Big Jock Knew Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Maybe it's the terrible grammar, but I don't know what that means? Â 'Ages with' is an expression for 'of a similar age'. I didn't know it was exclusively a Weegie term. Â I wouldn't go grammar nazi on me, incidentally. You're the guy who begins sentences with "story"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Must do better. Â Nah, wasn't trolling you chief, just don't think it's a triumph worth shouting from the rooftops about. What's hollow about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Seven Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 'Ages with' is an expression for 'of a similar age'. I didn't know it was exclusively a Weegie term. Â Are you Patrick Viera now? Yes, it's deeply embarrassing that Paul Scholes is still playing better than most players in the PL who are half his age. Personally, I don't think he should be allowed lift the trophy. Â I wouldn't go grammar nazi on me, incidentally. You're the guy who begins sentences with "story"! Â Incorrect. It's usually, 'Story?'. The question mark makes all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted April 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2012 Maybe it's the terrible grammar, but I don't know what that means? Â 'Ages with' is an expression for 'of a similar age'. I didn't know it was exclusively a Weegie term. Â Whichever way you want to term it, the comparison of a team winning a title because their nearest rivals almost went down the pan to a team possibly winning the title because they brought back a player from retirement is stupid even for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Minipops Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Maybe it's the terrible grammar, but I don't know what that means? Â 'Ages with' is an expression for 'of a similar age'. I didn't know it was exclusively a Weegie term. Â Whichever way you want to term it, the comparison of a team winning a title because their nearest rivals almost went down the pan to a team possibly winning the title because they brought back a player from retirement is stupid even for you. Â Not even close to why Celtic won the league. Â 15 points behind in November, 2 points clear by the end of December. Rangers didnt go into administration until February. Celtic went on an incredible run which they deserve credit for. They would have won the title anyway if Rangers hadnt of gone into administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted April 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2012 15 points behind in November, 2 points clear by the end of December. Rangers didnt go into administration until February. Celtic went on an incredible run which they deserve credit for. They would have won the title anyway if Rangers hadnt of gone into administration. Â It's not just about loss of points, though, is it? There are plenty of other factors to consider in the whole Rangers debacle. Plus, it still doesn't make any difference to the Scholes comparison, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Not even close to why Celtic won the league. 15 points behind in November, 2 points clear by the end of December. Rangers didnt go into administration until February. Celtic went on an incredible run which they deserve credit for. They would have won the title anyway if Rangers hadnt of gone into administration. ..and even if they had been in administration since the beginning of the season, it's completely irrelevant because this has been an administration like no other. They've kept their whole team. The only first teamer who left was a player they fraudulently bought after they knew they were in the shit. And they can hardly pass that off as an excuse considering Celtic clawed back the 15 points or so with him still there. In one of the earlier 'Old F**m' games for example, it was said that one Rangers player, Kyle Lafferty, was bought for more than the whole of the Celtic first XI that day.  Rangers this season have still been a team of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSeaTiger Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 I'm a lifelong Rangers fan, but I am not biased enough to think that Celtic don't deserve this or it was tainted. As previously said, they overturned a 15 point lead to then go on a huge unbeaten streak. Ranger had the title to lose in November and Celtic just simply outperformed and deserve this. Saying that, the back page of the S*n is comparing him to other managers of the past, like O'Neil and Jock Stein and branding him A legend. I can't agree with that based on the amount of disciplinary action brought against him. He really needs to grow up and realise that he can't keep acting like he does. But fair play to the team for winning. Rangers will be back at the top next season.....in Division 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 15 points behind in November, 2 points clear by the end of December. Rangers didnt go into administration until February. Celtic went on an incredible run which they deserve credit for. They would have won the title anyway if Rangers hadnt of gone into administration. Â It's not just about loss of points, though, is it? There are plenty of other factors to consider in the whole Rangers debacle. Plus, it still doesn't make any difference to the Scholes comparison, does it? Â You can only beat what's put in front of you and we have done that. Chelsea finished 2nd last year and played pretty shite throughout the campaign, does that make Man UTD's league win any less enjoyable for their fans? Highly doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Minipops Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 15 points behind in November, 2 points clear by the end of December. Rangers didnt go into administration until February. Celtic went on an incredible run which they deserve credit for. They would have won the title anyway if Rangers hadnt of gone into administration. Â It's not just about loss of points, though, is it? There are plenty of other factors to consider in the whole Rangers debacle. Plus, it still doesn't make any difference to the Scholes comparison, does it? Â The Scholes comparsion was ridiculous but the point is, and others have made it, that Rangers have lost ONE of their main players this season (Jelavic), who they hadnt finished paying for, despite the fact it was obvious the whole thing was going to go and did go tits up for them. Celtic in November, 3 nil down away to Kilmarnock at half time, were an absolute shambles, there appeared to be no way back yet the players and management turned it round excellently. Rangers going into administration has had no real effect on where the title ended up this year IMO as they have had the same team that won the last three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jock Knew Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Oh, for fuck's sake. Did the wink get missed completely? I get on with Seven away from the boards, but it seems that the Man United support strikes again. What is it with United fans being completely humourless about their team? It's bizarre because in my personal experience, Newcastle fans are the most deluded support in football but the Mag lads on this forum seem okay. Conversely, any Sunderland fans I've met have been brand new but MOM is the most deluded poster on the forum. However, true to form: Man United fans have zero capability to joke about their team. Â I was there when we got gubbed 4-0 off St. Mirren. I know what it's like to laugh at your own team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members martyngnr Posted April 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 8, 2012 Yes, Celtic were 15 points behind Rangers in November but they also had two games in hand at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Minipops Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Yes, Celtic were 15 points behind Rangers in November but they also had two games in hand at the time. Â Still rather have the points on the board than games in hand. At the time, with the way they were playing there was absolutely no guarntee Celtic would win the two games in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members bAzTNM#1 Posted April 9, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 9, 2012 Saying that, the back page of the S*n is comparing him to other managers of the past, like O'Neil and Jock Stein and branding him A legend. I saw this yesterday too. Absolute crazy talk to compare him with Jock Stein. Insane. Â Nowhere near Jock Stein and never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stylin_and_Profilin Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 The only way it could possibly be tainted was if Celtic won by <10 point margin and then it would be marked down in the history books with Rangers having an * against their name due to the administration points deduction. They won it fair and square over the piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.