Yep. I've stated several reasons why and some people appear to be quite stubborn in their disagreement. Some of you need to step back and evaluate Celtic and Rangers again because they're genuinely great clubs and it's a shame they're being so undervalued.
The Old Firm Derby
- Thread starter evra
- Start date
Yep. I've stated several reasons why and some people appear to be quite stubborn in their disagreement. Some of you need to step back and evaluate Celtic and Rangers again because they're genuinely great clubs and it's a shame they're being so undervalued.
Do you have any idea how many fans both have worldwide?
Newcastle and Villa couldn't begin to compete with the fanbase of either Glasgow clubs.
If United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Everton, Tottenham, Rangers, and Celtic all got the stadiums they want then I think Rangers and Celtic would be just behind everyone in that list except Everton. Without those new stadiums though, I think they would be ahead of all but Liverpool, United and Arsenal.
Incidental this would be my list of the biggest British clubs: Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Celtic, Rangers, Chelsea, Tottenham, Everton then onto Newcastle, Aston Villa, Man City, Leeds, Middlesborough etc.
No doubt everyone will rage about this but tough that's my list. The Old Firm have a massive world wide support, but having fans in Australia isn't useful if they aren't paying. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they end up playing League games around the world, the first league to do so.
Could easily include them with that lot in levels of support.
Celtic certainly have massive support in Australia, Far East and America just for starters.
Correction. They were Great clubs
There is no denying that they would sell a lot of merchandise
However, both clubs have degenerated finanically, season on season. They both need a massive cash investment. IF they were put into the EPL tomorrow, it would probably take them 10 seasons to catchup to compete at top 6 level
There is no denying that they would sell a lot of merchandise
However, both clubs have degenerated finanically, season on season. They both need a massive cash investment. IF they were put into the EPL tomorrow, it would probably take them 10 seasons to catchup to compete at top 6 level
Do you have any idea how many fans both have worldwide?
Newcastle and Villa couldn't begin to compete with the fanbase of either Glasgow clubs.
I meant in terms of how they would fare in the PL
I did not even mention fanbases.
Fair enough. I'd agree with that...
I think they'd struggle initially as people have said.
I'm not sure they'd break into the top four after 5 years like folk think they will.
I think it would take much longer for them to break that...if they do at all.
I agree with this.
I think it would take them at least that long to compete at the high level.
Especially looking towards a top 4.
Unless they have Cityesque type investment.
In the Prem I think given a few years to adapt and attract new players they would do well, challenging for 4th at least. They're huge clubs, great stadiums which they'd fill most weeks if they were playing in the Premiership, that itself would help a lot.
Will never ever happen though. If they were to start from the bottom and get promoted to the top I don't think most would have a problem with it but they'd never be allowed to just join automatically in the Prem or Championship.
Will never ever happen though. If they were to start from the bottom and get promoted to the top I don't think most would have a problem with it but they'd never be allowed to just join automatically in the Prem or Championship.
Undoubtedly. They come in 12th and 22nd place in the list of Average attendances of European football clubs for 2010-11. Although as someone pointed out earlier they achieve these huge attendances whilst playing the likes of Hamilton Academical and St Mirren! I'd love to see how English clubs would fare with such fixtures.
Average attendances of European football clubs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's no way Rangers are there, the Jock Stein era and to a much lesser extent the Martin O'Neil era have given Celtic a higher profile.
It was a decent game. I've seen much better Old Firm games in the past, but it wasn't exactly a bad game either.
I think that Celtic were also in firm control of the game. They never looked like they were going to go out and destroy Rangers, however they looked comfortable at the same time.
Celtic's defence started out shakily, but gradually found their way into the game and played superbly. Rogne was very commanding at centre half, while Ledley did a great job of containing Aluko and keeping him quiet. I was surprised that either of them didn't pick up man of the match, and that Forrest did. He was certainly involved in the game, but I felt that he was more frustrating rather than anything else at times.
I was, once again, very disappointed with Jelavic. Non-existent for the majority of the game, and right now, he doesn't look like a player who would be able to cut it in the Premier League at all, nevermind at a big club.
