Jump to content


Welcome to Scottish Football Forums

Login using your Twitter or Facebook account to reply to a topic. If you are already a member of SFF login.
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

An SPL without Rangers - Better, or Worse?

rangers spl

  • Please log in to reply
342 replies to this topic

Poll: An SPL without Rangers - Better, or Worse? (35 member(s) have cast votes)

An SPL without Rangers - Better, or Worse?

  1. Better (20 votes [57.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.14%

  2. Worse (11 votes [31.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.43%

  3. Dunno (4 votes [11.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.43%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:38 AM

I know we are already discussing this subject on a couple of other threads, but my attention has been brought to the blog below, and I wanted to gain all of your view's on the issues in it. It's also quite long!

I don't agree with everything in there, but there are some quite good points and stats that possibly show a league without Rangers as not being as bad as some would like to believe.

I DO think they miss the fact that at the moment a league without Rangers would inevitably just be dominated by Celtic, but there are some interesting points nonetheless...

OK, let me throw a poll in here as well... ;)

http://wingsland.pod...t-need-rangers/

Quote


Why Scotland doesn’t need Rangers

Posted on February 15, 2012 by RevStu

Scottish politics seems to be having a wee holiday this week. The First Minister has alittle chat with the Scottish Secretary over the referendum, deciding nothing, the Unionists demand “answers” to questions on a completely different subject, Jim Sillars witters on about something or other in yet another bitter rage about how well the SNP’s doing without him, and the Scotsman quietly admits that some of its previous scare stories (this time the ones about Scottish membership of the EU) were cobblers and hopes nobody notices. In other words, business as usual.

The reason everyone’s putting out a skeleton service operating on auto-pilot is, of course, that they’re all transfixed with the goings-on at Ibrox. And rightly so, because it’s an enormous story which reaches out and touches the entire population in a way that politics almost never does. For fans of Rangers, their entire world has fallen in. For fans of other clubs it’s either hilarious, or a time for rising above petty rivalries and showing solidarity with their fellow supporters, ie it’s secretly hilarious. For Rangers employees it’s a worry, for battered wives, social services and hard-pressed A&E staff it’s a blessing and for booze retailers it’s a catastrophe.

We also can’t ignore the possible political consequences. For decades Rangers FC has served as a weekly indoctrination service for the defenders of the Union – you can’t spend a large proportion of your leisure time waving Union Jacks and singing “Rule Britannia” with thousands of fellow loyal subjects of Her Majesty (she of the Revenue and Customs) without it having some sort of effect on your worldview.
But for the media, which for months on end has largely turned a blind eye to the scale of Rangers’ problems and left the blogosphere to pick up the slack, it’s a time of panic. If Rangers fall they’ll probably take half the circulation (and pagecount) of the Daily Record with them, and the tabloid media in general is desperate for the club to survive in something as close to its present form as possible.

So the story, told loudly and relentlessly, is that Scottish football couldn’t live by Celtic alone. Rangers, it’s insisted over and over, are vital to the continued health – nay, the very survival – of the domestic game. Their friendly, loveable fans, we hear, are the lifeblood of every other club in the league as they turn up twice a season to swell the stands and consume the Scotch pies and Bovril that pay the wages of the home side’s gangly centre-half. The TV riches that pour into SPL coffers would vanish too, without the juicy prize of four Old Firm games a year to tempt Sky into opening their gold-plated chequebook. All in all, take Rangers away and you might as well padlock the turnstiles from Inverness Caley Thistle to Queen Of The South and call it a day.
But is it true? No. It’s a load of balls.

This blog loves nothing more than a good delve in some stats, so we’ve been wading waist-deep in them this week. And the conclusion we’ve reached is that the collapse of Rangers would in all probability be the best thing to happen to Scottish football this century. Along with its Parkhead twin, the club is a giant vampire squid choking the Scottish game to death, and history strongly suggests that Scottish football can ONLY flourish if one or both of the Gruesome Twosome is in poor health.

