Rangers thread 2020/21

[bobbyowenquiff]

Agree , no doubt a few quid would improve both of them , but their current teams are not very good , £100m each might get them mid table

Burnley haven't reached midtable yet with five years of PL TV money. I am not saying Celtic and Rangers wouldn't get near the top eventually but it's not easy climbing up that table..even for big clubs. Look how once mighty clubs like Everton, Leeds, Villa etc have struggled over recent years. The Premier League is bloody tough. For example how well would Bayern, Barca, or Real Madrid do in England?

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Burnley haven't reached midtable yet with five years of PL TV money. I am not saying Celtic and Rangers wouldn't get near the top eventually but it's not easy climbing up that table..even for big clubs. Look how once mighty clubs like Everton, Leeds, Villa etc have struggled over recent years. The Premier League is bloody tough. For example how well would Bayern, Barca, or Real Madrid do in England?

United have gone stretches of 37 and 26 years without winning the league, and Liverpool 24, 17 and 30... Chelsea went 50 years between league titles, Villa have won the league once in the last century, and Spurs have only won it twice ever. Arsenal, who’d won the league in every decade from the 1930s onwards, didn’t win the league last decade. Newcastle haven’t won a trophy for 66 years, and Sunderland have only won one in the last 84 years. Everton haven’t won anything for 25 years, and we all know about City going 35 years.

These are all the biggest and most successful clubs in this country.

English football is an immensely difficult league system. If you aren’t run well in the boardroom for any small period of time or aren’t doing the business on the pitch or the dugout, you’re gone and easily forgotten about. There are good teams and well run clubs right down to mid table in the Championship here, anyone not ‘at it’ find themselves well down the league system. City, Leeds and both Sheffield clubs have all spent time in the third tier of football in this country, with Sunderland still there at the moment. Again, all big clubs.

Even well run clubs with a lot of money, who buy players from Champions League teams across Europe, are only bottom half teams in the Prem. These teams would easily win the league in Scotland.

Players can come here with a big reputation or with great scoring records in other leagues, as well as playing well in the CL for their previous club(s), and they come to the Prem and they’re just distinctly average. We all comment on how often we play really good Championship teams in the domestic Cups and how many of the teams we play in the Group Stage of the CL are no better than these Championship teams.

And it’s not always about money: United have spent an almost identical amount of money to City since Ferguson left them, and we’ve won the league four times to their none in that time. It’s all about how well you’re run as a club. How many fans a club has or how big a club thinks they are has pretty much no bearing at all on results in English football.

 

[BlueKolarovWorker]

United have gone stretches of 37 and 26 years without winning the league, and Liverpool 24, 17 and 30... Villa have won the league once in the last century, and Spurs have only won it twice ever. Arsenal, who’d won the league in every decade from the 1930s onwards, didn’t win the league last decade. Newcastle haven’t won a trophy for 66 years. Sunderland have only won one in the last 84 years. And we all know about City going 35 years.

These are all big clubs.

English football is an immensely difficult league system. If you aren’t run well in the boardroom for any small period of time or aren’t doing the business on the pitch or the dugout, you’re gone and easily forgotten about. There are good teams and well run clubs right down to mid table in the Championship here, anyone not ‘at it’ find themselves well down the league system. City, Leeds and both Sheffield clubs have all spent time in the third tier of football in this country, with Sunderland still there at the moment. Again, all big clubs.

Even well run clubs with a lot of money, who buy players from Champions League teams across Europe, are only bottom half teams in the Prem. These teams would easily win the league in Scotland.

Players can come here with a big reputation or with great scoring records in other leagues, as well as playing well in the CL for their previous club(s), and they come to the Prem and they’re just distinctly average. We all comment on how often we play really good Championship teams in the domestic Cups and how many of the teams we play in the Group Stage of the CL are no better than these Championship teams.

And it’s not always about money: United have spent an almost identical amount of money to City since Ferguson left them, and we’ve won the league four times to their none in that time. It’s all about how well you’re run as a club. How many fans a club has or how big a club thinks they are has pretty much no bearing at all on results in English football.

This is a great post mate and on a separate matter sums up what frustrates me about the "history" bollocks spouted by all and sundry. Certainly in the the English game, lots of dogs have had their day but only a few seem worthy of the title "history clubs".

Long term, sustained success is extremely difficult to achieve unless the disparity between the teams is so wide that it almost can't be helped. You could (and I do) argue that Utd's success more recently was a fluke. They had a group of decent kids who came through at the same time and an OK manager but primarily, their initial success coincided with the rise of the premier league and changes in the champions league format which allowed them to take advantage of such a financial disparity. Once that substantial advantage was eroded (despite FFP), they have fallen back into the pack.

Anyway, back on topic, if Celtic and Rangers had always been in the English league, they may have won a few trophies, possibly the league a few times but they would be no bigger than City, Newcastle or Leeds. They simply wouldn't have accrued the fanbase that the decades old, two horse race has allowed them to build up as a result of their success.

 

[LongsightM13]

This is a great post mate and on a separate matter sums up what frustrates me about the "history" bollocks spouted by all and sundry. Certainly in the the English game, lots of dogs have had their day but only a few seem worthy of the title "history clubs".

Long term, sustained success is extremely difficult to achieve unless the disparity between the teams is so wide that it almost can't be helped. You could (and I do) argue that Utd's success more recently was a fluke. They had a group of decent kids who came through at the same time and an OK manager but primarily, their initial success coincided with the rise of the premier league and changes in the champions league format which allowed them to take advantage of such a financial disparity. Once that substantial advantage was eroded (despite FFP), they have fallen back into the pack.

Anyway, back on topic, if Celtic and Rangers had always been in the English league, they may have won a few trophies, possibly the league a few times but they would be no bigger than City, Newcastle or Leeds. They simply wouldn't have accrued the fanbase that the decades old, two horse race has allowed them to build up as a result of their success.

And conversely Celtic would have eaten into the large Irish diaspora fanbases of united and liverpool, weakening them both financially over the decades

 

[eyalluvitt]

Anyone else remember the singing "Celtic Rangers" on the Kippax back in the 70's, sometimes it would just go on and on.

Yes,& I had both hats during my confused teenage years.

 

[Bluesince1979]

Yes,& I had both hats during my confused teenage years.

Oh yes. But with the bobble taken off so it had to points

rangers for me

 

[GunnerGer]

Just watched the Rangers game and they were absolute shite , if they are 20 odd points ahead how bad are the rest of them ? , if Rangers and Celtic got their wish and entered the premier league they would both be relegated they would make Sheff Utd look like PSG.Bayern/Juventus all rolled into one.

It really is a daft argument. You watch 1 game where they dropped their first points in 16 games & make a decision on them based on that. Also, ignoring their European record where they've topped a group containing Benfica & have had positive results vs the likes of Galatasaray, Porto, Braga & Feyenoord?

 

[Ban-jani]

Yes,& I had both hats during my confused teenage years.

They’re an absolute abomination.

 

[Cellarite]

They’re an absolute abomination.

They didn't seem to be back in the day but yes, I can see what you're saying now.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

It really is a daft argument. You watch 1 game where they dropped their first points in 16 games & make a decision on them based on that. Also, ignoring their European record where they've topped a group containing Benfica & have had positive results vs the likes of Galatasaray, Porto, Braga & Feyenoord?

also watched the rangers v celtic game , absolute garbage , the european teams you mention are hardly european giants any championship team would give them a game , the standard of scottish football is terrible