Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Premiership rejects Old Firm plan to move south Nov 12 2009 ENGLISH Premiership sides have overwhelmingly rejected plans to allow Celtic and Rangers to join the English top flight. A proposal by Bolton chairman Phil Gartside to include the Old Firm clubs was rejected as neither "desirable or viable". Other suggestions put forward by Gartside including having a two-tier Premier League will be fed into the league's ongoing strategic review. The Premier League said in a statement: "Bolton Wanderers submitted a discussion paper detailing ideas concerning the restructuring of the Premier League into two tiers with the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers. "The clubs welcomed the additional input into an ongoing process, however, they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable. "The other relevant ideas contained within Bolton's paper will now be taken forward as part of the wider strategic review being undertaken by the Premier League since November 2008 with the aim of providing recommendations before December 2010." It just goes tae show eh EPL teams are runnin scared of eh auld firum yet again. Phil Gartside is a total wank for even bringing this idea up, I've said and I will always say, they wouldn't do any better than us. Why would they? For all they go on about this worldwide fanbase (which in my view doesn't exist), what advantage does that give them anyway even if they had one (which they don't), a few million extra in shirt sales. The fanbase of both clubs is on the face of it very similar to Newcastle's, and even if it was slightly larger, which I don't think it is, what advantage would that give. Newcastle have proven we have a more dedicated following by far than both these sides. They would have a very similar turnover to ourselves (about £100-£110m in the Prem), they'd have the disadvantage we have of not being in London, and they seem to think they'd get all these world stars, can you imagine someone like Kaka playing in Glasgow. Glasgow's a canny place but it's no better than here, I'm yet to understand one reason why they would do better than us. All in all a good judgement, hopefully it's never brought up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3988 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I think you're underestimating their fan base Stevie - Glaswegians are a bit like Geordies and you could say Scousers in that economic historyhas meant migration on a large scale. That's without counting Irishmen in place like the US who of course follow Celtic. The argument was always that their 50/60k crowds mwould always mean a large turnover - a bit like us - but I feel now that a few other clubs have that size of crowd and other wealth an assumed ability to compete is stretching. It would also be funny to see how they'd ract to 2/3k allocations for every away game - I think it would cause bother for a while as they would go in the home end. As for the football side I've always thought their key to success in Scotland was in keeping the other teams weak - something they would be unable to do in England obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Another kick in the teeth for Rangers, they're financially fucked at the moment. Walter Smith has admitted that they are being run by the bank, effectively one step away from administration, although that would never be allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Gartside should be strung up for this proposal. As Thatcher said, no, no, no. I've said on here in the past, and I'll say it again, I'd rather watch us play Leicester, Stoke or Pompey than R or C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2929 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'd rather watch us play Leicester, Stoke or Pompey than R or C. One out of three ain't bad! Shouldn't this be in the football forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I think you're underestimating their fan base Stevie - Glaswegians are a bit like Geordies and you could say Scousers in that economic historyhas meant migration on a large scale. That's without counting Irishmen in place like the US who of course follow Celtic. The argument was always that their 50/60k crowds mwould always mean a large turnover - a bit like us - but I feel now that a few other clubs have that size of crowd and other wealth an assumed ability to compete is stretching. It would also be funny to see how they'd ract to 2/3k allocations for every away game - I think it would cause bother for a while as they would go in the home end. As for the football side I've always thought their key to success in Scotland was in keeping the other teams weak - something they would be unable to do in England obviously. You go on about migration though. There's 1.2m people in Greater Glasgow, and that's between two teams, there's 1.1m on Tyneside and Northumberland with one team, and you can't count plastic paddies in your fanbase who haven't seen a game. As for their 2-3,000 away allocations, they played Hamilton away Celtic the other week in front of 4,000 fans in total, that's home and away crowds. The whole thing of both clubs is a myth fuelled by sectarianism, does my head in. Neither club had EVER averaged over 40,000 prior to 1997. Their best bet is to start a Euro league with the Dutch and Portuguese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Could see the mooted Atlantic League happening like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Premiership rejects Old Firm plan to move south Nov 12 2009 ENGLISH Premiership sides have overwhelmingly rejected plans to allow Celtic and Rangers to join the English top flight. A proposal by Bolton chairman Phil Gartside to include the Old Firm clubs was rejected as neither "desirable or viable". Other suggestions put forward by Gartside including having a two-tier Premier League will be fed into the league's ongoing strategic review. The Premier League said in a statement: "Bolton Wanderers submitted a discussion paper detailing ideas concerning the restructuring of the Premier League into two tiers with the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers. "The clubs welcomed the additional input into an ongoing process, however, they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable. "The other relevant ideas contained within Bolton's paper will now be taken forward as part of the wider strategic review being undertaken by the Premier League since November 2008 with the aim of providing recommendations before December 