hellbhoy 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. Your Thesaurus will be soon running out of intellectually challenging words at this rate . It's always the same old repetitive tripe coming from you Kinky about how the P&D's keep arguing with the resident bears, I think you know why that is don't you ?. The need for your mob to believe because the SFA concocted some demented rules & regulations it is the same club and the P&D's fervently reply with good reason it cannot be because of these self evident truths. It's a never ending cycle you yourself participate in and then perpetuate the cycle over and over by avoiding and evading the questions that would have you bears post "new club status because this says so and cannot be argued with". If someone who appears to be as educated as yourself still perpetuates the myth that somehow you can remove a legally recognised status in the law that the club itself applied to for in companies house in 1899 as a Ltd company, can be somehow removed from the club as an entity within the club you are either thick or just ignorant because it allows you to say "I follow the most successful club in the world". You know and I know it's all bullshit, but why would someone as apparently as educated as yourself come across as so stupid you'll believe that a footballing association can bypass the laws of the land and liquidation never happened to the club itself ?. Intelligently inept comes to mind with you or your just a huge fhud because it allows you to still bang on about world records and most successful pish. And have a nice day to avoid your daily dose of diatribe. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somecallmetim Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I know I'm a wee bit late to this point but were Rangers not pretty pish in the decades leading up to the Murray era? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 says the guy whose only come back to one of my comments on the rangers v celtic forum was to point out 2 spelling mistakes??? 3 hours before you posted this . oh hb your hypocracy and patheticness make me laugh. You don't do ironic humour at me pointing out that someone pointed out to another poster about their bad spelling/grammar whilst at the very same time in their reply had made bad spelling/grammar themselves do you ?. I'll leave out mentioning your own very bad spelling & grammar because I got a NED to decipher that pile of pish you posted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Explain ... love to hear this as I missed the whooosh and I enjoy a good laugh. Benny whooshing himself again . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'll agree that Thomson' s credibility wasn't aided by his association with MadeUpName. However, that's not the same as saying he therefore has none. In fact, it's nothing like it. precisely this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Tedi's Hammer is here .... ^^^^^^^^^^^ Naw it's Christopher nae titles AWRA Dhenny . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hammer Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You don't do ironic humour at me pointing out that someone pointed out to another poster about their bad spelling/grammar whilst at the very same time in their reply had made bad spelling/grammar themselves do you ?. I'll leave out mentioning your own very bad spelling & grammar because I got a NED to decipher that pile of pish you posted. See your question mark? The little dot at the bottom of it is used as a full stop. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I know I'm a wee bit late to this point but were Rangers not pretty pish in the decades leading up to the Murray era? one thing i think people seem.to regularly forget is it was marlbrough and holmes where the ones who laid the foundations for the 9 in a row years i.e bringing souness and all of englands top.players to rangers infact some older bears might confirm this for me in that i believe it was souness who talked murray into coming to rangers ? so before murray arrived rangers where already starting to improve after a shite period during the early 80's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Dhense - if that nonsense you posted has an ounce of substance then let's hear it. You've made the fatuous claim, so back it up and explain exactly how we competed extremely successfully with your mob of ne'erdowells prior to Murray's arrival. And better yet - why we cannot do it again. Repeating DJ's laughably feckless mince didn't cut it first time. There's no longer the relatively level financial landscape of the 60s and 70s. Short of massive luck or massive investment, no club can overcome Celtic's head-start in hoovering up the European kitty on an annual basis. We just can't get past them. Look what happened when Rangers tried. For the sake of the diddies, I wish it wasn't so. I'd love to see one of us keep a strong squad together for a couple of years and challenge them but those days are gone. Celtic have just got too big a financial head-start. (BTW when I say 'diddies', I include Rangers. Welcome to the club.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 See your question mark? The little dot at the bottom of it is used as a full stop. Is there ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hammer Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) There's no longer the relatively level financial landscape of the 60s and 70s. Short of massive luck or massive investment, no club can overcome Celtic's head-start in hoovering up the European kitty on an annual basis. We just can't get past them. Look what happened when Rangers tried. For the sake of the diddies, I wish it wasn't so. I'd love to see one of us keep a strong squad together for a couple of years and challenge them but those days are gone. Celtic have just got too big a financial head-start. (BTW when I say 'diddies', I include Rangers. Welcome to the club.) When we tried to get past them? Sorry but we've always been ahead of them, they're the ones playing catch up to us. We have considerably more trophies. Edited January 