Firstly, let’s look at some of the myths.

We’re told that the smaller clubs need the influx of cash generated by home games against the Old Firm every year. But how much is that really worth? Under the current SPL structure, there’s no guaranteed number of such fixtures each season. Aberdeen, for example, got just three last year (two against Rangers, one against Celtic), because they were in the bottom six of the league at the time of the “split”.

In season 2010/11, the Dons had an average attendance at Pittodrie of just under9,000. For the three Old Firm games, the average attendance was 13,378. That’s4,504 extra punters through the gates per match, or a total for the season of 13,512. In other words, having Rangers and Celtic come to visit was effectively worth the equivalent of about 1.5 extra home games a year. (1.52, if you want to be picky.)

Now, for a club on a tight budget like Aberdeen, 1.5 extra home games a season is a handy bit of cash. If we assume that the average spectator spends £40 on their ticket, programme, refreshments and whatnot, it’s over half a million quid in (gross) revenue. But it’s not the difference between life and death. It could be achieved just as easily by an extended cup run or qualification for Europe – things which are significantly more likely to happen if you take one or both of the Old Firm out of the picture.

Indeed, just a modest amount of progress in Europe can effortlessly eclipse a season’s worth of Rangers and Celtic ties. In season 2007/08 Aberdeen reached the last 32 of the Europa League, which is very much the poor relation of UEFA’s club competitions compared to the cash cow of the Champions’ League. Getting to the last 32 of it isn’t exactly spectacular success, but it nevertheless brought the Dons four extra home games that season, which drew a total of 74,767 paying customers.

Alert viewers will have noticed that even this humble adventure was therefore worth almost SIX TIMES as much to the Pittodrie club as an entire season of Old Firm fixtures, and that’s before you factor in the not-inconsiderable matter of extra TV money and participation bonuses, which would surely boost that multiplier to 10 or more. (It’s perhaps also worth noting that even the first-round first-leg tie against the unglamorous FC Dnipro of Ukraine attracted a larger crowd than any of 2010/11′s games against Rangers or Celtic, despite having thousands fewer away fans.)

From this we can see that if a team like Aberdeen qualified for Europe just fractionallymore often, as as result of the demise of one or both of the Old Firm making places more easily attainable – maybe once every five or six years – the rewards could easily eclipse the losses. But there’s more to it than that, because the Europa League jaunt had a knock-on effect on domestic attendances too.

When Hearts came to Pittodrie in the middle of the Europa run, the gate was 14,000. The corresponding fixture in 2010/11, at roughly the same time of year, saw just 9,100show up. In other words, a tiny glimpse of success saw attendance over 50% higher – exactly the same sort of boost delivered in a normal season by the visits of the Old Firm. Even two months after the Dons were knocked out of the tournament by Bayern Munich, a home game against Falkirk could pull a crowd of 11,484 – a comparable late-season match (vs Hibernian) in 2010/11 managed just 7,400.

Of course, you could argue that the higher attendances in 2007/08 were a result of a better season in general (Aberdeen finished 4th that year, compared to 9th in 2011). But then, that’s the point – fans are much more likely to turn up to watch games in a competition where their team has a fighting chance of achieving something than in a league where they’re just making up the numbers. Take one or both of the Old Firm out of the league and you instantly make it far more competitive, which makes it far more exciting, which makes it far more attractive for people to come and watch.

This isn’t just an idle theory. Within living memory, Scottish football has actually experienced an extended period where one or other of the Old Firm was in dire straits, and the result was a far more competitive league with substantially bigger attendances for the non-OF clubs. While this era is often dismissed as a brief Alex-Ferguson-inspired flicker in the mid-80s, it in fact lasted for almost 20 years.
The first phase was around the creation of the old Scottish Premier Division, running from the tail end of the 1970s and right through the 1980s, before David Murray and his bottomless wallet turned up at Ibrox around the turn of the decade. Rangers were in a woeful state at the time, winning the league just once in a 10-season spell between 1979 and 1988, and with home crowds at Ibrox regularly dropping below 10,000.
(One 1979 league game against Partick Thistle brought fewer than 2,000 loyal Gers fans to the stadium, and no, that’s not a typo – we really mean TWO thousand.)