As for the denied goal earlier on, it should have been a goal. Despite that, nobody can be blamed for it. The situation was impossible to judge at a normal speed. It was an incident that really cried out for goalline technology. Rangers can't have too many complaints though. Healy should have seen a straight red, while I've seen red cards given for McCulloch's challenge recently, such as Spearing's challenge.
I think that Celtic were also in firm control of the game. They never looked like they were going to go out and destroy Rangers, however they looked comfortable at the same time.
Celtic's defence started out shakily, but gradually found their way into the game and played superbly. Rogne was very commanding at centre half, while Ledley did a great job of containing Aluko and keeping him quiet. I was surprised that either of them didn't pick up man of the match, and that Forrest did. He was certainly involved in the game, but I felt that he was more frustrating rather than anything else at times.
I was, once again, very disappointed with Jelavic. Non-existent for the majority of the game, and right now, he doesn't look like a player who would be able to cut it in the Premier League at all, nevermind at a big club.
As for the denied goal earlier on, it should have been a goal. Despite that, nobody can be blamed for it. The situation was impossible to judge at a normal speed. It was an incident that really cried out for goalline technology. Rangers can't have too many complaints though. Healy should have seen a straight red, while I've seen red cards given for McCulloch's challenge recently, such as Spearing's challenge.
I'd agree with alot of that but....Boro???
Not a chance. I'd have both Sheffield clubs, Forest, Sunderland, West Ham, Birmingham City, Norwich, Southampton etc well ahead of Boro.
While it can be argued that the Old Firm would generate a lot of revenue in England, is there any guarantee that the fans would continue to pour in? Sure, at the moment they may turn up to see them against dour opposition, but why do they do that? They do it, because invariably, the Old Firm will almost always win comfortably. That's why they go. I could imagine many Old Firm fans becoming disgruntled if they're turning up for games which their side is unlikely to actually win.
Them being in the Premier League would make for some absolutely epic away days.
I doubt whether some towns and cities could actually cope with the influx of Celtic and Rangers support though!
I doubt whether some towns and cities could actually cope with the influx of Celtic and Rangers support though!
Appalling game of football last night. League 1 or 2 standard
I doubt most Cities would want them to be fair
Oh dear.
Some of you are underestimating the size of these clubs.
You have to remember Celtic were the first British club to win the Eurpean Cup. They did it before we did. They were also the first British club to reach two finals.
Their attendances would match if not beat any team in England. Celtic hold Europes club record attendance (136,000 v Leeds).
Size isn't the thing though
Celtic and Rangers are Light Years behind the top clubs in England. They'd need Sheikh Mansour money to challenge for the English title.
I genuinely hope that we never see either Celtic or Rangers in the Premier League. It wouldn't do anyone in the UK any good giving that element of fans comprised of sectarian Travellers a bigger platform from which to be heard.
Let them rot away in Scotland forever where no-one cares about them except themselves.
Let them rot away in Scotland forever where no-one cares about them except themselves.
Rangers and Celtic bigger than Spurs and Chelsea who play week in week out in the most watched league in the world and possibly in the Champions league too? Sorry but no, just no.
I know a cub's size is judged on many things but look at the players those two Scottish clubs can afford or attract compared to Chelsea and Spurs etc. Spurs team in that league would DESTROY them all but them into ours would not even be top 10. They may have 53 league titles or whatever but its a 50% chance of them winning it, unless Ferguson goes back to Scotland that is, so the 'most successful' team in the world banners are void and laughable IMO. They're a big fish, in a real small pond, so they look massive, but they aren't.
That's not really a fair comment IMO because English clubs are ALREADY used to the Premier league, Championship etc level of competition so of course putting them in the SPL would look dull to supporters. To compare you'd have to give Rangers a fixture list versus teams from Angola or something,
then see how their attendances are. The debate of "what if" always crops up about the Scottish clubs in regard to being in our league but people just over look how two of the three biggest clubs in England in terms of history/fanbase and ££worth haven't won the title for ages now. They can't get near it. Liverpool just spent nearly £100m on players recently, have all the history and fans and they sit 6th place, way off the pace, so far....
Rangers/Celtic might get PL TV money and be able to bump ticket prices up a bit but they'd not be getting any CL money or prize money that's for sure. The grass isn't always greener on the other side. Anyway, I'm glad they're not allowed in.
