Gordon Waddell: Rangers fans must realise that......

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

No the point is if you introduce a policy of say 6 U22's in every line-up, it means that firstly you have to get rid of about 3/4 of your first team squad *because of their age and not their ability* and then more than half the players that turn 22 have to be let go *because of their age and not their ability*.

 

I can't see how people think it's ok to put a load of people out of a job because they are over a certain age and replace them with kids because you can pay them less. Imagine they did that at your work...

When words can't describe.

[calscot 0]

For completeness, Sterling sigined a couple of years ago at 16 for 600k from QPR.

[calscot 0]

When words can't describe.

 

Now here is a good example of trolling. If you have something to say, say it, don't troll.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Now here is a good example of trolling. If you have something to say, say it, don't troll.

No, because I will just get banned as is your intention. Arguing with you is a complete and utter waste of time. Nothing you say is based on any semblance of reality and you quite clearly don't have a clue about football. You probably haven't even watched a match since the Setanta Sports glory days you always go on about which were about 50 years ago.

 

Ageism

[calscot 0]

You said u23's. I provided examples of u23's. Jesus........

 

Also, regarding Liverpool. Manquillo, Moreno and Markovic are new signings. Perhaps you would know this if you knew anything about the sport.

 

You provided some pretty poor examples as I've shown and they don't generally even meet your own criteria. Which Jesus did Liverpool sign? I think that was Man City.

[calscot 0]

No, because I will just get banned as is your intention. Arguing with you is a complete and utter waste of time.

 

 

How can I get you banned? It's a waste of time for you as you don't have a decent argument.

 

Nothing you say is based on any semblance of reality and you quite clearly don't have a clue about football.

 

Could you try to be a bit more arrogant, supercilious and narrow minded...? If that were the case you'd be able to trounce me in a debate but you have no answer and resort to insults incredibly quickly every time - and not just with me. Everyone who disagrees with you is in your opinion, "speaking nonsense" or "illogical" or "tedious" etc, etc, etc. Man up, when you have something decent to say you will be able to explain it.

 

You probably haven't even watched a match since the Setanta Sports glory days you always go on about which were about 50 years ago.

 

Ah, here we go, your last gasp effort, your favourite made up ad hominem... All you are saying is, that you are not able to explain nor defend your opinions.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

You provided some pretty poor examples as I've shown and they don't generally even meet your own criteria. Which Jesus did Liverpool sign? I think that was Man City.

Quite the comedian. What criteria?

 

A starting line up of four under 23's is unusual

 

I replied

He might want to note the u23 year olds who regularly start for Liverpool:

 

Manquillo, Moreno, Coutinho, Markovic and Sterling.

 

Do keep up.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

How can I get you banned? It's a waste of time for you as you don't have a decent argument.

 

 

 

Could you try to be a bit more arrogant, supercilious and narrow minded...? If that were the case you'd be able to trounce me in a debate but you have no answer and resort to insults incredibly quickly every time - and not just with me. Everyone who disagrees with you is in your opinion, "speaking nonsense" or "illogical" or "tedious" etc, etc, etc. Man up, when you have something decent to say you will be able to explain it.

 

 

 

Ah, here we go, your last gasp effort, your favourite made up ad hominem... All you are saying is, that you are not able to explain nor defend your opinions.

There is only one person on here who ever agrees with anything you say.

 

It's best all round if you just stick to talking about cycling.

[calscot 0]

Quite the comedian. What criteria?

 

I was talking about your own critera of being under 22 and not signing youngsters when they are 21 - for which I presume 20 is also a no-no given where you were going with it. You didn't quote me so I didn't know exactly what you were referring to. But hey I'm fine with that and have no problem switching to what I now know you were getting at.

 

However, my replies still hold water as like I said, it's easy to look at a load of teams and you will eventually find the unusual. BUT Liverpool are unusual in another way that makes comparing them with Rangers like doing so with platinum and silver. A loan form Atletico, plus three "super kids" for over £30m that they didn't develop and one that cost 600k when he was 16 and developed by QPR isn't really what we can do ourselves.

 

It just correlates with my opinion that the kids thing is a numbers game where top clubs need to cherry pick the best around. Liverpool aren't playing 5 youngsters from their ranks in the vague hope they will "develop" due to playing in a highly competitive league, while they try to do something in the EPL, they are playing some of the top young players in the world that have made a huge impression already elsewhere, out of thousands developed everywhere, and have paid handsomely for them.

 

The nearest we've done to that recently is to sign Templeton and Wallace, unless you count Clark and Faure on frees. But again that shows that the difference of Liverpool and us is not in the development strategy at all, it's just in the amount of money available to spend.

 

I would still be surprised if those five start most of the games as I still believe it's best with a mix of ages from 18 to 33 and occasionally beyond.

 

There will be one or two other teams who play more U23s, but to go back to the beginning, Rangers played four for the game in question plus three subs and you find that worthy of criticism. I don't see any consistency when you give examples of other sides.

[calscot 0]

There is only one person on here who ever agrees with anything you say.

 

No, there are a lot more just judging by the "agree" button. But I don't expect people to agree with me all the time and don't try and build that kind of cocoon like yourself where you cultivate a wee group that have the same point of view about everything and are nicey, nicey to each other while being aggressive to those that have see things differently.

 

I don't go for the simple, superficial opinions as I look and think a bit deeper than that, which is why I can "write a million words" as your favourite poster points out. I expect people to disagree with me because of that, and I'm very comfortable with it. I hope that either they can convince me that they have a more accurate picture and I will change my view to suit, or that they will see that mine is better and adjust their own mind. I always welcome a better analysis than mine as I adopt it and obviously that makes mine better.

 

I don't see the point of making up an opinion from nowhere then defending it aggressively while twisting the world to fit.

 

It's best all round if you just stick to talking about cycling.

 

Maybe best for you as it means the flaws in your staunch views would remain unchallenged which is something you seem incredibly uncomfortable with.

 

However, I've been on here for about a decade or more, had some great debates and even won a few forum awards in my time, I think I might just stick around.