the cry was no

The second included a league title awarded on a zoom call as opposed to actually won

2 and 3 definitely Gio Injuries to Hagi, Helander, Souttar, Davies, Lawrence, Roofe, Jack, Ridvan, Goldson, Lowry etc - not sure how Gio gets the blame for these?

Not reading back so apologies if already discussed I'm of the opinion that we have the players with more than enough to win in Scotland but 3 things have killed us and Gio Injuries have been horrific but not withstanding that..,, Our playing style under Gio was dreadful, predictable and, therefor, easy to play against Our fitness and stamina has fallen off a cliff which is incredible considering where both were at last season Point one will hopefully start to ease, point 3 is needing addressed urgently and that then allows point 2 to be addressed With better players back available and everyone with improved stamina and fitness, I'd personally love to see us adopt a high tempo, high energy attacking game as that would win almost every time in domestic football. We truly are in a two horse race and give them an advantage due to our style of play. Dyche would solve 1 and 3 but I'm not convinced he'd solve the playing style I'd love to see Bielsa if we could sort the money side of things.

He's won the Dutch 2nd division in 20+ years managing No idea why he gets the jobs he's been getting

Time will tell Less than two years ago, at the time of the Covid breech in Feb 21, I was laughed at for saying Bassey was "potentially" our biggest asset and should be playing ahead of Borna and that Patterson was "potentially" worth millions (many wanted to show them both the door) This time last year the out of form Borna was still playing and Bassey had played limited football. Injuries gave him his chance and he never looked back. When he turned 21 Bassey had played 12 senior games (9 starts) He had pace, strength, power and decent skills but most of all he had a great attitude and determination to be the best he could be. Lowry has outstanding natural ability and skills, he'll never have Bassey's physical attributes but that's not his game. If he has Bassey's attitude he has the world at his feet Personally I see a fair bit of a young Durrant in him, including the gallus style and natural ability Whether he fulfils his potential is largely down to him and partly down to Gio (or another manager) giving him a stage That's my view, you might think it's mental but I couldn't care less

18 months playing to the level he's capable of and Lowry becomes our biggest asset, possibly even surpassing Bassey's fee He needs to focus 100% on his career and in return we need to give him the stage to perform Most gifted young talent since Ian Durrant

We were out of the LC before Gio?

Gerrard, like the board a couple of years previously, inherited a mess that was a long distance behind a club who had a free ride to league titles and subsequent access to CL money (it's almost as if it was manufactured and facilitated ) They had time and space to build a successful player trading model which still allows them a financial advantage to this day. The gap however is small and success can and will swing back and forth again to the pattern we saw in the first 12 years of the millennium

From 00 to 11 League - Rangers 6 Scum 6 SC - Rangers 5 Scum 5 LC - Rangers 6 Scum 4 Rangers 17 Scum 15 The next 7/8 years are where they won their tainted titles and trebles Only the past 2/3 years have we managed to draw back to a pretty level pegging/ fair fight

You can add England and Belgium to that. Then there's Turkey and Portugal (and Russia pre war) I'm sure we were highly interested in Veerman, Simmons, Doekhi and Skov Olsen but they chose PSV x2, Union Berlin and Brugge.

That's probably the most logical explanation I still have real doubts that we've seen the last of Ashley tbh and I wonder if structure of the arrangement is influenced by this

This looks to be the case In terms of the new UEFA Financial Sustainability rules it would make more sense to include the total sales figure, unless I'm missing something (very possible) Maybe the structure of our deal doesn't allow for this but if we have a poor Euro season it could be important The new regulations will see clubs subject to squad cost controls for the first time. The cost control rule restricts spending on player and coach wages, transfers, and agent fees to 70% of club revenues. (The gradual implementation will see the percentage at 90% in 2023/2024, 80% in 2024/2025, and 70% in 2025/2026). This requirement provides a direct measure between squad costs and income to encourage more performance-related costs and to limit the market inflation of wages and transfer costs of players

I'd think a pigeon or dog or fox or whatever would be covered by "outside agent" and the game would be stopped if the ball hit them

The only consideration is if they are 2m away and standing that's not realistically open to any further interpretation

He wasn't 2m away and he was standing, are we just going to ignore that Do you genuinely believe that if the ball hit the linesman or a pigeon and went into play they'd play on? Really?