Someone already noted that the bottom team in the PL gets more tv money than the whole of the SPL combined, that really says it all.
I think Rangers and Celtic are bigger than Spurs. I'd tend to look more at fanbase and history, both clubs have huge followings and Celtic are a European Cup winner.
Rangers and Celtic bigger than Spurs and Chelsea who play week in week out in the most watched league in the world and possibly in the Champions league too? Sorry but no, just no.
I know a cub's size is judged on many things but look at the players those two Scottish clubs can afford or attract compared to Chelsea and Spurs etc. Spurs team in that league would DESTROY them all but them into ours would not even be top 10. They may have 53 league titles or whatever but its a 50% chance of them winning it, unless Ferguson goes back to Scotland that is, so the 'most successful' team in the world banners are void and laughable IMO. They're a big fish, in a real small pond, so they look massive, but they aren't.
That's not really a fair comment IMO because English clubs are ALREADY used to the Premier league, Championship etc level of competition so of course putting them in the SPL would look dull to supporters. To compare you'd have to give Rangers a fixture list versus teams from Angola or something,
The debate of "what if" always crops up about the Scottish clubs in regard to being in our league but people just over look how two of the three biggest clubs in England in terms of history/fanbase and ££worth haven't won the title for ages now. They can't get near it. Liverpool just spent nearly £100m on players recently, have all the history and fans and they sit 6th place, way off the pace, so far....
Rangers/Celtic might get PL TV money and be able to bump ticket prices up a bit but they'd not be getting any CL money or prize money that's for sure. The grass isn't always greener on the other side. Anyway, I'm glad they're not allowed in.
This is amongst the worst thought out posts I've ever read. Congratulations.
No, playing in the Premier League every week makes them bigger. Wigan are a much bigger club too.
Well its up to the SPL to do something about it then, find better sponsors, make the league more entertaining and then haggle better TV deals. Not look up at the English league and cry about it.
The best leagues get the most money and best players etc. its not rocket science. I'm sure many smaller teams in the SPL moan about the same thing with regards to how they can't match Rangers/Celtic.
I know what you mean, if you gave Spurs and Chelsea decent sized stadiums then they would be above Rangers at least for sure, but Rangers have better attendances and more world wide fans than both those clubs, even in a shit league. Stick them in the Premier League and in a few years they could be "bigger" than both (not in terms of results)
Looking at attendances, you are right about Middlesborough. I've been to a few Middlesborough games over the last few years, watching their opposition with friends, and their travelling support are always very vocal even when losing. Along with the UEFA Cup final and League Cup final, somehow I have them as being bigger than they are.
Nottingham Forrest have two European cups. Villa have one.
Thanks.
Now you're just being silly mate. We're talking about Chelsea here, sure they've not won as many titles as the big three but since Harding and Abramovich they've become a big well known team around the world. I seriously doubt many European teams supporters would be more excited about drawing Rangers than Chelsea.
Depends on your definition of a 'big club'. Very few people would have such a temporal definition to include the likes of Wigan, a club which weren't founded until 1932 and have only spent five season of its entire history in the top flight. Most people would base it on fanbase and history. And if Wigan were to remain in the top tier for the next 50 years, win some silverware, and get some fans, then maybe they could be considered as a big club.
Turning the hypothetical around, how many English clubs would compete for the title in Scotland - with the resources available to Scottish clubs? Top five and that would be it.
Turning the hypothetical around, how many English clubs would compete for the title in Scotland - with the resources available to Scottish clubs? Top five and that would be it.
You don't think Liverpool would compete in Scotland?
Nottingham Forrest have two European cups. Villa have one.
Thanks.
Now you're just being silly mate. We're talking about Chelsea here, sure they've not won as many titles as the big three but since Harding and Abramovich they've become a big well known team around the world. I seriously doubt many European teams supporters would be more excited about drawing Rangers than Chelsea.
So having a sugar daddy makes you a bigger club? Think about what you're saying. Chelsea are currently having their little spell of prominence brought solely by outside money and that makes them bigger? Go back in history and Celtic/Rangers have always been the bigger draw.
It was you who insinuated playing in a bigger league and having more money made you a bigger club. It was an incredibly stupid point to make.