30, 2014 by The Hammer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somecallmetim Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 one thing i think people seem.to regularly forget is it was marlbrough and holmes where the ones who laid the foundations for the 9 in a row years i.e bringing souness and all of englands top.players to rangers infact some older bears might confirm this for me in that i believe it was souness who talked murray into coming to rangers ? so before murray arrived rangers where already starting to improve after a shite period during the early 80's True but the reason Rangers were able to bring top England internationals to Ibrox was the European ban. Surely you don't think that will be the case again? What I was getting at is that the pre DM years are hardly something most Rangers fans would aspire to. Unless you think tht football from 50 years ago is somehow relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 True but the reason Rangers were able to bring top England internationals to Ibrox was the European ban. Surely you don't think that will be the case again? What I was getting at is that the pre DM years are hardly something most Rangers fans would aspire to. Unless you think tht football from 50 years ago is somehow relevant. When Rangers got the English internationals the English clubs were banned from playing in Europe for 5 years and is the main reason they attracted such players for European footy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 True but the reason Rangers were able to bring top England internationals to Ibrox was the European ban. Surely you don't think that will be the case again? What I was getting at is that the pre DM years are hardly something most Rangers fans would aspire to. Unless you think tht football from 50 years ago is somehow relevant. no i dont think that will be the case at all. i think it will take us a few seasons to challenge for the title unless we have a major investment .think the point the guy was trying to make before murray came rangers had still won the most scottish titles etc due to it was as if the guy was saying if it wasnt for murray rangers wouldnt have been able to challenge celtic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 When we tried to get past them? Sorry but we've always been ahead of them, they're the ones playing catch up to us. We have considerably more trophies. You really are a thick sh!t, aren't you? Can't even follow a simple argument. You 'got past' them in the days when there was a level playing field. Understand? The world has since changed. There's no level playing field any more, not even for your latest incarnation. You will never have the funds in place to mount a serious challenge unless either another sugar daddy comes along, you cheat or, most likely, Celtic just have a really bad season. And those circumstances would suit any of the diddies, not just Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 When Rangers got the English internationals the English clubs were banned from playing in Europe for 5 years and is the main reason they attracted such players for European footy. ano i understand that but it was pre murray era so it shows that rangers werent going nowhere before murray arrived however there is no doubt murray fastracked the process though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) no i dont think that will be the case at all. i think it will take us a few seasons to challenge for the title unless we have a major investment .think the point the guy was trying to make before murray came rangers had still won the most scottish titles etc due to it was as if the guy was saying if it wasnt for murray rangers wouldnt have been able to challenge celtic. Aberdeen, Dundee Utd,Hearts & Hibernian these are the clubs Rangers were really competing against before the Murray years as Celtic were a spent force back then lucky to even finish 3rd on occasions. Your flawed argument about challenging Celtic is pish because Aberdeen & Dundee Utd scared the shit out of any top European clubs because the game was so competitive in Scotland without any SKY money and no auld firm domination ever happened until the late 80's. Celtic were only a force a few years after the Bunnet bought Celtic in 1994 the rest Rangers just bulldozed their way to the title with little or no competition. edit to add Motherwell as well . Edited January 30, 2014 by hellbhoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Did it help them? 9 years in a row . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somecallmetim Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I tend to agree with you about the timescale. I just don't see Rangers fading to mid-table as some folk suggest. With the second biggest budget and a manager who has a clue it should be just a matter of time. What I was getting at was that many Rangers fans have been brought up on success after success. For them the adjustment to how things were before DM poured money into the club may be hard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Aberdeen, Dundee Utd,Hearts & Hibernian these are the clubs Rangers were really competing against before the Murray years as Celtic were a spent force back then lucky to even finish 3rd on occasions. Your flawed argument about challenging Celtic is pish because Aberdeen & Dundee Utd scared the shit out of any top European clubs because the game was so competitive in Scotland without any SKY money and no auld firm domination ever happened until the late 80's. Celtic were only a force a few years after the Bunnet bought Celtic in 1994 the rest Rangers just bulldozed their way to the title with little or no competition.didnt celtic win the league in souness's 2nd year? it was their last title before we started our 9 in a row run. i have heard about the aberdeen and dundee utd teams at the time i.e beating madrid and barca along with others and dominating the leagues. infact it was aberdeen who were our main challengers early niar Edited January 30, 2014 by forever_blue 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.