Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Of course but if we've decided not to apply previously then that may go against us in the future. This is a political decision - a frustrating one but, IMHO, an understandable one. I think it has more to do with us fearing the opposition. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,367 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I think it has more to do with us fearing the opposition. But that just sounds daft when we consider the players that are missing won't usually be playing anyway. I very much doubt the club fears playing anyone but are making a regulation stance for when we will miss such players in the future under similar circumstances. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) Sorry, Frankie I no longer see how you can rationalise it. I highly respect your opinion, normally but...I've had more than enough evidence that points the other way - it is always for Ally*, the easy soundbite, the easy way out it is never, ever analysing why the overnight stays for a game in Forfar ("It's always been that way at Rangers = Lee and I love the early morning golf) and thinking why it may be incorrect. A couple of years ago maybe I could have tried to cling to hope but I really don't, now. I stand my previous post, I wrote it in anger, obviously, but looking back, I'd not change a word. Unfortunately people I used to revere as real Rangers men are, have been, are continually proving themselves to be complicit in the mess we find ourselves in. *And yes I know it is not all his fault and he works in a club ruled by utter scum - but Ally himself if you look back has been at the very best naive but - lets be honest - complicit. Naive re his shares, his huge monthly wage (which he never knew) his huge contract ( which he signed without reading) It is like listening to Alistair Campbell rather than Alistair McCoist and yet, and yet = even all that I could take, He is in a terrible situation, he could have made a fortune out of TV (still could, I reckon) ..but he never admits what he has done on the field or his shortcomings. He continually talks about "hard work" and "improving" and "wake-up calls" (I genuinely do not believe he understands the words he spouts, he has no idea what "hard work" or "improving" actually mean. Similarly his: : Alloa is a "tough place", a scrabbled win v Livingston is " a great three points"*) his re-iteration of "to be brutally honest" (always followed by at best a cliche but more often an out of context evasion, equivocation or an untruth) shows a mindset that is alarming. To put it simply as too how damning this mindset is = when we dared to complain of a Monday off (after another weekend failure) that the training was too light, he proudly, yes proudly, claimed it had not changed in over 20 years. He meant that as a thing to hold on to, to show he was doing well. It actually never occurred to him that we were in the 21st Century now and everyone else has progressed. He craves to be back in a dressing room where Baxter never tries or Gazza pisses in Bo Anderson's boots and everyone laughs. And he thinks this is right and this will do and why not from his point of view? He and his crew will have lots of money in the bank for for spending six hours a week training (but clearly practicing no skills or set pieces) - he thinks that "hard work". FFS, give me strength to rid us off this attitude,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Ach, I'm too scunnered with it all. I WANT MY RANGERS BACK (actually I'll settle for a pale facsimile) Edited October 6, 2014 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I don't know which is more embarrassing - us being scared to play Cowdenbeath or Cowdenbeath actually wanting to rise to the challenge and get in amongst us ? What a mess our club and management are !!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,974 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 But that just sounds daft when we consider the players that are missing won't usually be playing anyway. I very much doubt the club fears playing anyone but are making a regulation stance for when we will miss such players in the future under similar circumstances. My interpretation of the SPFL rule G7 suggests that isn't the case. See post 18 for rule. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) But that just sounds daft when we consider the players that are missing won't usually be playing anyway. I very much doubt the club fears playing anyone but are making a regulation stance for when we will miss such players in the future under similar circumstances. It is nothing to with the opposition - it's that they are all off on extended holiday. Check where they all go over the interim - it won't be gyms or set pieces practice. It'll be what all their lives are = paid holidays. They'll get the same pay packet this month with a two week break in the middle. Happy days for some... Might be worth checking exactly when their various hotel rooms for the next week or so were booked, eh? All pre-planned I'd assume Edited October 6, 2014 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Look at it this way: Now: Game called off v Cowdenbeath due to Shiels, Zaliukas and Mohsni missing - looks daft. 2015/16: Game called off v SPFL opposition due to Macleod, Wallace, Bell and Boyd missing - looks understandable If we don't follow the rules for this game (and recent others) then we leave any future request for a cancellation viable for rejection. This is the only valid reason I can see for recent postponements. The official site cited three players, one of whom was suspended and another who is currently on loan at Airdrie. You are giving a case for the club avoiding the game that simply doesn't exist in their mindset - the club (Ally in this case) spoke otherwise. RFC officially didn't give a flying f@ck why the game was postponed - we posted a lie as to the reason ffs - whatever is said after that is a cover up, I can't for the life of me see why you are expending your time in trying to excuse Rangers for failing to meet up with Cowdenbeath when there is no reason for them to do so. We have already spent vastly more time on this than was done in a nano (if not Nando) second's "thought" in "our" team's head - "another holiday" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 But that just sounds daft when we consider the players that are missing won't usually be playing anyway. I very much doubt the club fears playing anyone but are making a regulation stance for when we will miss such players in the future under similar circumstances. This is the club that plays 5 at the back in Europe. Fear permeates our every pore. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,661 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 If a postponement has to be applied for on a match to match basis, each case has to be determined on its own merits so there can be no room for precedent . They just fancy the time off 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 This break could prove to be a blessing as our current form is atrocious and a break may bring about a change in fortunes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.