The_Kincardine Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 What you posted is every Clone Rangers fans MO right there when faced with someone saying yer club died etc etc etc, if we don't say nice things about Rangers you can agree with you don't want to debate at all. If I had said it was the very same club then you would engage in a debate, but I won't. Must be so hard living a lie while being told by others that you are living a lie and you know it. Oh get tae f**k with your casuistry. Youngsy served on the western front in 1914 and is older than Davie Weir. A more knowledgeable, decent and even-handed bloke you'll never find. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I was going to debate with you until I read the words that I have highlighted in bold. However I realised that it would be the same old, same old with you. As for King, neither you nor I know as to whether he re-invests in the club again. How on earth can you debate with someone who holds the same viewpoint as you? The very meaning of the word is to argue an issue from different points of view. As to the old/new issue, that wasn't the main thrust of my post, and I think you're bright enough to realised that. So, to simplify - where are rangers going to get the money to mount a realistic challenge in the top flight? As for King, again I think you're bright enough to know that rangers were only ever a big laundry for him - talk of him investing "again" is ignoring his character to what could, for the club, be a very dangerous degree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Oh get tae f**k with your casuistry. Youngsy served on the western front in 1914 and is older than Davie Weir. A more knowledgeable, decent and even-handed bloke you'll never find. What's the difference again between a dead club and a viable footballing company again ?. And how do these singular entities become one entire singular viable entity ?. And at what point can you separate something from a singular entity to blame the exact same singular entity for it's own problems but still be innocent and be a separate singular entity without the blame ?. How can a singular entire entity that was broken into two separate entities be the exact same singular entity if the new entity has 50% of another singular entity adjoined to it that was not there before ?. If something is original/very same, it has all the constituent parts attached to it from it's inception & conception till this very date, now which part of the original Rangers FC is no longer there to verify legally that it is still by law recognised as that very same entity ?. Something the club applied to get from the law that says "look here this is Rangers FC est 1872", it is not a company it is a piece of paper that says "by law Rangers FC can now trade in football and pays taxes" and we recognise by the law this singular entity known as Rangers FC est 1872. What the law are recognising today is a new footballing company called Rangers FC est 2012, but it is now no longer the footballing club Rangers est 1872 that they recognise any more that paid them taxes and can be seen in companies house registration dockets as est 2012. I'll wait for Benny to ask for an enigma machine now seeing as his MENSA certificate is in the post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 How on earth can you debate with someone who holds the same viewpoint as you? The very meaning of the word is to argue an issue from different points of view. As to the old/new issue, that wasn't the main thrust of my post, and I think you're bright enough to realised that. So, to simplify - where are rangers going to get the money to mount a realistic challenge in the top flight? As for King, again I think you're bright enough to know that rangers were only ever a big laundry for him - talk of him investing "again" is ignoring his character to what could, for the club, be a very dangerous degree. Pie & SKY ? mibees . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) I think WRK has a point. A lot of rangers fans seem to believe there will be 6 or 7 years of top flight mediocrity before a realistic challenge can be mounted. So what will happen in those 6 years? Will crowds stay at capacity? Will there be a savings account opened? If they can't run at break even just now, how will they run at profit, to keep money aside to mount a challenge. The whole way the club had been rebuilt over the last 18 months isn't in a manner that allows progression. It's built on short termism. Quick fix, win the league, move up.., It's all very well building for 6 years to mount a single season challenge, but you need to be able to maintain a challenge. Rangers aren't built to do that. The only way rangers can compete with Celtic is using handouts from a money man who will give them money that allows them to spend far above what should be possible. And there you are, back where you started under Murray, buying success. But does the new set up of club/company allow for such "investment"? Does it allow for people to throw money in, with nothing in return? I'm no business owner, but it doesn't seem like how a business operates. Which leads me onto my experience. As a thistle fan, I watch my team live within its means, we are run at break even, we only pay the wages our finances allow. The only external income is put into a separate business specifically for youth development. So the whole, millionaire ploughing money in has never really sat well with me, as it infers you are buying success. Success you wouldn't have without the rich guy paying wages the company can't afford. That's not sport. You're not following a football team. Your paying to watch a millionaires toy. If the millionaire walks away, you are no longer successful. Edited January 30, 2014 by dave.j 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 What's the difference again between a dead club and a viable footballing company again ?. And how do these singular entities become one entire singular viable entity ?. And at what point can you separate something from a singular entity to blame the exact same singular entity for it's own problems but still be innocent and be a separate singular entity without the blame ?. How can a singular entire entity that was broken into two separate entities be the exact same singular entity if the new entity has 50% of another singular entity adjoined to it that was not there before ?. If something is original/very same, it has all the constituent parts attached