Would they concede , if the boot was on the other foot ?

The Great Waldo

Well-Known Member


I don't believe they would.

History shows that they have a previous in not conceding anything .

Found this article from 1986. Hearts needed 5 points from their last 3 games to win the league. The sheep & the arabs ( we were nowhere & fighting off a challenge from Dundee to be 5th) had conceded , but that horrible barsteward Davie Hay would not. He was mocked , but we all know what happened in the end. As Hay said "You never know in football".
 
are you kidding?? No chance! they count their goal in an 8-1 defeat to us, during the war, but dont count the 8 they conceded!
 
Hell No!!!! Liewell would have every legal beak onto it in seconds!!
under no circumstances can we let them have it without winning it. No way.
 
Are you joking? Until it’s mathematically impossible no self-respecting sportsman (professional or otherwise) would concede a championship
 
6 - 1 down on aggregate in a European Tie with only injury time to play and they refused to give it up - even after the final whistle. If there is a door open, or evenly slightly ajar, those feckers will use any means possible to push through it for their own benefit.
 
Of course they wouldn’t.
And the same degenerates who are demanding they are given the title now would be equally vocal that the season should be voided.

I think it’s called cognitive dissonance, the ability to hold 2 opposing viewpoints at once and believe them both.
 
If you asked them they would say of course they would give up a title - because it suits them - everyone knows the truth. A bit like the child abuse. Everyone knew the truth. Liars. No way they would be happy to let us be awarded the league this season and they all know that.
 


I don't believe they would.

History shows that they have a previous in not conceding anything .

Found this article from 1986. Hearts needed 5 points from their last 3 games to win the league. The sheep & the arabs ( we were nowhere & fighting off a challenge from Dundee to be 5th) had conceded , but that horrible barsteward Davie Hay would not. He was mocked , but we all know what happened in the end. As Hay said "You never know in football".
but we wouldn’t ask.
 
If the boot was on the other foot the mhedia agenda would be to null and void this season, and they'd wheel out the likes of Hartson, Sutton and the like to tell you it was the moral thing to do.
 


I don't believe they would.

History shows that they have a previous in not conceding anything .

Found this article from 1986. Hearts needed 5 points from their last 3 games to win the league. The sheep & the arabs ( we were nowhere & fighting off a challenge from Dundee to be 5th) had conceded , but that horrible barsteward Davie Hay would not. He was mocked , but we all know what happened in the end. As Hay said "You never know in football".
of course they would and I believe they would let us use their stadium with all the disco lights flashing red white and blue to make it a proper title winning party.
 
Of course not, why would anybody with a significant chunk of the season outstanding.
You don't win anything until you're over the finishing line.
 
Even if they were 10 points behind with 1 game to go they'd not concede and would demand/threaten that the league be scrapped.
Everyone knows how that lot operate.
 
We all know there’s not the slightest chance.

Nobody would, but they are more shameless than most, they proved it after the Legia Warsaw incident, the postponing of the Old Firm game after Phil O’Donnell died and of course the now infamous sporting integrity quote and kid on tour of Japan.
 
Never in a million years would they concede, if we were champions already and the season was postponed with a game to go, they would want the campaign scrapped.
 
The debate needs to be turned completely on its head.

So most reasonable people would say we are expected to beat St Johnstone at home. Which would give them a 10 point lead and therefore from their perspective that is enough to be handed the title.

So to turn it on its head they must logically agree a 10 point lead would be enough would be enough to see Rangers crowned champions.

Now the reason they are shouting about getting the league is because they believe they have an unassailable lead.

So it would be a reasonable assumption to believe they a one goal lead isn't enough to be described as unassailable. Probably a two goal lead is not unassailable either. I'll say a three goal lead doesn't fit the criteria either.

Ok let's say goal difference isn't enough surely a reasonable person would say that with eight matches to go. So is it like point? Eh probably not that could be overturned yeah? Two points? Nah let's rule that out that's only one match yeah.

This leads us onto the crux of it. The question that they will never be able to answer is.

If the roles were reversed at which point would Rangers be awarded the title between one goal and ten points ahead?

What is the criteria used?
 
No. No team would
Just like any other team in their position would be wanting to be declared champions

Soon as people realise everyone is bias to their own club and there’s no morals in football they’ll calm down to a riot about all this
 


I don't believe they would.

History shows that they have a previous in not conceding anything .

Found this article from 1986. Hearts needed 5 points from their last 3 games to win the league. The sheep & the arabs ( we were nowhere & fighting off a challenge from Dundee to be 5th) had conceded , but that horrible barsteward Davie Hay would not. He was mocked , but we all know what happened in the end. As Hay said "You never know in football".
Was it not 2 points for a win then ?
 
6 - 1 down on aggregate in a European Tie with only injury time to play and they refused to give it up - even after the final whistle. If there is a door open, or evenly slightly ajar, those feckers will use any means possible to push through it for their own benefit.
Hartson should be reminded of this every opportunity we get.
 
Back
Top