I've heard that said so many times, and I just don't buy it. Rangers didn't sign a catholic player until nearly the end of the 20th century and when they did the fans burned their scarfs. How thats not worse then I'm a little baffled. We'll have to wait and see what happens to the rest of scottish football, but it could be a good thing.
Rangers into liquidation before the season ends?
- Thread starter maxy67
- Start date
- Replies 116
- Views 16K
- Status
I've heard that said so many times, and I just don't buy it. Rangers didn't sign a catholic player until nearly the end of the 20th century and when they did the fans burned their scarfs. How thats not worse then I'm a little baffled. We'll have to wait and see what happens to the rest of scottish football, but it could be a good thing.
You have moved the discussion on whether the Old Firm holds the SPL together to hating (mostly on Rangers) on the teams for Sectarianism. Btw did I mention that I want all Spanish sides to stop chanting like monkeys at players of African descent, also I wish for the Russians to stop throwing bananas at Roberto Carlos.... Every league has it's problems that need to stop!
Sectarianism is a problem in the Old Firm no one is denying that, but it takes 2 to tango and Celtic are not innocent,you cannot peg Rangers as the only ones to cause trouble and if you want to condemn them for sectarianism then Celtic has to go to.
Dont try to paint Celtic as the better of 2 evils, you are both just as bad as each other and yet the irony is you need each other to remain remotely successful in the modern game, funny that huh?
Sectarianism is a problem in the Old Firm no one is denying that, but it takes 2 to tango and Celtic are not innocent,you cannot peg Rangers as the only ones to cause trouble and if you want to condemn them for sectarianism then Celtic has to go to.
Dont try to paint Celtic as the better of 2 evils, you are both just as bad as each other and yet the irony is you need each other to remain remotely successful in the modern game, funny that huh?
Celtic do not have a problem with sectarianism.
When Celtic were on the brink of closing Rangers themselves tried to put the nail in the coffin. Why should we care that their cheating and crime has led to their own possible liquidation? The only thing we'll miss is beating them. The SPL in total gets about £13m TV money per season, split between 12 clubs. It isn't the be all and end all of Scottish football like it is in England.
When Celtic were on the brink of closing Rangers themselves tried to put the nail in the coffin. Why should we care that their cheating and crime has led to their own possible liquidation? The only thing we'll miss is beating them. The SPL in total gets about £13m TV money per season, split between 12 clubs. It isn't the be all and end all of Scottish football like it is in England.
I won't argue with a lot of that because its pointless and you sound like you don't know all the facts, but the last time i checked most people did want those things that you mentioned to stop so i have no idea what your point is, they're all horrible examples... but in response to all the stuff about TV deals etc etc- i think the number is 2 million each. Thats how much celtic and rangers get each from the tv rights, celtics turnover was around 75 million last season and rangers 65 million. Both clubs rely on gate income and merchendising- So I don't think they do rely on each other, because fans would both probably turn up to see their side play anyone and buy the shirts regardless of how bad their side is.
Last edited:
To think the league can survive without Rangers competition is naive. Just because it has happened in the past is irrelevant, TV money was far less significant than it is now, where it is now a major or the biggest revenue stream on a balance sheet. The SPL itself doesn't have the money to pump into the league to enable more competition. The league would be in dire straits. You're incredibly naive/blind to think anything but.
I wouldn't argue with Sarcasm either.
Good luck maintaining such merchandising and keeping ticket prices high when Celtic win everything with Rangers gone. Guarantee you, people wont keep forking out all that money when there is no competition.
And SPL clubs are far less richer than English clubs. It's about percentages.
You made 10.7m from media/commercial activity in 2010 and a turnover of 60m. If you think you can carry on losing 1/6 of your income, you're delusional.
Let alone the fact that the quality of players will become less and less. Merchandising would undoubtedly take a hit as well.
If Rangers do go bust, at least there will be the hilarious fallout of watching Celtic fans watching their 'dream' turn into a nightmare.
Oh, and without Rangers, less players will be interested in joining an even lesser competitive league. Meaning your already small chances in Europe dwindle further. CL revenue is a major player in terms of added gate receipts and the raw money just for competing in it.
