Shades75 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 It was you that stated that it was nominal, not me, you must know what this fee is. Or are you suggesting that Rangers must just accept whatever figure you or Holt say is nominal? If I was to descend to your level I would just cross all that shite out and write, "so "no" then"? I showed you sources that have given a ballpark figure. Show me others that give wildly different figures and we'll talk. Those figures are nominal. I'm suggesting that the Rangers should pay for something they want. I'm aware that that is a very difficult concept to grasp. Anyway, i'm done, I need to speak to an intelligent adult now. Have the final word, make it memorable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I wonder if he got himself into such a state when Speccy Thompson refused to pay what Rangers thought was fair for Charlie Telfer?Sorry, is that whataboutery or deflection? I forget. I promise i'm away now . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njord Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 A young David Murray by the looks of it.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 There is a whole thread still open to discus your obvious deflection. We are back where we belong, Hibs are where they belong, all fair. Tell me about where clubs belong Tedi and the reasons why they belong there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Quoted by who? "whom", dear boy, "whom". T_K will be having a dose of the vapours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Tell me about where clubs belong Tedi and the reasons why they belong there. You don't think that you could say that certain clubs have played at a certain level? Aberdeen, hearts and Celtic in my lifetime have been top level clubs Brechin, Berwick, Arbroath etc etc .... lower level clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 I am sure he will let me away with it on the account that I am a fellow bear, that is how things generally work round here. Not when it comes to the important things... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Rangers belong in the premiership on account of them winning the championship, Hibs belong in the championship because they finished 3rd and could not beat Falkirk in the play offs, hopefully this clears things up for you. You said rangers are back where they belong. The use of the word back makes your answer above, completely irrelevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 You said rangers are back where they belong. The use of the word back makes your answer above, completely irrelevant. Indeed. His answer would be reasonable, were it not for the fact that his use of the expression at all, establishes his overwhelming sense of childish entitlement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 You don't think that you could say that certain clubs have played at a certain level? Aberdeen, hearts and Celtic in my lifetime have been top level clubs Brechin, Berwick, Arbroath etc etc .... lower level clubs. By that logic, Hibs and Dundee United must 'belong' in the top flight, just as much as Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 swiftly forgotten by the bacteria that support ra Gers. Rubbish metaphor. You can get good bacteria. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 By that logic, Hibs and Dundee United must 'belong' in the top flight, just as much as Rangers. Hibs is an interesting one, most people rightly regard them as a top flight club but if they fail again to get promoted, how long until they're seen as a championship club? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
field of dreams Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Where are the sevco/bigots. Are they back from exile? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 So if Dundee united somehow manage to turn it on and win the championship then they would not be entitled to say 'back where we belong?' away and dinae blether pish. No. I don't like that stuff from any supporters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 Hibs is an interesting one, most people rightly regard them as a top flight club but if they fail again to get promoted, how long until they're seen as a championship club?They're in the Championship, so they're a Championship club.Rangers are in the top flight, so they are a top flight club. It's not a difficult concept. How long you've been in a particular league shouldn't be a measure of what kind of club you are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 This Stanley debate is an odd one. I've never understood how people can argue things so passionately when they have no way of knowing the facts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 This Stanley debate is an odd one. I've never understood how people can argue things so passionately when they have no way of knowing the facts. As someone once remarked when two people were arguing about the score in a Steve Davis v Hurricane Higgins match - "They don't want to know the score, they just want to argue about it." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 At least I can spell it. Still no proof of an agreed figure? But can't spell 'discuss'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) This Stanley debate is an odd one. I've never understood how people can argue things so passionately when they have no way of knowing the facts. There are very few people in a murder trial who know, definitively, the facts. Sometimes only one person. Yet it's an arena where you'll find some of the most passionate and detailed arguments.We argue based on our subjective assesment of probabilities. If facts were the only fuel for arguments then they would be dull and almost redundant processes. Edited June 19, 2016 by Shades75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted June 19, 2016 Share Posted June 19, 2016 As someone once remarked when two people were arguing about the score in a Steve Davis v Hurricane Higgins match - "They don't want to know the score, they just want to argue about it." I like this, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.