ranger_syntax

My goodness. A couple of the posts in this thread had me in tears of laughter.

The market corrects this behaviour rather quickly. If a bureaucrat is getting involved then you can rest assured that the 'problem' is not being solved. Another problem is being created.

A football club should be allowed to make a speculative investment and risk the consequences. Efforts to limit spending are doomed to failure and completely miss the general problem. If some teams are too rich to overcome then rather than limit spending they should limit what teams can spend money on. For example the loan system is used by big clubs to prevent smaller clubs profiting from player development. Big clubs hoard talented youth players meaning that small clubs develop them but don't get to sell them on. The answer is to limit how many players a club can loan out at one time. Talented youth players would then find smaller clubs to play for before earning the small club a transfer fee on departure. Another example is youth teams playing in lower divisions. This allows big clubs to spend money more efficiently and develop youth players. Again this eliminates another reason for a young player to go to a small club and earn them a transfer fee. Smaller clubs don't have enough money to run an equivalent youth team and won't be able to develop young players in the same way. I'm pretty sure that there are many more examples that would actually improve the competitiveness of football. U.E.F.A. only suggest this to distract fans. This is presumably the same U.E.F.A. that structures European competitions in a way that ensures sponsorship money is funnelled into the big clubs.

I never understand why principle is so ignorant of practice. It is a rubbish idea in both principle and practice.

Did he just say that we have quite a few "rule breakers" in there? If so then I approve this message.

Ross County 0 Rangers 2 First goal scorer: Morelos

Risk all through the midfield. Davis will decline all season. We can't be depending on him. We need Jack fit and Lundstram to find form.

Last week we lost two goal against ten men in the space of 45 minutes. The first half was painful to watch but not the worst.

Rangers 4 Alashkert 0 First goal scorer: Morelos

Well, given that the outcomes are often obvious well in advance of full time ...

Must be great to be a tabloid hack. You can print any old rubbish and an army of useful idiots will repeat it endlessly.

Winning a domestic cup is not a priority at all.

No, I stayed until the end of the match.

Quite a dull game. The outcome was obvious after 10 minutes. Few understand this.

Rangers 3 Dunfermline 0 First goal scorer: Roofe

Either way I think it was very snide.

I understand the point being made and I know that it is irrelevant. I thought I should ask you and the other fellow to make your point clear first. The outcome, on Tuesday, was obvious at 70 minutes. The outcome of many matches over the last decade has been obvious at 70 minutes. The fact that there have been matches, like Braga, where the outcome was not obvious at 0 - 2 doesn't contradict either of those facts. The possibility of Rangers coming back doesn't contradict them either. It was obvious that Rangers were not going to start playing well again after the second Malmo goal. If you go back and watch the second half I think you will see that Rangers made few real attempts to play through the middle and break down the Malmo defence. You will see lots of sideways passing and aimless crosses. These things make the outcome obvious. If you don't believe your own eyes then look online and you'll also find no shortage of comment about sideways passing and aimless crosses into the box.

Strange point to make. The outcome was a Rangers win. Can you tell me why that has any relevance to this discussion?

I wouldn't have chased Candeias out but I can't imagine why anyone would want him to return now. Windass should be of no interest to anybody.

You're fighting a straw man. I don't know what you get out of that. As an act of kindness I will attempt to clarify my very simple point. It's quite obvious that to complain about fans leaving early when not attending at all is almost always worth ignoring. The only time that I would take that seriously would be if it came from a person who tried, and failed, to buy a ticket. I suspect that the poor fellow didn't try to attend last night. Should I take opinions on other matters seriously? Who knows? I'm not making any general claim about that.

You asked if the outcome of the Braga match was obvious at 0 - 2. I said the outcome, a 3 - 2 win for Rangers, was not obvious at 0 - 2. Still not obvious why you want to discuss that match.

Oh, he is entitled to an opinion. It's just that on this matter it is wholly fair to refuse to take it seriously.

That was not obvious at 0-2. Neither is it obvious that this contradicts anything I have said.

I've said very little about the difference between the two players.

Why don't you make any points that support your argument? Nobody denies that teams have come back from being behind, often late on, and won. Quite clear to me, and presumably many others, that we were not going to turn this one around.