We didn't qualify for the CL in 2010, which cost us about £10m. The quality of player would become less, and in turn so would transfer fees and wages. I'm not denying Rangers dying would hurt the SPL financially, but Celtic do not need Rangers.
broxi713
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 620
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Scottish football without Rangers would be all but dead, You Celtic fans would love it for a few seasons winning title after title (since you've not had much league success in recent years 
)
TV money is not a lot ok, but it would still be a loss in revenue , attendances at Celtic Park would gradually go down each season another loss in revenue, no point in punters paying £500+ for a season ticket to win league by December then watch friendly match's for next 5 months.
I keep reading about how competitive Scottish football was in the 1980's...C'mon it was a 10 year purple patch, the history books more or less tell us that Scottish football has always been about the Old Firm..54 titles for Rangers, 42 titles for Celtic and the rest have a combined total of 19 titles between them all. So stop talking ***** about Scottish football being more competitive without Rangers.
)TV money is not a lot ok, but it would still be a loss in revenue , attendances at Celtic Park would gradually go down each season another loss in revenue, no point in punters paying £500+ for a season ticket to win league by December then watch friendly match's for next 5 months.
I keep reading about how competitive Scottish football was in the 1980's...C'mon it was a 10 year purple patch, the history books more or less tell us that Scottish football has always been about the Old Firm..54 titles for Rangers, 42 titles for Celtic and the rest have a combined total of 19 titles between them all. So stop talking ***** about Scottish football being more competitive without Rangers.
So you have £10.7m in media/commercial revenue. £10m in CL revenue. That's 30% in your revenue gone. You're gonna make that up in lost transfer fees/wages? Dream on. You hardly spend big now anyway.
You need Rangers. Deal with it.
And you're yet to support your argument with a single number, making it meaningless theory.
And as players get worse, SPL clubs do worse in Europe, get less continental spots, and the financial ball keeps rolling. From less continental spots there's less chance to make money off Europe. Less money in Europe = worse players, because you can't afford to pay them. Worse players means a worse league, that won't be able to compete for European places at all.
It's a slippery slope, and it is likely to happen if Rangers go under. You can say 'Celtic don't need Rangers' all you want, but you also need to specify in what sense. If you mean 'Celtic don't need Rangers to win the league', you're absolutely right. If you mean 'Celtic don't need Rangers to keep the SPL viable and growing as a league', then you're dead wrong.
We can still qualify for the Champions League. We've spent £35m on transfers since 2006, that is spending big. It's generally accepted that it is almost inevitable that Rangers will go into administration so we'll see what happens and we'll see if we need Rangers. Our best period as a football club came when Rangers were winning nothing.
@Broxi, We're going to be winning title after title by December with or without you in the SPL
Good luck qualifying for the Champions League when you literally can't due to poor performance from Scottish clubs in Europe.
We can still qualify for the Champions League. We've spent £35m on transfers since 2006, that is spending big. It's generally accepted that it is almost inevitable that Rangers will go into administration so we'll see what happens and we'll see if we need Rangers. Our best period as a football club came when Rangers were winning nothing.
@Broxi, We're going to be winning title after title by December with or without you in the SPL
And you've made that money back roughly in CL revenue alone in that period. How do you intend to spend so big if you lose that? How you don't see the slippery slope it leads to is beyond me.
Ignorance is bliss
We've made that money back by not spending what we dont have, we have recieved more transfer fees than spent. You obviously don't really know much about the subject, your mind is made up.
Don't insult my intelligence. I have detailed accounts of your past 4 trading years to base whatever I say off. You don't think your net transfer spend was inflated a bit by a certain Aiden McGeady?
Whatever you say, your CL revenue ~ transfer spend in the same period. It's an inescapable mathematical fact, you don't make money by not spending it, you save it. There's a difference. A big one. To make money you have to earn money, we're talking AT LEAST 2/7 of your current revenue (which is generous) which is also assuming a good season. What happens if you have ONE bad season? You have nothing to fall back on.
The whole thing's a pack of cards, and Rangers are the glue at the bottom.
- Status