But it wasn’t just Celtic who took advantage – in four of the other nine seasons of that decade the league title went to other clubs (Aberdeen three times, Dundee Utd once), and it would have been five if not for the most infamous last-day implosion in Scottish football history robbing Hearts of the 1985/86 flag.

In other words, in a 10-team division fully 50% of the participants were mounting realistic challenges for the title – a feat probably never replicated anywhere else in the world in the history of football. The Scottish Premier Division was almost certainly the most competitive club league on the face of the planet, and such a healthy state of affairs was reflected on the broader stage.

Aberdeen won the European Cup-Winners’ Cup (with an all-Scottish team) in 1983, defeating Bayern Munich and Real Madrid to secure the trophy, and also beat that year’s European Cup champions SV Hamburg to join the illustrious list of winners of the Super Cup. The next season Dundee United got to the semi-final of the European Cup (with the Dons making the Cup-Winners’ Cup semis), and three years later Jim McLean’s men reached the final of the UEFA Cup, knocking out Barcelona along the way but losing the final 2-1 to IFK Goteborg.

The nature of Old Firm weakness changed between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s. David Murray had arrived at Rangers and was pouring money into the club, attracting big-name England internationals with the promise of European competition after English clubs were banned in the aftermath of Heysel. But while Rangers grew stronger Celtic weakened, and the Parkhead side hovered on the brink of bankruptcy for several years before being rescued by Fergus McCann in 1994.

As a result, the Scottish Premier Division remained competitive. Although that sounds a daft assertion in the wake of Rangers’ nine-in-a-row of league triumphs (1989-97), the fact remains that four different teams finished in second place over the period, with Celtic not managing to do it until 1996. Rangers’ average margin of victory in the league race during the nine-season run was under 7 points, which contrasts sharply with the typical modern-day gap between the Old Firm and the rest of 30+ points.

Indeed, over the entire 22-season lifespan of the old Premier Division, the Old Firm (in either order) took the top two spots just seven times, and five of those comprised the first two and last three seasons of the competition. Over a 17-year stretch in between, the Old Firm secured the 1 and 2 positions just twice. (Celtic-Rangers in 1978/79, and Rangers/Celtic in 1986/87.) In nine of the 22 seasons, the Old Firm couldn’t even both get into the top 3.

The SPL era, on the other hand, has seen Tweedlehun and Tweedlydee cosily slice up first and second place in 12 of its 13 seasons (the only blip being Hearts pipping Rangers to the runner-up spot by a single point in 2005/06). Where the Scottish Premier Division was the most competitive league in the world, the SPL is now theleast competitive, and therefore one of the least healthy.
(During the life of the old SPD the Scotland international side qualified for World Cups in 1978, 1982, 1986 and 1998, and for European Championships in 1992 and 1996. Since the advent of the SPL in 1999, with the Old Firm hurling most of their money at foreign players, the national side hasn’t reached a single tournament finals.)

Of course, the game has changed since the Premier Division. The SPL, Sky TV, Champions League and Bosman have all conspired – entirely by design – to make life harder for the smaller teams and cement the dominance of the bigger ones who can command higher TV audiences. Even this, though, is a slightly misleading picture.

Media pundits are fond of pointing out that Sky’s interest in the SPL would plummet if it no longer had Old Firm games to offer its subscribers, and this is undoubtedly true. What nobody points out, however, is that the OF hog so much of the Sky money for themselves that even a massively-reduced deal from terrestrial broadcasters would be more evenly distributed in a notional post-Rangers world, and so would likely end up with the smaller teams seeing fairly similar amounts of money to what they get now.

