ranger_syntax

No reason to think that.

Tavernier based on relative consistency.

I should add that this would be another opportunity to watch out for the gullible fans that fall for it. Recall the recent old firm postponement.

Pray that we don't encounter FC Dynamo Kyiv in the Champions League qualifiers. If it happens then we will be subject to wave after wave of similar dumb commentary. Perhaps Souness should just stick to Eurovision and leave football to the rest of us.

Failed loans are also an argument for using loans. Imagine if we didn't loan Ojo, Ejaria or Coulibaly. We might have signed them anyway but we would be stuck with them.

Assuming none reach the groups.

Apparent consequence of our coefficient is that we will be in pot one if we drop down to the Europa league.

Perhaps I should have mentioned that it was intended to be lighthearted rather than didactic.

You need to be careful with your use of this term. You may end up regretting it.

@der Berliner has just reminded me that this should also have included Sands. That's a lot of cover for this position.

Assume we extend Balogun. The we have the following three with question marks over availability: Balogun Souttar Helander That's in addition to another three options. Bassey King Katic If we keep Bassey he should be clear first choice left back. King should only feature in a few matches unless we have an injury crisis. Katic is likely out of the picture, as you say, and we definitely need better than him. I say that we should focus on getting another central defender who can be relied on and is also an improvement on Balogun. If we keep Balogun then I suspect that it is because we have no other options.

Can't we do better than Balogun? Don't we need someone better to help us qualify for the Champions league group stage?

That's a fair point and really well made. I've been scratching my head for a while wondering why people, like craig, complain about things that I never said or did. Same too for why Cammy would get so defensive about a couple of simple questions asked in good faith. It all makes perfect sense now.

It isnt that it was an unreasonable question - but you asked it multiple times - you made your point, continued to ask when you could have just left it. I'm starting to think that you didn't read the thread. I asked the fellow two distinct questions. No repetition.

Feel free to quote the unreasonable bit.

He doesn't have to prove anything. I'm not going to stop asking questions about things that I don't understand. Nothing posted here is outwith reasonable bounds of discussion.

Who did this? I might have missed something but I didn't see a single word of criticism for the fellow that shared it. I did notice some other personal remarks though. Those appear to have been taken in good humour. He had to be begged for pages to offer his opinion on the article. He then insisted that he didn't have much to say and nobody disputed that. If you disagree then feel free to point out a quote as I'm happy to be corrected.

I never imagined that the term beatable would inspire such optimism! I'll endeavour to pedantically caveat any such comment in future to save anyone getting carried away.

A topic for another time.

I think that '4th qualifying round' is synonymous with 'play off round'.

My goodness. Can we lose against beatable teams?! This puts football into a whole new light.

These teams are all beatable.

To say something is interesting is to say that you want to know more about it. You say this is interesting because you are surprised that a B.B.C. columnist would write something positive about Rangers. I don't know what more you want to know about Tom's decision to write this article. I can't even imagine what is unclear about it. Rangers won the Scottish cup. Bassey is attracting attention from outwith Scotland after the Europa league final. Tom wants page views to justify himself to his employers. He is riding Bassey's coat tails to get those page views. (Want to get inside the tiny mind of a columnist? See here for more info) The article itself is rubbish. You can distill it down to a handful of obvious facts including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Bassey is fit enough to play extra time in two successive matches. 2. Rangers have not won many trophies recently. 3. Rangers faced a challenge to motivate themselves for the Scottish cup final. 4. A series of facts about play in the Scottish cup final. All well known to us and buried within Tom's excessively verbose text. I thought I would find some interesting opinion contained within but I didn't.

I think that the real shame is that we are not getting to discuss the article in any substantial way. Not everyone thinks it best to just ignore the thoughts of other Rangers fans. Quite why anyone would hesitate to share his thoughts on this article is beyond me.