2010." It just goes tae show eh EPL teams are runnin scared of eh auld firum yet again. Phil Gartside is a total wank for even bringing this idea up, I've said and I will always say, they wouldn't do any better than us. Why would they? For all they go on about this worldwide fanbase (which in my view doesn't exist), what advantage does that give them anyway even if they had one (which they don't), a few million extra in shirt sales. The fanbase of both clubs is on the face of it very similar to Newcastle's, and even if it was slightly larger, which I don't think it is, what advantage would that give. Newcastle have proven we have a more dedicated following by far than both these sides. They would have a very similar turnover to ourselves (about £100-£110m in the Prem), they'd have the disadvantage we have of not being in London, and they seem to think they'd get all these world stars, can you imagine someone like Kaka playing in Glasgow. Glasgow's a canny place but it's no better than here, I'm yet to understand one reason why they would do better than us. All in all a good judgement, hopefully it's never brought up again. they only have a large fanbase because of the gloryseeker element ie winning a 2 man league, and the religious aspect. Competing in a league where they went down and didnt' win all the trophies would erode their fanbase. Never ceases to amaze me that they think they would always get huge crowds. Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3988 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 You go on about migration though. There's 1.2m people in Greater Glasgow, and that's between two teams, there's 1.1m on Tyneside and Northumberland with one team, and you can't count plastic paddies in your fanbase who haven't seen a game. As for their 2-3,000 away allocations, they played Hamilton away Celtic the other week in front of 4,000 fans in total, that's home and away crowds. The whole thing of both clubs is a myth fuelled by sectarianism, does my head in. Neither club had EVER averaged over 40,000 prior to 1997. Their best bet is to start a Euro league with the Dutch and Portuguese. A bit of pedantry I know but there are a few minor teams in Glasgow - though I'd also say they both have a lot of Man U type glory hunters in the rest of Scotlland to balance that. There are also a few SAFC fans in your NE figure. I do agree on the Atlantic league thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 You go on about migration though. There's 1.2m people in Greater Glasgow, and that's between two teams, there's 1.1m on Tyneside and Northumberland with one team, and you can't count plastic paddies in your fanbase who haven't seen a game. As for their 2-3,000 away allocations, they played Hamilton away Celtic the other week in front of 4,000 fans in total, that's home and away crowds. The whole thing of both clubs is a myth fuelled by sectarianism, does my head in. Neither club had EVER averaged over 40,000 prior to 1997. Their best bet is to start a Euro league with the Dutch and Portuguese. A bit of pedantry I know but there are a few minor teams in Glasgow - though I'd also say they both have a lot of Man U type glory hunters in the rest of Scotlland to balance that. There are also a few SAFC fans in your NE figure. I do agree on the Atlantic league thing though. My point is if people bleat on about something enough people start falling for it, and while I respect you I feel you are one of these, even Martin O'Neill has fallen for it. "Celtic could get 80,000 if they were competing for the Premiership" so could we what does that fuckin prove? I know people think we live in a deluded cocoon up here, but I think we're no where near as deluded as they are. Do you think if Newcastle has a league game in a 12,000 stadium 8 miles from SJP, the crowd would be 4,000???? They are a myth it does my head in that people buy in to it as well. The Irish thing as well, there's only 5m people in Ireland, and maybe the Irish lads on here could back me up, but Man Utd and Liverpool are much better supported over there. It's one big myth. It would be like having two more unsavoury versions of the Toon in the Premiership, and it only needs one. LM is right too when they've come 12-18th 7 seasons running with no European football they'd struggle to get 25,000 in my view, history has shown that to be the case too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 PS I think it's right to leave this in here, because the other forum is to talk about football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I tend to find people in Belfast support Liverpool or Man Utd then have Celtic or Rangers as a '2nd team'. Don't know if that's because the PL is so big now or whether that's the way it's always been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackandwhiteboy 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Funny thing is even Scudamore doesn't want them and yet he tends to be all about the money. My opinion is simple - they are Scottish teams, therefore they should play in the Scottish League. As for the Belfast thing, I live with a girl from Northern Ireland and from what I gather (having been over there etc) very few people really 'support' the OF teams, they just attach themselves to one of them (for well documented reasons). The majority of football fans support either an English team or a Northern Irish team and that includes the older ones, so I don't think it has anything to do with the recent growth of the Premiership. Edited November 12, 2009 by blackandwhiteboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3988 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 My point is if people bleat on about something enough people start falling for it, and while I respect you I feel you are one of these, even Martin O'Neill has fallen for it. "Celtic could get 80,000 if they were competing for the Premiership" so could we what does that fuckin prove? I know people think we live in a deluded cocoon up here, but I think we're no where near as deluded as they are. Do you think if Newcastle has a league game in a 12,000 stadium 8 miles from SJP, the crowd would be 4,000???? They are a myth it does my head in that people buy in to it as well. The Irish thing as well, there's only 5m people in Ireland, and maybe the Irish lads on here could back me up, but Man Utd and Liverpool are much better supported over there. It's one big myth. It would be like having two more unsavoury versions of the Toon in the Premiership, and it only needs one. LM is right too when they've come 12-18th 7 seasons