trust for everyone involved, including the very people these policies are intended to help.
A genuinely fair society should strive to maximise equality of opportunity while preserving merit-based outcomes, even when those outcomes do not produce perfectly equal representation across groups.
09 Jun 2026 17:51:10
What data did you study to compare him to SPFL standard? Poor show, pal. The guy deserves his spot.
09 Jun 2026 18:24:52
Marco, I'll let EHL answer for himself, but in the UK at least, the practice of hiring or promoting someone solely because of a characteristic - regardless of merit - is generally unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. You are correct in saying that positive discrimination leads to unfairness and breeds resentment - which is why most companies I know wouldn't practice it, on top of it being illegal.
From the case in hand, it seems that US immigration laws have prevented a very good referee from being included in FIFA's roster for the WC, and that he was selected by them on merit alone.
09 Jun 2026 18:29:54
Must be a good ref to win African ref of year, more than likely at African nations comp, think original poster was on about standard of league he was officiating in rather than casual racism, not saying Scottish league is great but must be better than some of African leagues outside the big ones, fans from all over struggling to get into country including British and having to go to some lengths to get visas
09 Jun 2026 19:50:09
I read he failed vetting checks by US Customs and Border Protection. He lives in an area with high terrorist presence, ie Al Shabab. The burden of proof lies with the traveler if coming from such an area into the USA.
The UK government put entry bans on various people in recent months for various reasons.
{Ed001's Note - right, I am sure he was a terrorist threat.}
09 Jun 2026 21:31:50
A small snippet from myself.
A friend of mine booked a holiday in America for this summer with his wife and child.
Had a very old spent conviction for assault in his younger years, being part of a football casual group when he was young.
He didn't think anything of it, booking his holiday, as now it's been well over 20+ years.
I've never been to America myself, so I don't know how much digging they do.
But he was refused - he attended the American Embassy to see if he could have it overturned.
Still refused entry.
Had to cancel holiday and lost £2000, with most of the rest being refunded, thankfully.
So it goes to show how strict they can be?
09 Jun 2026 21:53:35
Stig, he would have to disclose it on his ESTA application for visa free travel to the US. Unfortunately, the US doesn't recognise the UK's Offenders Rehabilitation Act, which I guess covers spent convictions.
09 Jun 2026 22:05:23
Somali referee Omar Artan was denied entry to the United States on June 8, 2026, preventing him from officiating at the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Despite holding a valid visa and a diplomatic passport, he was barred at Miami International Airport due to unspecified "vetting concerns".
Diplomatic passport, and still denied. Shocking.
09 Jun 2026 22:10:12
Marco, I'm not aware of any organisation that targets 'equality of outcome' as you put it - which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
However, I do see the equality of outcome debate raised often, and in most cases it is aimed at organisations that are deliberately attempting to diversify their talent pool - which is something very different, but also something I'm very much for.
09 Jun 2026 22:11:16
The Pontious Pilot approach from FIFA is equally shocking, Fork.
09 Jun 2026 22:24:57
Agreed, Jardine, they should be speaking out n challenging this instead of kow towing to that muppet.
09 Jun 2026 22:50:27
He's too busy polishing his FIFA peace prize to notice.
09 Jun 2026 22:54:46
EHL - Then we very much disagree on the equality of outcome issue. I think racism and sexism is abhorrent in all its forms. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination and there is no excuse for it.
09 Jun 2026 22:56:26
Hardline, my response was to EHL, not specifically about this ref.
09 Jun 2026 23:14:27
Marco, I realise that and didn't mean to conflate the issues.
However, to your point, just because an organisation is actively trying to increase diversity does not mean it is engaging in discrimination. They still have to give the job to the best candidate - that's what the law says.
As EHL says, they are trying to encourage applications from candidates that otherwise may not apply to give themselves a better chance of finding the right individual regardless of sex, race, religion etc.
10 Jun 2026 00:44:47
I understand that's the idea, Jardine.
I agree that the law requires employers to hire the best candidate, and I support efforts to ensure talented people from all backgrounds apply for roles.
My concern isn't with widening the applicant pool. If an organisation wants to advertise more broadly, improve outreach, or encourage applications from groups that may be underrepresented, I have no issue with that. The more talented people in the competition, the better.
The question is what happens after the applications arrive.
Once diversity becomes an organisational objective, there can be pressure, whether explicit or implicit, to achieve representation targets. At that point, there is a risk that hiring decisions become influenced by demographic outcomes rather than purely by merit.
