ranger_syntax

You're implying that the only alternative to additional investment is hoping for the best. That is not the case and it should be obvious. We can make better use of existing resources. This should be a pre-requisite to investment. Additional money without improvement would be like pouring petrol onto a bonfire.

We don't need investment. We need to make better use of existing resources. You talk about investment as if it does not come with a cost.

It was me that said you were sobbing. You never mentioned it but you were sobbing. It's not on par with St Johnstone. We won the league which is infinitely more important than any number of domestic cups.

Nothing you have said here answers the point. You assume that they will continue to make good decisions. No reason to assume that.

What does this actually mean? What happens when we make a profit?

Will you please wait until the medium term to repeat all of these familiar complaints?

The board explains itself now and again. When discussing revenue it always describes player trading as one of a number of streams required for success. The very opposite of a silver bullet.

This isn't true though. We have a bunch of high earners that finish contracts in the summer. That will free up a lot of wages.

Why not give the board credit for the European success? The board brought Gerrard, backed him and persevered with him.

What cracks do you mean? Why are you sobbing about the cups? Neither would make much difference to our position today.

If you pretend that Celtic will never make any mistakes then it will seem that way.

It's not all bad. Remember that brilliant win against Partick Thistle. Maybe later in the season Morelos will grab a hat trick against some jobbers in the league and give us another tweet about hard work and success.

Nothing to lose?

Rangers 1 Celtic 0 First goal scorer: Tillman

Who cares? Looks like the perfect representative for them, no?

I hope Tillman can play. I think that our chances of winning depend on him playing well. He has to play much better than he has so far for us to have a chance.

The hall of fame is a load of rubbish. If you really must do it then less is more.

Good. Now we can move on to the next entirely predictable stage. King can sell his shares to somebody that we don't like and we can post a series of futile complaints.

I am sad to say it is too late.

No. Don't know. No. Don't know.

Sorry once again. I always try my best to post with the intended audience in mind.

I'm really sorry that I laughed at your clever point about how you would do a poo somewhere.

You would only need to give it a little thought to understand. Take the simple example of the lauded loser Di Canio. You can win plenty of matches while failing to win a meaningful trophy.

The loser.

Perhaps combining it with later comments will help. In particular the exchange with the fellow who described Di Canio's example as irrelevant. (As an aside I suspect he is unwittingly agreeing with me) You can follow the example of a loser or you can follow the example of a winner. See where each path leads you.