That all just interpretation mate. He wasn't 2m and he was standing, nothing else matters

I agree it's a grey area but I genuinely can't see any circumstances in which a player off the field can play the ball, deliberately or not, and that be deemed to be ok. You simply can't play the ball out of the "area of play" is how I see it. I'd have thought that was so fundamental and obvious

He must be 2m away, that's very definitive

More straw clutching ffs Players claiming for something, or not claiming for something is irrelevant No Dundee United players claimed the penalty at the piggery VAR didn't say "it hits his hand in a raised position so it should be a penalty but no-one claimed so we're not giving it" Likewise, thankfully, when 3 or 4 Hearts players claimed a penalty last night VAR didn't say " it hits his face not his hand, it's not a penalty but there's a few claiming it so I think we'll just give it" Did someone mention "slavering"

It's an old expression Dude about a scarecrow having a wank - clutching at straws Maybe you're to young to remember Worzel Gummidge but you've been clutching at straws for hours

Dearie fucking me Like I said, Worzel wanking

You can imagine that if you like but that won't make it true As I said in my earlier reply to the Dude you can't just take a wee bit of one rule and add it into another completely different rule to get to a decision that you want It was a wrong call and a massive piece of "good fortune" I see their seeking clarification on the Jota offside, I'm sure they won't seek clarification on this The concerted campaign of pressure is cranking up

If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue. I didn't quote that because that's very obviously not what happened. He didn't deliberately throw the ball at him in order to play the ball again ffs, he was trying to throw it to his team mate. That part your quoting would cover what someone else mentioned about essentially bouncing the ball off an opponent (usually their back) in a 1-2 type move That's clearly not what happened here I've no idea why you're going to such ludicrous lengths to prove that the tarriers didn't benefit from a wrong call You've reached the Worzel Gummidge have a wank stage though

It's the same as a free-kick.??? - No, no it absolutely isn't You're using parts of 2 separate rules here and conflating them to get to the answer you want The free kick rule makes reference to a quick free kick scenario 13.3 If, when a free kick is taken, an opponent is closer to the ball than the required distance, the kick is retaken unless the advantage can be applied; but if a player takes a free kick quickly and an opponent who is less than 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball intercepts it, the referee allows play to continue. However, an opponent who deliberately prevents a free kick being taken quickly must be cautioned for delaying the restart of play. The throw in rule makes no reference to the thrower taking a quick throw in or the free kick 10 yard rule. It simply states all opponents must be 2m away (it doesn't even reference, as you randomly did, whether there was no physical way they could have been 2m away) 15.1 Procedure At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must: stand facing the field of play have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play All opponents must stand at least 2 m (2 yds) from the point on the touchline where the throw-in is to be taken. The ball is in play when it enters the field of play. If the ball touches the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position. If the throw-in is not taken correctly, it is retaken by the opposing team. If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue. So by the rules Was he 2m away? - NO Not - NO BUT IF IT WAS A QUICK FREE KICK WE COULD PLAY ON If we just stick to the IFAB rules it's not a difficult decision to make Combining different rules is a bit mad really we might end up with say...... was that player offside? - YES but if it was a throw in instead of a pass he wouldn't be so let's just give a goal

I'll agree that the laws on being off the field are vague but can think of no reason or circumstances where a player could play the ball from outside the field (other than taking a throw in) and that be deemed ok I see your quoting the laws of the game but choosing to ignore the 2m part which IFAB is very specific about LAW 15 THE THROW-IN Introduction A throw-in is awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when the whole of the ball passes over the touchline, on the ground or in the air. A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw-in: if the ball enters the opponents’ goal – a goal kick is awarded if the ball enters the thrower’s goal – a corner kick is awarded 15.1 Procedure At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must: stand facing the field of play have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play All opponents must stand at least 2 m (2 yds) from the point on the touchline where the throw-in is to be taken. The ball is in play when it enters the field of play. If the ball touches the ground before entering, the throw-in is retaken by the same team from the same position. If the throw-in is not taken correctly, it is retaken by the opposing team. If a player, while correctly taking a throw-in, deliberately throws the ball at an opponent in order to play the ball again but not in a careless or a reckless manner or using excessive force, the referee allows play to continue. The thrower must not touch the ball again until it has touched another player. 15.2 Offences and sanctions If, after the ball is in play, the thrower touches the ball again before it has touched another player, an indirect free kick is awarded; if the thrower commits a handball offence: a direct free kick is awarded a penalty kick is awarded if the offence occurred inside the thrower’s penalty area unless the ball was handled by the defending team’s goalkeeper, in which case an indirect free kick is awarded An opponent who unfairly distracts or impedes the thrower (including moving closer than 2 m (2 yds) to the place where the throw-in is to be taken) is cautioned for unsporting behaviour, and if the throw-in has been taken, an indirect free kick is awarded. For any other offence, the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team.