The difficulty is that "best candidate" is not always an objective measurement. Organisations decide which criteria matter and how much weight to give them. If factors such as diversity contribution, lived experience, or representation goals become part of the assessment, then reasonable people can disagree on whether the process remains genuinely merit-based.
So I don't object to encouraging applications from underrepresented groups. I object to any system where race, sex, or other protected characteristics become factors in the hiring decision itself.
For me, the principle is simple - cast the net as widely as possible, then select the strongest candidate regardless of background.
{Ed078's Note - and therein lies the problem. That net has consistently and repeatedly been cast over the same part of the ocean. The part where those doing the hiring, habitually hire people that look and sound like them.
This doesn't always provide that the "best" candidate got the job.
That's why diversity is important. Not to stop old white blokes like me always getting the job, but simply to give others a shot of getting a fair go.
Without some sort of pressure to do otherwise, that net wouldn't be cast as wide as possible, like you said you support.
10 Jun 2026 07:49:24
The best candidate is very rarely an objective measure, it's subjective, the vast majority of the time, and that's where subconscious bias needs to be challenged and diversity promoted as an asset - an asset equivalent to experience, i.e. the best teams function with a blend of experience.
10 Jun 2026 08:23:41
EHL - I think that would and is true if the decision on appointment is left to a particular individual or a small homogeneous team. When I have been involved in recruitment, it often involves an expended group providing detailed feedback to the hiring manager, mitigating subconscious bias and group think to a large extent, consequently reinforcing the power of diversity. I guess I worked in a technical field where objective measures were easier to define, and I accept that it's not always possible to achieve.
Marco - that's a very considered and careful response, thank you.
On your point, on the post-application process, I can only say I have personally never come across demographic sorting in any organisation I have worked for on either side of the Atlantic. I can't say for certain it doesn't happen, but the company would risk severe reputational damage and prosecution if it did indulge in that practice, as well as putting staff retention in great peril.
It's also important to note that companies don't do diversity for diversity's sake.
They do it to build stronger, more productive and more sustainable organisations. There is increasing evidence from a number of studies - including one well quoted one by McKinsey - reporting companies that have sought to increase diversity in the workplace have experienced significantly improved levels of productivity, profitability and innovation. It also provides for a very happy workplace in my own experience. This is probably particularly true where an understanding of global consumer needs is important.
I can understand why the word diversity causes unease, particularly in the context of some media reporting, but I hope that will change as its benefits become clearer.
I'm going to sign off on this now, as I think we are not going to see eye to eye, but thanks for the discussion which I have enjoyed. Wishing you all the best.
@Fork _ I meant Pilate not Pilot, what a clanger that was!
10 Jun 2026 08:35:05
I got that, Jardine, gd job. It wasn't Barrabas. 🤣
10 Jun 2026 13:13:36
He was great in the A team but no use to us as he wouldn't fly to European games. 🙈
10 Jun 2026 13:38:19
Enough Internet for u today. 😉👍
10 Jun 2026 13:48:51
Would he not even fly with BA?
10 Jun 2026 16:13:37
Not on internet other than here (and for work), just dredging back into the cobwebs of my mind. There is a song in there somewhere, I think, as well. 😉
10 Jun 2026 17:37:20
Nice Jardine. 👍
10 Jun 2026 17:38:17
A song 🤔? Got me there. 👍
10 Jun 2026 18:00:59
It's actually Windmills of My Mind now, I come to think of it. 🤷 🙈 Noel Harrison.
10 Jun 2026 18:21:33
🎶 There's a place where the creatures play I'm going there at the end of the day Who knows what I'll find In the cobwebs of my mind. 🎶
10 Jun 2026 19:09:09
If I was hiring for my own business, then I hire who, at end of day, would have the best chance of making money, which is the best outcome for all at end of day and the fairest. Anything else is usually agenda driven.
10 Jun 2026 19:43:23
Funny that's the song I thought about when I read your initial post, Angus.
What a chanter, Jardine. 👀👍🤣
10 Jun 2026 09:56:07
ED078 - I agree that people should be judged on their ability rather than whether they "look and sound" like those doing the hiring. If genuine bias exists, it should be challenged.
Where we may differ is in the assumption that unequal outcomes necessarily mean the net wasn't cast widely enough or that discrimination must be the cause.
The fact that a workforce, profession, or leadership team doesn't perfectly mirror the population doesn't automatically prove unfairness. People make different choices, pursue different careers, have different interests, and follow different paths. Disparity alone isn't evidence of discrimination.
I also think we should be careful about replacing one assumption with another. If we assume that a white male candidate was hired because people like hiring those who look like them, we're making a judgement about the process without necessarily knowing the facts. The same standard should apply regardless of the candidate's background.