You also downplay their European achievement by saying Forest and Villa have won in Europe. What you're neglecting or don't know due to lack of intelligence is Celtic and Rangers trounce those clubs in terms of support. Though they have no money and play in a shit league so none of that matters.
Number two in least well thought out posts. Congratulations.
I wonder why the SPL haven't sought out better sponsors and more TV money. It's so simple even Claymore can come up with it.
No, it was JUST one point I made that YOU picked on and then used Wigan of all teams. Now people are actually having a debate about Wigan,
all because you went OTT. Even the style in which you quoted one of my posts was silly, just because I clashed with your view. Insults and the like. It may be a sugar daddy situation but Chelsea are a far bigger draw than Rangers. I mean even when we play them in Europe the only thing the press try make out of it is this 'battle of Britain'. Chelsea have won league titles in a big league, played big fixtures, being in a CL final recently, have a decent sized stadium, have better players by miles, play in a huge city and have won a fair amount of trophies, they tick many boxes. Historically no they may not be bigger, but to me now, they are. Rangers year in year out do nothing.
For the Glasgow clubs its a bit like Ajax are these days, except they were never quite that special IMO. Everything about Rangers or Celtic is what if.....
All my point was, is that in Scotland the big two clubs always dominate but here in England its not the case. Look a United's latest challenger. Its mental and that is why they wouldn't walk to the title or be in top 5 so easy as many of their fans put it. Sure TV money helps, any money but I don't think United have won 12 out of 19 just because of money alone. You need many things, some of which are special, like Ferguson for example.
Keep echoing that snotty line all you wish. PL is bigger than SPL and United, Arsenal, Liverpool dwarf those Glasgow clubs. They aren't getting in our league. End of.
United, Liverpool, Arsenal. If Tottenham and Chelsea got new stadiums, then add them to the list, and after them come Everton, Newcastle and Villa.
I think that is a good way of looking at it by the way.
Just had a quick look up and is it correct that no team has won the title in Scotland since 1985? Any SPL buffs confirm that? Wow just wow.
So basically how Rangers and Celtic fans feel about the Premier league money is how all the other clubs in the SPL feel about them season after season. Funny that.
So basically how Rangers and Celtic fans feel about the Premier league money is how all the other clubs in the SPL feel about them season after season. Funny that.
Keep echoing that snotty line all you wish. PL is bigger than SPL and United, Arsenal, Liverpool dwarf those Glasgow clubs. They aren't getting in our league. End of.
I will thanks.
Who argued the English league wasn't bigger?
Do Chelsea dwarf them too? All becuase they have a rich benefactor?
No, it was JUST one point I made that YOU picked on and then used Wigan of all teams. Now people are actually having a debate about Wigan,
It may be a sugar daddy situation but Chelsea are a far bigger draw than Rangers. I mean even when we play them in Europe the only thing the press try make out of it is this 'battle of Britain'. Chelsea have won league titles in a big league, played big fixtures, being in a CL final recently, have a decent sized stadium, have better players by miles, play in a huge city and have won a fair amount of trophies, they tick many boxes. Historically no they may not be bigger, but to me now, they are. Rangers year in year out do nothing.
For the Glasgow clubs its a bit like Ajax are these days, except they were never quite that special IMO. Everything about Rangers or Celtic is what if.....
All my point was, is that in Scotland the big two clubs always dominate but here in England its not the case. Look a United's latest challenger. Its mental and that is why they wouldn't walk to the title or be in top 5 so easy as many of their fans put it. Sure TV money helps, any money but I don't think United have won 12 out of 19 just because of money alone. You need many things, some of which are special, like Ferguson for example.
All those things Chelsea have achieved could just as easily be acheived by any team with the same financial backing. You are not strengthening your argument. Quite the opposite.
Lets use your argument about bigger draws. Fulham are a bigger draw, played in bigger fixtures recently etc than West Ham. West Ham are still the bigger club. There's plenty of examples like that.
You've also created a myth here that fans of Rangers and Celtic think they would walk to a title or into the top five. Where have they said that? I'll save you the bother of looking, they didn't. They said with similar funding they could easily compete. Without realising it you're only serving to confirm their opinion. After all Chelsea weren't historically a big club but money has made them a challenger. Same goes for City. So with similar funding and bigger fanbases why wouldn't the Glasgow clubs compete?