By way of illustration of the sort of sums involved, we examined the 2010 public accounts of Motherwell, who finished 6th in the SPL in 2010/11. Their total income from TV and radio was just over £1.2m. We’d imagine the bulk of that came from the Sky deal, but some will also be from elsewhere, eg the BBC rights to highlights packages and radio coverage. Arbitrarily, then, let’s say Sky is worth £1m a year to Motherwell, out of the total £16m that Sky pay the SPL every year.

A typical home game at the average 2010/11 Fir Park attendance of 5,660 will generate something very roughly in the region of £225,000. If Sky disappeared and nobody took up the live-TV rights at all, the club would need to either play four extra home games OR attract an extra 1300 fans to each game to compensate, OR reduce its annual wage bill of a startling £3.3m, or some combination of the three.
In a more competitive league with more chance of European football, that’s hardly an impossible dream – for reference, in 2007/08 when Motherwell finished 3rd their average attendance was around 1000 higher, at 6,600. The further 300 extra was achieved as recently as 2004/05.

But even beyond that, the data in the early part of this feature (which is broadly reflected for all other Scottish sides, not just Aberdeen, but we’d be here all day if we were to list every one) proves that the crucial core principle remains the same – a team with a better chance of even the mildest definition of success, eg qualifying for Europe or reaching a domestic cup final, will see a large upshoot in its attendance figures, and more than enough to compensate for the less-frequent visits of Rangers/Celtic fans or a drop in TV money. And the prime driver of that increased prospect of success is the weakness (or absence) of at least one of the Old Firm.

For all the commentators asserting that Scottish football would collapse – either in footballing terms or economic ones – should Rangers FC not make it out of season 2011/12 alive, the numbers simply don’t add up.


Edited by Laurie, 16 February 2012 - 01:20 PM.

I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#2 sheeptastic

sheeptastic

    Football Legend

  • Members
  • 7,215 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:57 AM

oh wahat a shame we can't see what a world would be like with both scenarios. I agree that there are some good points in there, and some things that I disagree with also, in all likelihood Rangers will survive, but probably ina very weakened state, that may well be to the rest of the spl that try and play catch up with the OF but in truth even a weakened Rangers will probably still be more than a match for the best of the rest so perhaps a closer competition for second place but that's about it. Now an SPL without Rangers? well times would be tough in the SPL, but I still don't think it would be the death knell of Scottish football, nor do I believe that Rangers fans would flock to the other Scottish clubs, however there is enough people that still care about football in Scotland I think to make the SPL still a viable product though severely weakened without Rangers.

#3 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:04 AM

 sheeptastic, on 16 February 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

oh wahat a shame we can't see what a world would be like with both scenarios. I agree that there are some good points in there, and some things that I disagree with also, in all likelihood Rangers will survive, but probably ina very weakened state, that may well be to the rest of the spl that try and play catch up with the OF but in truth even a weakened Rangers will probably still be more than a match for the best of the rest so perhaps a closer competition for second place but that's about it. Now an SPL without Rangers? well times would be tough in the SPL, but I still don't think it would be the death knell of Scottish football, nor do I believe that Rangers fans would flock to the other Scottish clubs, however there is enough people that still care about football in Scotland I think to make the SPL still a viable product though severely weakened without Rangers.

I feel pretty much the same, that Rangers WILL survive in some form, probably drastically weakened, and possibly not even in the SPL - although there is a good chance they'd get voted back in as a NewCo.

I also agree that the loss of them would be negative, immediately anyway, but would certainly not spell the end for our game.

The points made about the TV deal and Old Firm matches do seem quite interesting though - and although it's all hypothetical that clubs would be able to make up the shortfall in other ways, it does show that the main problem is dwindling attendances rather than our TV deal or relying on games against Rangers and Celtic. Then again, what matches is it that generally DO get the big crowds in? Yes, against the Old Firm.

