ranger_syntax

Could have had an extra £100k for winning our league last year. Any place in the top league would guarantee, at least, twice as much prize money. Did Scottish football do that to us?

That would be a pretty bad idea. Prize money should be in proportion to sporting merit. After scanning the numbers it looks like that is the case here. Assembling data like this should probably not make you reflect on how the prize money has been distributed. Instead think about how badly Rangers have been run, and managed, over the years.

Can you post the source too?

I'll never attempt to troll again. I can't compete with some of the posts on this thread.

Almost all who I have noticed commenting on this topic think that such a move is entirely positive. I think it is a trade off. Consolidating supporter groups is not necessary but it is preferable in some ways. There are obvious cost savings to be made by, for example, replacing the RST and RF with one group. There is a less obvious down side which is that supporters have less choice. If you decide you don't like how it is run, for whatever reason, then you have fewer alternatives.

Which Premier League manager will be next for the sack?

Never been sure why anybody in the West of Scotland listens to it Neither can string a sentence together yet the BBC pays them to do just that. Glad I don't pay a penny towards them. As others have mentioned these people should look no further than themselves when wondering why Scottish football is not great.

This is it in a nutshell. The Livingston match was frustrating to watch. Livingston's bravehearts fouled our players all over the pitch from the start. It was clearly a tactic to frustrate our players and supporters. In addition the referee was completely inadequate. He didn't punish them and at one point in the second half it looked like he would completely lose control of the match. I realised that this frustration was the same as that experienced when watching a goalkeeper waste time during the first half while the score is still 0-0. The worst thing about it was that it replaced the football with something tedious. I didn't pay to watch some journeyman sauntering along his six yard box to take a goal kick. I didn't pay to watch Livingston's bravehearts break up play with fouls or break legs. Could it be that many of the fans who stay at home feel the same?

It's a question.

What do you think I'm responding to?

So have succeeded with a better, worse or similar squad?

Well, journalist is hardly an esteemed profession now, is it?

Any idea how the Northern Ireland team compares?

The decline of Scottish football appears to be a result of forces beyond the SFA/SPFL's control. Not much point in tinkering with it or asking people like McLeish for advice.

I think Shiels has been involved in most of our matches. Mostly as a substitute though so maybe that doesn't make it into the highlights.

What makes you say that?

I like the terms of what I agreed with for Buy Rangers. If that changes to what Rangers First does then I'll just become a private shareholder. I suspect this will be a minority view.

Who could replace Gordon Strachan and do better?

Not too concerned about seeing the back of him.

I laughed out loud.

Can you explain for those of us who are a bit slow? This is not the first time that I've read one of your posts and had little idea of the point you are trying to make.

Let me see if I understand. King promised a nomad. There is no nomad yet. If King gives Warburton some money in January then I don't care about the nomad. Is that fair?

So money must be divided in a way to maximize all three of the above, yes?

I like to get my knickers in a twist about stuff like this because it is not often that I look for news about other teams. I only come here to keep up with, er, Rangers Chat. I don't like reading stuff from anti-Rangers bloggers either but every now and then it turns up.