I'm completely supportive of widening recruitment, removing barriers, advertising roles more broadly, and ensuring everyone gets a fair chance to compete. In fact, I think that's essential.
Where I become cautious is when "fair chance" gradually becomes pressure to achieve particular demographic outcomes. Once organisations start measuring success by the composition of the workforce rather than the quality of the hiring process, there is a risk that individuals are increasingly viewed as representatives of groups rather than as individuals.
For me, the goal should be a genuinely open competition where everyone is welcome to enter, everyone is assessed by the same standards, and the outcome is accepted even if it doesn't produce perfectly balanced representation.
Thanks for the comments Jardine. I too will sign off on this topic now.
{Ed078's Note - I have no problem with the idea of everything you said, but that's not what happens. Just look at the studies done where identical resumes are sent out for the same job. Identical for one thing, the name. And guess what is repeatedly found? The resume with the "non white" sounding name is regularly dismissed. That's why education and initiatives, dare I even say, quotas, around employment practices help to even up the playing field.
10 Jun 2026 23:11:45
Cheers Ed078 - I don't dispute that some of those studies exist, and if employers are rejecting otherwise identical candidates because of their name or ethnicity, that's clearly wrong and should be challenged.
Where I think we differ is in the remedy.
If the problem is bias in the hiring process, then let's fix the hiring process. Use blind CV screening, structured interviews, objective scoring criteria, diverse interview panels, and accountability for discriminatory behaviour. I'm completely on board with that.
One of the most interesting examples comes from orchestras. Some introduced blind auditions where musicians performed behind a screen so the judges couldn't see them. Female representation increased significantly, not because standards changed or quotas were introduced, but because potentially irrelevant information was removed from the decision-making process.
To me, that's a powerful example of how to tackle bias while preserving merit.
What I'm less convinced by is the leap from "bias exists" to "therefore quotas are justified."
The problem with quotas is that they don't target the biased decision-maker - they target the outcome. They focus on ensuring a particular demographic result rather than ensuring a fair process.
That creates a different problem. People begin to wonder whether appointments were made because of merit or because the organisation was trying to hit a target. Even when the successful candidate is highly capable, doubt is introduced into the process.
For me, the principle should be consistent. If it's wrong to disadvantage someone because they have a non-white sounding name, it's also wrong to disadvantage someone because they are white. The solution to discrimination shouldn't be a different form of discrimination.
I'd rather see organisations become ruthlessly meritocratic by removing identifying information and assessing people on their abilities than by introducing demographic targets. That way we're addressing the cause of the problem rather than managing the outcome.
{Ed078's Note - and if only all that were possible.
Re quotas, they're not ideal, but let me give you a real life example of why, in certain circumstances, they are needed.
My local town council has 13 reps. 6 years ago there was just 1 woman. The major, who's a mate, tried to tell me that the best person always gets voted in. Absolute nonsense. Women make up half of our population, there's no way those 12 blokes were better candidates than women who wanted to stand.
3 years later, some major changes were introduced and we now have 5 female councillors, partly due to a campaign to encourage more women to stand.
The changes have been quite significant, from safer public spaces to more family friendly events and the town is thriving, socially speaking.
So, not ideal, but a possibility, a workable option.
Nice chatting.
11 Jun 2026 09:49:52
Great conversation and interesting to see the different arguments. I work for a very large global company and have offices in just about every country in the world.
I wish it would be just as easy as the right person for the right job because it certainly isn't. Hiring managers often say we need to think of the team dynamics etc etc. Also, right to work in countries is defined and controlled by governments not countries. For an example, many countries now insist that we can only employ candidates for foreign climes provided the salary is above a certain limit, which unfortunately rules out many candidates before they even apply.
One of the first questions we all now have to ask is whether they have the right to work in that country, so immediately there is a good chance that the right person might not even get the chance to apply.
Thankfully, we now have more chance of working remotely, but even at that has implications from tax rules etc.
So whilst I think many would want to have the right candidate for the right job irrespective of race/religion/gender, there is no perfect answer.
11 Jun 2026 10:46:53
You might be right on the study Edd when it came down to identical resumes but that's on the person who's picking them, depending on what nationality, colour and gender the person picking them is it could work both ways, what annoys people is certain people not being allowed to apply or those not as qualified getting jobs because of DEI, getting away from argument that the ref should of been at World Cup tho
{Ed078's Note - I'm not aware of anyone anywhere who hasn't been allowed to apply for a job or an unqualified person getting one because of inclusive policies. I've heard lots of people say they knew a bloke whose cousin's hairdresser's nephew lost out on a job because of "woke DEI", but I've never actually met such people. I'd put money on it that you haven't either.