I think clubs like Hearts, Aberdeen and MAYBE even Hibs and Dundee United COULD start bringing in big crowds again (I suppose we still do to an extent) with better performances and a more competitive league (depending how you define competitive).

But some of the smaller clubs really do rely on that little bit extra they get from the TV deal, and home matches against Rangers and Celtic.

Edited by Laurie, 16 February 2012 - 01:05 AM.

I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#4 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:53 AM

Some fantastic points made by Tom on the Scottish Football Blog - pretty much summing up how I feel on the matter, and the decision clubs may have to make on letting a NewCo Rangers back into the SPL...

http://www.scottishf...-yes-or-no.html
I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#5 ?apester

?apester

    Football Legend

  • Members
  • 10,054 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:16 AM

SPL without Rangers ? What SPL ?

#6 ?apester

?apester

    Football Legend

  • Members
  • 10,054 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:39 AM

Although i have been consistent in my belief that Rangers going to the wall will be catastrophic for Scottish football i can see one plus point .

The loss of revenue through TV deals and the Rangers travelling support will mean hard times for clubs in Scotland , or should that be harder times ? . Those that survive will have to downsize considerably . This hopefully will mean the end to bringing in foreign players or even those from the lower reaches of England . It will also encourage clubs into focusing more on youth development . Dare i say it ...... clubs will be forced into playing their kids . Mind you that would be a welcome scenario whether Rangers die or not .

#7 robertkelly

robertkelly

    International

  • Members
  • 422 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:16 AM

 ?apester, on 16 February 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Although i have been consistent in my belief that Rangers going to the wall will be catastrophic for Scottish football i can see one plus point .

The loss of revenue through TV deals and the Rangers travelling support will mean hard times for clubs in Scotland , or should that be harder times ? . Those that survive will have to downsize considerably . This hopefully will mean the end to bringing in foreign players or even those from the lower reaches of England . It will also encourage clubs into focusing more on youth development . Dare i say it ...... clubs will be forced into playing their kids . Mind you that would be a welcome scenario whether Rangers die or not .

As you say ?apester, we should be trying to limit the number of foreign players in our game regardless of the Rangers situation. Totally agree that it would be great to see young Scottish talent getting the chance to shine.

However, to the point of the thread. If Rangers didn't exist, wouldn't the other teams see an opportunity to step into Rangers shoes and try to become one of the big players? We had a new firm before, why not again?
I know it's not as easy as waving a magic wand, but without Rangers, Celtic would likely downsize. A wee bit of good management from Aberdeen, Dundee Utd & the Edinburgh clubs would bring them closer to Celtic again, narrowing the gap even more.
Who knows, we might even end up with 4 or 5 contenders for the title making it far more exciting that it's ever been.

It's often said that no player is bigger than the club. Well taking a similar logic, no club is bigger then the league. Rangers not being part of it may be the best thing that's ever happened to Scottish football.
Concordia Cum Veritate

#8 ?apester

?apester

    Football Legend

  • Members
  • 10,054 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:36 AM

 robertkelly, on 16 February 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

As you say ?apester, we should be trying to limit the number of foreign players in our game regardless of the Rangers situation. Totally agree that it would be great to see young Scottish talent getting the chance to shine.

However, to the point of the thread. If Rangers didn't exist, wouldn't the other teams see an opportunity to step into Rangers shoes and try to become one of the big players? We had a new firm before, why not again?
I know it's not as easy as waving a magic wand, but without Rangers, Celtic would likely downsize. A wee bit of good management from Aberdeen, Dundee Utd & the Edinburgh clubs would bring them closer to Celtic again, narrowing the gap even more.
Who knows, we might even end up with 4 or 5 contenders for the title making it far more exciting that it's ever been.