to it from it's inception & conception till this very date, now which part of the original Rangers FC is no longer there to verify legally that it is still by law recognised as that very same entity ?. Something the club applied to get from the law that says "look here this is Rangers FC est 1872", it is not a company it is a piece of paper that says "by law Rangers FC can now trade in football and pays taxes" and we recognise by the law this singular entity known as Rangers FC est 1872. What the law are recognising today is a new footballing company called Rangers FC est 2012, but it is now no longer the footballing club Rangers est 1872 that they recognise any more that paid them taxes and can be seen in companies house registration dockets as est 2012. I'll wait for Benny to ask for an enigma machine now seeing as his MENSA certificate is in the post. I said: "Youngsy served on the western front in 1914 and is older than Davie Weir. A more knowledgeable, decent and even-handed bloke you'll never find." In reply you spilled your guts about all of your Rangers-related issues. Maybe you should learn 'apposite' rather than 'smiley'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I said: "Youngsy served on the western front in 1914 and is older than Davie Weir. A more knowledgeable, decent and even-handed bloke you'll never find." In reply you spilled your guts about all of your Rangers-related issues. Maybe you should learn 'apposite' rather than 'smiley'. You must admit, as an intelligent guy, to understand what he means? You must recognise why he has that opinion. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid on that subject. But surely when broken down in simple terms, as he has, you can see why so many share his stance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I think WRK has a point. A lot of rangers fans seem to believe there will be 6 or 7 years of top flight mediocrity before a realistic challenge can be mounted. So what will happen in those 6 years? Will crowds stay at capacity? Will there be a savings account opened? If they can't run at break even just now, how will they run at profit, to keep money aside to mount a challenge. The whole way the club had been rebuilt over the last 18 months isn't in a manner that allows progression. It's built on short termism. Quick fix, win the league, move up.., It's all very well building for 6 years tooting a single season challenge, but you need to be able to maintain it. Rangers aren't built to do that. The only way rangers can compete with Celtic is using handouts from a money man who will give them money that allows them to spend far above what should be possible. And there you are, back where you started under Murray, buying success. But does the new set up of club/company allow for such "investment"? Does it allow for people to throw money in, with nothing in return? I'm no business owner, but it doesn't seem like how a business operates. Which leads me onto my experience. As a thistle fan, I watch my team live within its means, we are run at break even, we only pay the wages our finances allow. The only external income is put into a separate business specifically for youth development. So the whole, millionaire ploughing money in has never really sat well with me, as it infers you are buying success. Success you wouldn't have without the rich guy paying wages the company can't afford. That's not sport. You're not following a football team. Your paying to watch a millionaires toy. If the millionaire walks away, you are no longer successful. Dave I'd like to hate your post - seeing as you're usually a snide Canute. Much as it irks me I find it hard to disagree. Yes. We should indeed follow the mantra in David Copperfield: Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery. This is where I leave the Whistle model. Ask me to eat a tofu sandwich on granary bread washed down with jasmine tea and you can GTF! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hammer Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) I think WRK has a point. A lot of rangers fans seem to believe there will be 6 or 7 years of top flight mediocrity before a realistic challenge can be mounted. So what will happen in those 6 years? Will crowds stay at capacity? Will there be a savings account opened? If they can't run at break even just now, how will they run at profit, to keep money aside to mount a challenge. The whole way the club had been rebuilt over the last 18 months isn't in a manner that allows progression. It's built on short termism. Quick fix, win the league, move up.., It's all very well building for 6 years to mount a single season challenge, but you need to be able to maintain a challenge. Rangers aren't built to do that. The only way rangers can compete with Celtic is using handouts from a money man who will give them money that allows them to spend far above what should be possible. And there you are, back where you started under Murray, buying success. But does the new set up of club/company allow for such "investment"? Does it allow for people to throw money in, with nothing in return? I'm no business owner, but it doesn't seem like how a business operates. Which leads me onto my experience. As a thistle fan, I watch my team live within its means, we are run at break even, we only pay the wages our finances allow. The only external income is put into a separate business specifically for youth development. So the whole, millionaire ploughing money in has never really sat well with me, as it infers you are buying success. Success you wouldn't have without the rich guy paying wages the company can't afford. That's not sport. You're not following a football team. Your paying to watch a millionaires toy. If the millionaire walks away, you are no longer successful. We can afford the players wages, our players wages is like 30/35% of our turnover which is actually extremely good and most big teams would give anything for that. It's where the rest of that money is going which is the problem, not the wages. Edited January 30, 2014 by The Hammer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 We can afford the players wages, our players wages is like 30/35% of our turnover which is actually extremely good and most big teams would give anything for that. It's where the rest of that money is going which is the problem, not the wages. AWRA, CA. