RudeBoy

McGregor Whittaker Bougherra Weir Papac Lafferty Thomson Davis Beasley Miller Boyd

You're joking, right?

I can't really, but someone had to say it!! just thought I'd get it in first. 'Mon the 'Gers! intae this mob tomorrow!

Do those fifteen minutes require running? If so, why sign Boyd then? Have you seen Phillips play? Judging by what he does for his 15 minutes Boyd's only requirement will be to stand in or around the penalty box and if the ball comes to him shoot. Sounds like it's his perfect role. I doubt Boyd would equal Philips' goal-rate down there. Philips is lazy now because he is getting on a bit, but I'm pretty sure he used to do a fair-bit when he was younger. Boyd has always been a lazy cunt.

Do those fifteen minutes require running? If so, why sign Boyd then? You absolutely reek of F*nian bastard You'd be wasting your time thinking I gave a fuck. First game was pre-Souness. You? As i was born in 86 so very hard for me to go off on my lonesome to games pre 90's. Anyway know loads of other teams fans whos first games were pre souness Maybe you shouldn't judge other people's commitment then. My first Rangers game was pre-Souness if that clears it up for you. I think it was St.Mirren or Dundee or some pish. All I remember really is standing in the old West Enclosure, it being freezing cold, not very busy and absolutely boring as fuck. Simply put, both teams were pish. Went to a few more after that, then no more until Souness came as I recall. I might be wrong, but I think it was even pay at the gate. I don't even remember the result, but I think my biggest dissappointment of the day was realising that I couldn't afford a 'Makaroooon baaaaaaaaaar!' as I had to keep my bus-fare.

Anyone that can't see a player in Lafferty is mental. He just happens to be the scapegoat de jour for a section of the Rangers fans and most of the media (the latter seemingly for having a go at the mhuppet Nicholas). Simple fact is, he is a right good player whose deficiencies get hyped to mythical level. Of course he makes the odd wrong pass or fails to see a movement, but the stick he gets compared to Naismith for example is insane. If you actually follow him all game and watch his workrate and contribution, you would see how effective he actually is.

You've been made to look stupid. I would desist from spouting more pish. There's a good lad. From the man suggesting we get rid of he offside rule Poor argument. Very poor.

Of course it should be sung, but there is no way that Rangers would 'sanction' it. I could see it being sung, the t*rriers/media complaining, the SPL fining Rangers or some pish and Rangers meekly accepting it and shifting the 'guilt' onto the fans (see Romania for an example). Quite simply, there is no-one at the club willing to stick thier neck out on this and see it challenged. Sad but true. They won't be happy until the entire sport is as fucking sanitised as badminton. If it was left to me, I'd bring back the songs, the enclosures and the smoking. Going to the football these days is bordering on 'the gay'.

No-one. It was all pish.

You've been made to look stupid. I would desist from spouting more pish. There's a good lad.

Shite analogy.

I'd say Weir is a different situation, he could sign a contract for another year and a new manager might not play him at all and he would have been better off retiring.(especially with Wilson there and Webster coming back) Boyd is part of our first choice forward line and will no doubt be no matter what happens on the manager front. Fair point, but even Weir must know that he is not guaranteed to play for a big first-team club at his age. Even if he stays at Rangers, he'll probably be used less and less. Even from a purely financial position, he would benefit from signing a contract and retiring the year after? Weir's family are still done south I'm sure so probably from his view point sitting in the reserves wouldn't be worth it. Weir will only sign if he has a big part to play next year I think. Fair fucks. Principles before money? It'll never catch on.

I'd say Weir is a different situation, he could sign a contract for another year and a new manager might not play him at all and he would have been better off retiring.(especially with Wilson there and Webster coming back) Boyd is part of our first choice forward line and will no doubt be no matter what happens on the manager front. Fair point, but even Weir must know that he is not guaranteed to play for a big first-team club at his age. Even if he stays at Rangers, he'll probably be used less and less. Even from a purely financial position, he would benefit from signing a contract and retiring the year after?

I don't see why this should matter? Surely a contract is what gives a player stability? Also, European Cup football looks guaranteed for next season. Most players would also regard this as an incentive. This is what I find confusing; Boyd aligns his future to Smith's, a manager that has used him sparingly in the big games/comptetitions, and has left him out of the team recently. Why would a player not sign a contract that suits himself in such circumstances? What does Boyd get out of Smith staying that is that big of an incentive?

Exactly. I was one of his staunchest fans even when most people were wanting him punted. I stuck up for him then, and to an extent, I still do. However, if he has decided to go back to the player of old, I won't miss him. If he has decided to leave, I think he could have at least signed on again so that Rangers make a few quid. His shite, half-arsed performances of late make me think he has something planned. He certainly doesn't look like a player trying to convince anyone to pick/buy him.

I don't understand why him, and now it appears Weir, have to know what Smith is doing before they commit? Fair enough, they like him as a manager, but does that mean if Smith goes they are going to follow him around like lap-dogs? If Smith retires, what do they do then? They either want to play for Rangers or they don't. I'd rather they both stayed, but it's getting silly now. Either sign the contract or stop all this, 'I just want to win the title and see what happens' pish. Having said that, the title can be won this weekend, so presumably they'll have made a decsiion by Monday?

Do those fifteen minutes require running? If so, why sign Boyd then? You absolutely reek of F*nian bastard You'd be wasting your time thinking I gave a fuck. First game was pre-Souness. You?

Do those fifteen minutes require running? If so, why sign Boyd then?

If Boyd does go like this, it would be fucking shameful. Even if he wanted to go, why not sign a contract with Rangers a few months ago and ensure they got some money? Anway, I don't believe these rumours. They generally turn out to be pish.

Once the offensive team has brought the ball over the halfway line toward their opponent's basket, that team cannot cross back over the line with the ball. If you are holding the ball with one foot on each side of the line, you're safe, but if you have both feet on the wrong side of the court, then the other team gets possession. There is also 'lane violation', which is designed to prevent opponents camping out under the basket of the oppostion. that is not even distinctly similar to football's offside. It is basketball's equivalent. I never said it was 'similar', if you recall I said basketball had a 'kind of' offside rule. It does.

You hide it well though... Hide what well? I highlighted the part I was referring to, I'd hoped that would have saved any stupid questions. It obviously never. Maybe a more sure-fire way of avoiding stupid questions would have been to ignore the reply in the first place.

You hide it well though... Hide what well? Thought that may shut your noise.

Once the offensive team has brought the ball over the halfway line toward their opponent's basket, that team cannot cross back over the line with the ball. If you are holding the ball with one foot on each side of the line, you're safe, but if you have both feet on the wrong side of the court, then the other team gets possession. There is also 'lane violation', which is designed to prevent opponents camping out under the basket of the oppostion.

Would it? How do you know this? In fact, to be honest, that sounds pretty fucking exciting! Non-stop action! Yes it would, I just know. If you find that exciting just watch basketball and leave the football to the men. Basketball has a kind of offside rule also. Best leave the debating to the men, there's a good lad. there is no offside rule in basketball, there is not even a "kind of" offside. the only rule i can even think you mean is when you go into the opposition half with the ball you cannot go back into your own half. that is nothing like offside. It's called the 'over and back' rule. Look it up.

Would it? How do you know this? In fact, to be honest, that sounds pretty fucking exciting! Non-stop action! Yes it would, I just know. If you find that exciting just watch basketball and leave the football to the men. Basketball has a kind of offside rule also. Best leave the debating to the men, there's a good lad.