It's often said that no player is bigger than the club. Well taking a similar logic, no club is bigger then the league. Rangers not being part of it may be the best thing that's ever happened to Scottish football.
It may well be . It may well be the worse thing that's ever happened to Scottish football too . Only time would tell .

Celtic would dominate the league for years even if they did downsize . Both Celtic and Rangers have already downsized in the last few years and the gap between them and the rest has steadily risen . How can that be ? And how can anybody think that any other team would be able to compete with Celtic given the fact that Celtic will be head and shoulders above the rest financially . It just doesn't make any sense .

Maybe ten years down the line if clubs start to bring through some decent youth players that may happen but then again any decent youth players who are coming through just now are being snapped up by lower division English clubs straight away . And the need to sell players for Scottish clubs would be heightened to bring in much needed revenue .

#9 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:44 AM

 ?apester, on 16 February 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Both Celtic and Rangers have already downsized in the last few years and the gap between them and the rest has steadily risen . How can that be ?

I'd disagree with that. At the most the gap has stayed the same.

I can still remember for years that I'd pretty much expect a 4 or 5 goal humping against the Old Firm, and rarely ever saw Hearts, or anyone, take points off of them.

Last week's hammering at the hands of Celtic was bad, but it was a shock to most people - and it wasn't ACTUALLY a very one sided game.

In the days of O'Neill we'd quite regularly be 3 or 4 goals down at half time to Celtic. These days we generally beat them at least once a season, and go to Ibrox and quite often get points.

The gap is still big, but both sides of the Old Firm quite regularly get a close match against other sides - in comparison to regular scores of 4,5,6 - even 8, goals to the good.
I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#10 jaybee1978

jaybee1978

    The Don

  • Members
  • 11,855 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:34 AM

I think the clubs need to stop relying on tv money. Look what happened last time they did that when Setanta deal collapsed.
TALBOT AIMING FOR 10TH SCOTTISH JUNIOR CUP WIN

#11 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:37 AM

I was told today that 14% of the matches on Sky are Scottish games, but that the new TV deal gives the SPL just 1% of what the English Premier League teams make.

Someone also made the point that the £9m Whyte has dodged in taxes, effectively defrauding his own staff, is more than the turnover of ANY Scottish club outwith the Old Firm.
I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#12 Donald

Donald

    International

  • Members
  • 656 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:11 PM

Using the authors own example of Motherwell in 2010 it appears that if you add the TV revenue and the extra gate money which Motherwell get when Rangers visit (almost double their normal attendance) you come up with a figure of close to 1.3-4 million. This would amount to around 25% of the clubs total turnover for the year. Does anyone seriously believe that any club in Scotland could survive a potential 25% drop in income?


Realistically it's hard to think that any TV company is going to be interested spending big for the rights to a SPL without the OF games and with much reduced TV coverage many sponsors would significantly reduce the amount they would be willing to pay further reducing income to every club.


The reality is that the best players in every club would very quickly be lost to the English lower leagues seriously reducing the quality of the league as a whole. As a consequence the likelihood of any Scottish teams qualifying for the few European spots that will still be available (which will become less and less due to our declining coefficient) will be remote countering any argument that loss of domestic revenues can be made up in Europe.

Will increase competiveness result in increased attendances for clubs when they are competing for second place instead of third? And how long will Celtic fans continue to be willing to spend their money when their team has the league sewn up by December every year?

Obviously nobody knows for sure but I think anyone who believes that Scottish football can thrive without Rangers is in total denial of the facts.

#13 Psychoheart

Psychoheart

    aka Krys

  • Moderator
  • 1,710 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:19 PM

Where's the "dunno" option? Because I really don't know. What I DO know is the SPL was crap before all of this, so if it can be avoided I'd rather not go back to that. Bailing Rangers out of the mess they've got themselves into is a dreadful idea for sporting integrity reasons and that would probably kill the game as well. To me, the only sensible option is to wait and see what happens, and deal with the issues as and when they arise.

#14 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:21 PM

 Psychoheart, on 16 February 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Where's the "dunno" option?

