ranger_syntax

We should replace him based on what we expect him to do in future.

Looked great on the television.

Yes, we need a better striker than Miller this season. Unless, of course, we are happy to be also-rans in the SPFL.

No thanks. I had low expectations for today but after watching that match I think we should beat them in both home fixtures. Caveat: there is still some progress required with our attack.

Have you considered cycling to the game? You could beat the traffic and the crowds.

Oh, ok, interesting choice of words then.

I can hardly remember the details . . . . . . but In general you would need an athlete in superb condition to hold back another athlete in superb condition.

No kidding. I heard about one guy who had a go at Michael Mols; reportedly an athlete in superb condition. Someone had to hold Mols back.

F.A.O. Simpleton: No it does not.

Seems like a fuss over nothing to me. The arguments presented in the article are a load of rubbish.

Ever read the story of David and Goliath?

When O'Halloran arrived he provided something totally different to the other forwards. I thought that was good as it gave us more options and could make us less predictable. I seem to recall that the manager said words to the effect that his game would change to fit in with the team. I would be happy to see him in the team, playing his natural game, ahead of Miller or Waghorn.

Was it Benjamin Franklin who once said:

It would just increase the magnitude of every problem with the current system. The structural problems that football has will not go away until we return to something more unpredictable . . . like a knockout cup in Europe! That won't happen while the existing format remains popular with T.V. viewers.

Absolutely pathetic.

Groan . . . not again!

If someone made a decent offer I would be happy for us to take the money and look for a two footed striker to replace him.

This kind of reminds me of Colin McKenzie.

Yeah, just don't break the rules.

Plenty of reasons for doubt. The reports are that he had two offers, one year at his old club and two years with us. (right?) He has hardly kicked a ball for us . . . against also-rans of the SPFL. It was reported that a big factor in his decision was the 2 year contract that we offered. Why do we think he will be offered a contract, of the same duration, elsewhere after failing to impress?

What makes you think that someone wants to sign him? What makes you think that he will not be happy to see out his contract?

We pay a lot of money for these guys to play football. We are entitled to expect that they will know, and observe, any rules about gambling.

Sits in and collects remainder of his contracted wages, you mean?

Mark Warburton tells us that he is careful about doing his homework on players before bringing them in. I wonder how this episode fits in with that claim.

Was the pavilion any good?