Daaaaaad! Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Like I said - hate-filled bile. Or suggestions based on previous form; but hey, paint it the way you want to - you will anyway, since you're absolutely desperate to make every Rangers fan the same filth-spouting Orange mong. Good luck on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvertedSmiley Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Like I said - hate-filled bile. Or suggestions based on previous form; but hey, paint it the way you want to - you will anyway, since you're absolutely desperate to make every Rangers fan the same filth-spouting Orange mong. Good luck on that one. Where did I mention "every Rangers fan"? Â I didn't. Â I referred to your wee speel about Celtic fans disrupting a minutes silence (which they NEVER have when the Ibrox 66 have been those remembered) and not caring whether one or two of those killed might have been Celtic supporters. Â Pure venomous hatred from you on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ugh. I will attempt to explain this to you one more time, after which I can just leave you to believe what you like, since pretty much every single other post I've made on not only this issue but on any other OF issues make it pretty clear where I stand. Nevertheless... Â Some Celtic fans have in the past been known to disrupt silences regardless of what they are for. You might expect it has only ever happened during silences held for Remembrance, and it is true that they are the most commonly disrupted when it comes to Celtic, but there was also the silence held at the Old Firm game on February 28th last year for Gerry Neef, for which there was absolutely no political reason for the disruption unlike other instances. For this reason - previous form, and absolutely nothing else - I suggested that Rangers holding a minute's silence yesterday might have been tempting fate, especially since there were other tributes taking place to remember the 66. Â EDIT: There's a few people on Twitter and Facebook saying that Lennon didn't come out until after the minute's silence, anyone know if this is true or just an attempt to cause a fuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Minipops Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Ugh. I will attempt to explain this to you one more time, after which I can just leave you to believe what you like, since pretty much every single other post I've made on not only this issue but on any other OF issues make it pretty clear where I stand. Nevertheless... Some Celtic fans have in the past been known to disrupt silences regardless of what they are for. You might expect it has only ever happened during silences held for Remembrance, and it is true that they are the most commonly disrupted when it comes to Celtic, but there was also the silence held at the Old Firm game on February 28th last year for Gerry Neef, for which there was absolutely no political reason for the disruption unlike other instances. For this reason - previous form, and absolutely nothing else - I suggested that Rangers holding a minute's silence yesterday might have been tempting fate, especially since there were other tributes taking place to remember the 66.  EDIT: There's a few people on Twitter and Facebook saying that Lennon didn't come out until after the minute's silence, anyone know if this is true or just an attempt to cause a fuss?  Lennon didnt come out of the tunnel until after the silence but he wasnt the only member of both coaching staffs to do this. Pretty sure someone asked him about it afterwards and he said it was because he was late coming out of the tunnel and thought that it would be more respectful to stay in the tunnel until the end instead of coming out during it and possibly disrupting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daaaaaad! Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 That's fair enough. I'm sure it'll be read into by people disappointed by yesterday's result, but it would've been far worse had he strolled up halfway through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members unfitfinlay Posted January 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 4, 2011 Fair play to Celtic. They were by far the better team, especially in the second half. Rangers just didn't turn up. Our only attacking threat in the first half seemed to be Ness pumping the ball long to Whittaker, who couldn't take advantage of it since he was playing on his wrong side. By the end the entire team was playing like they didn't even know each other. Â On the positive side, we really do need to bring in some fresh faces in during this window and, had we won, we would've had no chance of getting anything to spend. We might not get anything anyway but at least we can make a more compelling argument towards it. If we lose any more players without bringing anybody else in then the League is probably over anyway, regardless of where we are in the League at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buba3d Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 2x 10 team leagues agreed, scottish game is pretty much dead thanks to those idiots at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cogitoergozoomo Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 2x 10 team leagues agreed, scottish game is pretty much dead thanks to those idiots at the top. Â It still needs the teams to formally agree to it and they need 11 out of 12 to agree. Hopefully two of them are strong. This just seems like change for changes sake. We had this ten years ago and it was no better. Â I know everyone has their own ideas but I still think 14 is the way forward. Â Everyone plays everyone home and away (26 games) Â Split into top and botton 7 Â Everyone plays each other home and away (12 games) Â Thats 38 games total (the norm in Europe), everyone in top half plays exactly the same fixtures. Â The second half of the season becomes tougher and it is more likely points will be dropped. Â There are enough teams to do two up/two down or one up/one down with a play off between second bottom of SPL and second top of the SPL2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members unfitfinlay Posted January 4, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 4, 2011 2x 10 team leagues agreed, scottish game is pretty much dead thanks to those idiots at the top. Â It was dying anyway. Â I honestly don't think it's that bad an idea. One of our biggest problems is the massive difference in money available in the top two divisions. That's why we see teams gamble everything to either get promoted or avoid relegation. If this plan involves spreading more money between the Leagues and stops Clubs going out of business then I'm all for it. Â It's not ideal but an extension has no chance of happening while Old Firm games are the main focus of our TV deal. Sky are not going to offer us the same money for half the "big games" are they? And less money coming in helps absolutely no one. Â Now if they'd agree to have ONE Governing body for Scottish Football, a winter shutdown and an earlier start to the season, I'd be pretty satisfied with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 As I've said in the past a bigger league would just mean more shit teams in the league so I'm all for this 10 team idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Bettencourt Posted January 5, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted January 5, 2011 It's change for change's sake. Pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted January 5, 2011 Author Share Posted January 5, 2011 It's change for change's sake. Pish. Â Well yeah. I'm not entirely sure how the changes that they want to bring in is actually going to help anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary v1 Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 The change to a 10 team top league has not been passed with 4 teams voting against it. I'm very happy about this and may be the only person who thinks the current setup is spot on. Less teams would just be too dull with everyone playing the same 9 teams 4 times each. 16 teams would dilute the league too much and would lead to too few games. 12 teams and 38 games is about right. Also the split is exciting and anyone who gets upset about 7th place finishing on more points than 6th is a bit of an idiot.  The only change I'd make is a play off between 2ns top of the 1st division and 2nd bottom of the SPL. Potentially as a one off at a tynecastle/tannadice sized venue.ne s  Everyone seems to think that changing the league format is a magic wand that will cure all of scottish football's problems. Really we should be focussing on grass roots football and supporting our coaches at all levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 How can you know 4 teams voted against it when the vote isn't until January 17? Â Dundee United are the only club to have released a statement to say they'll be voting against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I think going back to smaller is nuts. Â 2 divisions of 18 teams would be better imho. Play everyone twice, not exhaust or make boring the can be 6 times a season old firm derby and would freshen things up a bit. May take a few seasons to settle. but is better than playing the same teams over and over and over currently. A bit more variety and days out. Â Could make the Premier League Full Time and the 2nd league Part Time as well, and Jobs a good un. Â Too straightforward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.