It's RIGHT THERE, can't you see it..? :roll:
I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#15 Psychoheart

Psychoheart

    aka Krys

  • Moderator
  • 1,710 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:24 PM

 Laurie, on 16 February 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

It's RIGHT THERE, can't you see it..? :roll:

I could swear that wasn't there a minute ago...

#16 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:25 PM

 Psychoheart, on 16 February 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

I could swear that wasn't there a minute ago...

:D ;)
I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#17 hoopz

hoopz

    Football Legend

  • Members
  • 4,044 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:33 PM

dunno for me!

#18 onemanclapping

onemanclapping

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:38 PM

If there's an SPL then Rangers will feature. Our game can't afford to trurn away 50,000 punters (regardless of who they support) who regularly dip their hands in their pockets.

The SPL, SFA should be looking at these events as an opportunity to start re-shaping the game in order to provide a value for money and sustainable product for the long term. Football in this country can't continue the way it has been going for the last 10 years, change is well ovedue and this mess might just provide a platform (which let's face it would never ever have happened otherwise) to do that. If Neil Doncaster has one once of intelligence he will recognise this as possibly the best opportunity we have ever had to change things for the better. The Old Firm 11-1 vote stranglehold is about to be broken for the first time in ages. It's an opportunity to start again, and discuss the following :

11-1 vote rule
Even distribution of TV monies if available
Wage caps
League wide commitment to lower prices
The return of 3pm Saturday kick offs.
Capping the number of foreign players
League reconstruction
A greater say for supporters in the running of their own club

The next few weeks could either trigger the end of Scottish football or herald the start of a better brighter future.

You can but hope.

#19 Laurie

Laurie

    Resident Tart

  • Moderator
  • 6,345 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:41 PM

 onemanclapping, on 16 February 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

If there's an SPL then Rangers will feature. Our game can't afford to trurn away 50,000 punters (regardless of who they support) who regularly dip their hands in their pockets.

The SPL, SFA should be looking at these events as an opportunity to start re-shaping the game in order to provide a value for money and sustainable product for the long term. Football in this country can't continue the way it has been going for the last 10 years, change is well ovedue and this mess might just provide a platform (which let's face it would never ever have happened otherwise) to do that. If Neil Doncaster has one once of intelligence he will recognise this as possibly the best opportunity we have ever had to change things for the better. The Old Firm 11-1 vote stranglehold is about to be broken for the first time in ages. It's an opportunity to start again, and discuss the following :

11-1 vote rule
Even distribution of TV monies if available
Wage caps
League wide commitment to lower prices
The return of 3pm Saturday kick offs.
Capping the number of foreign players
League reconstruction
A greater say for supporters in the running of their own club

The next few weeks could either trigger the end of Scottish football or herald the start of a better brighter future.

You can but hope.

Couldn't agree more - very well said.
I'll paint this place maroon!

Follow me on twitter @lauriedunsire https://twitter.com/...!/lauriedunsire

#20 ?apester

?apester

    Football Legend

  • Members
  • 10,054 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:32 PM

 Laurie, on 16 February 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

I'd disagree with that. At the most the gap has stayed the same.

I can still remember for years that I'd pretty much expect a 4 or 5 goal humping against the Old Firm, and rarely ever saw Hearts, or anyone, take points off of them.

Last week's hammering at the hands of Celtic was bad, but it was a shock to most people - and it wasn't ACTUALLY a very one sided game.

In the days of O'Neill we'd quite regularly be 3 or 4 goals down at half time to Celtic. These days we generally beat them at least once a season, and go to Ibrox and quite often get points.

The gap is still big, but both sides of the Old Firm quite regularly get a close match against other sides - in comparison to regular scores of 4,5,6 - even 8, goals to the good.
I was going by the points gaps at the end of the season mate . No club has come close to the OF in years ,





Also tagged with rangers, spl

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users