07 Jun 2026 23:11:13
With interest in Chermiti becoming more public, I understand why fans would want to keep him but we must acknowledge every player has a selling price.
If we are offered the reported £25m then for me we must accept. A potential £16m profit on a player within 12 months is incredible.
This allows us to not only reinvest the money into the squad but more importantly makes us an attractive club for potential signings.
08 Jun 2026 00:03:25
Very true, Trueblue, desperate for him staying another year, mate, but you're spot on with selling him for a good profit after a year. It does show other players what we're capable of. I'd prefer selling Raskin for more investment in players, plus imo he wants tested in a far better league.
08 Jun 2026 08:25:06
I'd be happy to sell Raskin and keep Chermiti.
If we sell Chermiti.
Who would we like to get to replace him?
08 Jun 2026 08:42:50
Naderi will easily replace him in my opinion, Stig.
08 Jun 2026 09:46:24
Easily replace a top class young footballer, Mph, no problem.
08 Jun 2026 09:52:42
I also think Naderi, if fit long enough, can replace Chermiti. If an offer of 25 million arrives, I'd take it with a sell on of 10/20%.
08 Jun 2026 09:59:21
Chermiti's at a different level to any of our cf's, Bunster, and easily replaced is a fantasy imo.
08 Jun 2026 10:00:39
Have to agree, if his stocks high then sell, be mad not to at the figures being suggested, reinvest in the team.
08 Jun 2026 10:08:57
Why do we keep our best player for winning the league?
08 Jun 2026 10:34:59
Don't even.
08 Jun 2026 11:04:29
Shankland might replace him. Aye? Naderi also the type we need so that's covered, take the money.
08 Jun 2026 11:14:54
Chermiti is on a different level from players you've just mentioned, Burghger. I just don't get some fans selling our best cf. Prefer selling him after winning the league. His price is only going one way anyway, just the same as Chermiti is only going to improve his game from here on in.
08 Jun 2026 12:51:38
Naderi. Like Chermiti will be a star. I have no doubts about that. Shankland and Naderi will do damage.
Chermiti's star is rising so fast we won't hold him for more than another season. Maybe.
08 Jun 2026 14:05:08
Mystar would prefer to keep him also, but if his valuation is met, it's irrelevant what we think. We need to sell players when stock is high, imo, more than ever with Europe becoming so difficult to qualify for and only one CL spot soon. We have 2 good cfs in Naderi and Shanks. If we sell Chermiti, we will invest in another cf and have plenty change (money) left.
I like him as well, Mystar. Would love to see what he could do this season, but it's also pivotal we start a good transfer model, something we've not been very good at recently. Would be sad to see him go though. 😕
08 Jun 2026 14:17:47
He's a cf whose job is to score goals first and foremost, MyStar.
And I'm not Shankland's biggest fan, but he scored more than Chermiti last season. And in another previous 3 seasons in the top flight. And is now making his mark at international level.
So technically, he's easily / been replaced from a goals perspective.
And, imo, Naderi will also step up this season.
So I'd cash in, show others that the business model works for Rangers and, from a player's point of view, they can get the move they all crave.
And use the profit to repeat.
08 Jun 2026 15:52:36
Mph, he'll score over 20 next season, he's only getting started.
Boy blue, we can't go selling our best players, unless a good fee to turn down, 25m, I don't think will be accepted. Our owners are desperate for the league, maybe next summer.
Chermiti has found his feet in our league now, not a chance we're replacing him with better, as better than him right now won't come to Scotland.
08 Jun 2026 15:53:54
Chermiti had most goals in minutes played in our league last season, and a decent gap to second.
08 Jun 2026 16:38:07
We've just signed a better goalscorer - statistically - for hee haw.
08 Jun 2026 16:57:57
Not for minutes played, Mph, Chermiti is just a far better player as well.
Also, I'm talking about ability wise.
08 Jun 2026 22:55:09
Be crazy to turn down the money quoted on here!
09 Jun 2026 08:38:02
I don't necessarily agree that a forward player's sole job is to score goals. Sure we want that for him, but if he creates as many chances for others to score then surely that needs to be taken into account.
I am not saying who is better or worse, but it's not just about who scores most these days.
10 Jun 2026 18:02:36
Geesa, I agree 100%; more about what the coach wants the St to contribute to the team.
Seems kinda similar from chats on here that Gks don't need to be able to save as their primary skill, but just be good with their feet. 😂