running with no European football they'd struggle to get 25,000 in my view, history has shown that to be the case too. I'm not buying the myth as much as you think - but I do think you're over-dismissing it at the same time. On the Irish thing, my ex-boss suggested that in Eire at least it was more of a Man U/Liverpool thing with Celtic just clung to as a second team as mentioned as part of their overall identity - but that doesn't mean from a commercial view they could be dismissed even though they don't go to the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 From a Rangers board..... All I can say is.... In some respects I'd like them down here, if only to see how shit they'd be. Tramps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 If they want to join, they should be made to start at the very bottom just like FC United and AFC Wimbledon. Personally I would not like to see the Bigot Brothers anywhere near the English leagues. They can keep themselves and their obnoxious fans up there in the Democratic Repulic of Methodonia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26574 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? Think he's getting confused as Barnes took over after the '98 World Cup I think because I remember him having the idea of copying their 4-2-2-2 formation with the width coming from the full-backs and two attacking midfielders. That was theory anyway. I think Celtic came 4th in the early 90s when they were skint and Rangers were on a long run of consecutive titles though. No idea what gates they were getting like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? What age are you Ewerk if you don't mind me asking, under 22? 1993 for one, its happened loads of times throughout their history. Generally from the mid 70s onwards even when they were doing well they'd get 6-25,000 against general Scottish sides, and 45-62,000 against Rangers and that was it. Rangers gates were even worse before Souness came in. In recent times Celtic were down to 30,000 when Barnes was the manager for some league games, that's only 9 or 10 years ago. If they don't win regularly they don't go, as I said though Rangers are probably even more fickle than them. Edited November 12, 2009 by Stevie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? Think he's getting confused as Barnes took over after the '98 World Cup I think because I remember him having the idea of copying their 4-2-2-2 formation with the width coming from the full-backs and two attacking midfielders. That was theory anyway. I think Celtic came 4th in the early 90s when they were skint and Rangers were on a long run of consecutive titles though. No idea what gates they were getting like. Was 1999 Barnes went in as I remember we played them, well our reserves after I'd be touring round Europe, that was 1999, flew in from Amsterdam and watched Celtic v The Toon at her house in London, JB and KD has just taken over, seem to remember he didn't play wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? it is true. You'll have to look it up, but it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? it is true. You'll have to look it up, but it is true. Course its true. It's funny that he even questioned it, but that tells you about the propaganda that must exist about both clubs in Northern Ireland and Scotland. They're completely sold on the idea they're truly massive clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26574 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? What age are you Ewerk if you don't mind me asking, under 22? 1993 for one, its happened loads of times throughout their history. Generally from the mid 70s onwards even when they were doing well they'd get 6-25,000 against general Scottish sides, and 45-62,000 against Rangers and that was it. Rangers gates were even worse before Souness came in. In recent times Celtic were down to 30,000 when Barnes was the manager for some league games, that's only 9 or 10 years ago. If they don't win regularly they don't go, as I said though Rangers are probably even more fickle than them. My point was, what has John Barnes got to do with Celtic finishing 4th and getting low crowds? If you had a fucking clue then you'd realise that in 93/94 Celtic as a club were fucked. Their owners had fucked them financially, they were within 20 mins of going bust and the fans were taking part in organised boycotts of games in protest at the board. It had fuck all to do with a lack of interest in the game. And for the record I'm not a Celtic fan nor do I want them playing in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? Think he's getting confused as Barnes took over after the '98 World Cup I think because I remember him having the idea of copying their 4-2-2-2 formation with the width coming from the full-backs and two attacking midfielders. That was theory anyway. I think Celtic came 4th in the early 90s when they were skint and Rangers were on a long run of consecutive titles though. No idea what gates they were getting like. I have the Rothmans from 1994-95 when they finished 4th. I'll dig it out later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Fact is that when Celtic were managed by a string of poor managers ie John Barnes, and only finished 4th in their league, their crowds regularly dropped to 20,000 When was that like? What age are you Ewerk if you don't mind me asking, under 22? 1993 for one, its happened loads of times throughout their history. Generally from the mid 70s onwards even when they were doing well they'd get 6-25,000 against general Scottish sides, and 45-62,000 against Rangers and that was it. Rangers gates were even worse before Souness came in. In recent times Celtic were down to 30,000 when Barnes was the manager for some league games, that's only 9 or 10 years ago. If they don't win regularly they don't go, as I said though Rangers are probably even more fickle than them. My point was, what has John Barnes got to do with Celtic finishing 4th and getting low crowds? If you had a fucking clue then you'd realise that in 93/94 Celtic as a club were fucked. Their owners had fucked them financially, they were within 20 mins of going bust and the fans were taking part in organised boycotts of games in protest at the board. It had fuck all to do with a lack of interest in the game. And for the record I'm not a Celtic fan nor do I want them playing in England. so you admit that they don't always get 50,000 crowds and are as fickle as anybody else. I will dig out the stats later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now