Rangers go into Administration.

PZW

Member
Feb 26, 2012
165
0
0
strikingquartet.host22.com
Surely the same logic applies to every title rangers won in the 90's. Celtic were in nearly just as much trouble financially in the 90's as Rangers are now, until fergus mccann took over and saved the club. The Rangers fans don't see those titles as tainted or easily won. Even though they only won so many due to the massive help of: over spending, tax avoidance and paying players with undisclosed bank accounts which has now subsequently got them in this mess (and whats more it looks like all their titles since 1998 are being taken away from them)
I can't comment on the 1990s, as I don't know anything about Scottish football then, but if it was the same then I agree with you. If you are beating a side with massive financial restraints and problems, then it is not as good a win than if you win the league against other sides who have finances similar (or superior) to yours! That's just my opinion, though, before someone slates me for it!

- PZW
 

davidar

Member
Nov 20, 2009
170
0
0
46
My exact words: "They did pretty dam well to overturn the deficit".

I acknowledged that already.
Indeed, amazing how many people dont read what people post...
I DID read that part BUT I also read the rest of it as well. You know, the parts about how Celtic are being handed the title and the only reason Celtic are winning is because of the financial troubles that that other lot have.

Saying that they done well to overturn the deficit but go on about how they have been handed the title is contradictory and is basically saying that the only reason Celtic are going to win the title is because of that other clubs troubles.

Celtic are winning because of the way they have played - not because of another team choosing to not pay their taxes (or to pay anyone else for that matter).

Yes, Celtic have done brilliantly to come back from behind in the title race, but no doubt Rangers' debt and financial troubles have helped! Rangers' team, in my opinion, is not as good as Celtic's on paper, and the Gers have not signed any big names in the last few years to change that. I do understand your point, though.

​- PZW
It could be argued that Rangers team wasn't as good on paper as Celtic's for the first derby game back in September yet we got beat 4-2.

Their financial situation had, and has, nothing to do with what Celtic are doing, mate, because like I previously stated, we went from 15 points behind to 4 points in front within the space of two months and this was before the January window. The only real significant player they had out through injury was Naismith which happened at the end of October. Whittaker picked up his injury at the end of November as well so he was still a part of the main team that was losing points. The same team that had amassed the 15 point lead to begin with.

The thing is, mate, even IF they never went into administration we'd STILL be 11 points ahead of them.

Celtic are winning the league this year because of merit and nothing more.

Surely the same logic applies to every title rangers won in the 90's. Celtic were in nearly just as much trouble financially in the 90's as Rangers are now, until fergus mccann took over and saved the club. The Rangers fans don't see those titles as tainted or easily won. Even though they only won so many due to the massive help of: over spending, tax avoidance and paying players with undisclosed bank accounts which has now subsequently got them in this mess (and whats more it looks like all their titles since 1998 are being taken away from them)
Spot on
 
Last edited:

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Just an aside. AT NO POINT DO KRIS AND I WANT TO USE OF "HUN" OF THESE THREADS. While we are well aware of how it may not may not be percieved, we made it clear sometime ago we wouldn't have it. Whether you are agree or not with this is your perogative. However, this is a point that is absolutely not up for discussion.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Top