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 We can afford the players wages, our players wages is like 30/35% of our turnover which is actually extremely good and most big teams would give anything for that. It's where the rest of that money is going which is the problem, not the wages. Go to your bed little boy, the adults are talking. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hammer Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Go to your bed little boy, the adults are talking. I've obviously pointed out your flaw in your argument, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) You must admit, as an intelligent guy, to understand what he means? You must recognise why he has that opinion. I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid on that subject. But surely when broken down in simple terms, as he has, you can see why so many share his stance? OK so replying to you 2x in 2 posts. You don't deserve the attention Yes, I do understand what he means. He has said it again and again and again. My problem is not with his content but his context. Some of us want to have a reasoned discussion here. What HBQC and many of the obesessed Ps&Ds want is an avalanche of diatribe. Edited to add: The Hammer does not speak for my club. Edited January 30, 2014 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 OK so replying to you 2x in 2 posts. You don't deserve the attention Yes, I do understand what he means. He has said it again and again and again. My problem is not with his content but his context. Some of us want to have a reasoned discussion here. What HBQC and many of the obesessed Ps&Ds want is an avalanche of diatribe. Edited to add: The Hammer does not speak for my club. I'd love reasoned discussion, maturity, that's what I love about a match day, face to face honesty. Talking with opposition fans. Listen, there are times when we do have a good chat. No8 and Youngsy aren't adverse to it either. Sometimes, as demonstrated by Chris, and others, there are nutters who are only here to railroad, deflect, troll and stalk. This is a discussion board after all. I've never seen an issue with those old blogs, for example. There were some interesting things brought to my attention. The masterton relationship being the biggest thing I learned about. That still leaves me open mouthed! But these things are to be discussed, not to be pushed aside and the author discredited. It's the content not the writer. But it's a mentality thing too. Anyone who follows a non old firm team is a diddy. Remember the days not do long ago our opinion didn't count. Rangers fans couldn't tell you who played in the third division. We were pushed aside like the shit on rangers shoe. We were all living off the old firm apparently. You wanted away from us. And because of that, a lot if not the majority are going to have their moment to point And laugh, rangers fans need to man up and Accept that.Knowing our luck, thistle will get relegated next season! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) But it's a mentality thing too. Anyone who follows a non old firm team is a diddy. Remember the days not do long ago our opinion didn't count. Rangers fans couldn't tell you who played in the third division. We were pushed aside like the shit on rangers shoe. We were all living off the old firm apparently. You wanted away from us. And because of that, a lot if not the majority are going to have their moment to point And laugh, rangers fans need to man up and Accept that.Knowing our luck, thistle will get relegated next season! That is good bombast but poor facts. Earlier I made an arse of myself by confusing Killie/Dunfermline/Waddell/Stein. My ignorance was pointed out by a fellow Bear. The fact that Youngsy makes Methuselah seem young isn't the point: We Bears have our roots firmly planted in the warp and weft of Scottish football. Edited 'cos I couldn't spell Methuselah. No smilies were harmed in this post. Edited January 30, 2014 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 That is good bombast but poor facts. Earlier I made an arse of myself by confusing Killie/Dunfermline/Waddell/Stein. My ignorance was pointed out by a fellow Bear. The fact that Youngsy makes Methuselah seem young isn't the point: We Bears have our roots firmly planted in the warp and weft of Scottish football. Edited 'cos I couldn't spell Methuselah. No smilies were harmed in this post. 3 from 3... I'll take that and bid you good night, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 3 from 3... I'll take that and bid you good night, Sweet dreams and enjoy your morning Granola with soya milk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Monkeys laying down the law lol Classic Bennett at the peak of his joyously inadequate game. Rather than address a point, have a snide wee dig that's hopelessly wide of its mark. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 No smilies were harmed in this post. That made me chuckle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) I really enjoy this talk of a challenge to sellik bringing credibility to the league. Like the challenge based upon not paying taxes, deliberately breaking the rules (aka cheating) and vastly overspending. Overspending even though the aforementioned rule-breaking and not paying taxes meant thedeadcheats team cost less than everyone else's did. That kind of credible challenge, like we had for however long, Scottish football can do without. As, let's be quite clear, nothing that newclub has done in it's short life suggests that it is being run on a more credible basis. Any case for the defense there? No? Didna think so. Wee bit of dictionary corner time for youngsy, go on discover what words mean. Credible adj synonyms: trustworthy, valid, honest. As for Alex Thompsons blog. Hmmmm delicious if the bloke on the end of the phone was correct, but at the end of the day it is nothing more than a "bloke phoned me and said..." Now he does say that at the start of the story "it may be pish but...." frankly that's no excuse. Tissue thin and a bit surprising TBH. Don't think it is fair for TK to be so dismissive of Alex, he is an international, award winning correspondent. I for one am grateful for his input as he provides a much needed outside viewpoint on the mega-shambles. Hopefully he'll have more interesting and credible things to say when the upper tier hearing takes place in public (this month?) and when selling Lee Wallace for the price of a happy meal doesn't stave off admin 2. Edited January 30, 2014 by williemillersmoustache 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.