Can we ever imagine a Scotland without the Old Firm?

[Forever_blueco]

11 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

There I see no comparison between the gap between Celtic and Rangers and the rest at the moment, and any potential gap between any of the remaining teams and the rest. Celtic and Rangers have home crowds of over 50,000, season ticket holders of over 45,000, worldwide merchandise sales, Scotland wide merchandise sales. There is no comparison in the situation with Celtic and Rangers within the Scottish football system and Celtic and Rangers leaving Scottish football. And as I’ve said previously the big win is getting rid of the bigotry and sectarianism that these two clubs bring to all of the other grounds that they visit in this country. 

The at the moment part I completely agree with. 

under the scenario being discussed then there is a possibility of a gap forming between the replacing possible big 3. Again I completely understand and agree that the gap would never be what it is now . But I do think a gap of sorts would still exist over time . Also as previously pointed out if all 3 became consistently successful then the crowds and merchandise sales would follow . Again completely agree not to the extent of what they are just now with us and the rest but a difference none the rest 

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, ol1vercloff said:

For Scottish clubs it has to be for investing in players, coaches, facilities etc to help in the push to progress to win leagues, trophies and go further in Europe.

I take your point that Livingston's chances of winning something would increase slightly if the old firm went away, but I'm not naive enough to think that we could plod along as we are and statistically, we'll probably win a cup in the next few years.  We're still miles off it compared to top 6 clubs, and money will help us catch up.

Honestly, this is utterly senseless.

If you've got more money due to the overstated TV deal, then so do the others.  Money doesn't benefit your club in isolation - I've no idea how you don't get this.

Your club's chances of success are impacted much more by relative wealth than any absolute figure.  Of course your chances of winning a Cup would be helped by the disappearance of the OF.  Every club's would be.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, Forever_blueco said:

I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong and everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions on how it will pan out 

mine is that eventually over time it will be dominated by those 3 clubs . Not to the extent of us and Celtic agreed but a gap of sorts would form over time 

You started off by saying we'd have "the same" problem as we do now.

That's just rubbish and you've been wise to row back on it.  I think there's very little reason to assume that an insurmountable gap would open.

 

[Forever_blueco]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You started off by saying we'd have "the same" problem as we do now.

That's just rubbish and you've been wise to row back on it.  I think there's very little reason to assume that an insurmountable gap would open.

 

I didn’t say we would have the same . I said what about the possibility of the same somewhere down the line  .

And people have quite rightly given their opinion on how it wouldn’t reach a point of where we are now and I find myself mostly agreeing only difference being I do think a gap of sorts would open over time . 

and that’s all there is to it really . My own opinion for a somewhat interesting hypothetical situation

[Monkey Tennis]

21 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

I didn’t say we would have the same . 

Hmmmm.  You did say this:

"Genuine question . What would be done if us and our uglier and less successful neighbours did disappear to stop in twenty or 30 years being faced with the same problem by the two Edinburgh clubs?"

 

In saying that something would need done to prevent it happening, the implication that it would otherwise happen is pretty clear.

[Forever_blueco]

27 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Hmmmm.  You did say this:

"Genuine question . What would be done if us and our uglier and less successful neighbours did disappear to stop in twenty or 30 years being faced with the same problem by the two Edinburgh clubs?"

 

In saying that something would need done to prevent it happening, the implication that it would otherwise happen is pretty clear.

Yes I asked a question and some gave their answer and made me rethink my viewpoint 

amazing how the art of communication and debate works MT isn’t it ?

[strichener]

On 07/04/2022 at 15:26, AB1872 said:

Aye the Old Firm is the problem in a country the size of Scotland having 42 ‘Senior’ clubs. 
 

Four clubs in Angus

Four or is it 5 clubs in Fife

Two clubs in the same street FFS

Rangers and Celtic bring 90% of the money into the Scottish game but it’s their fault other clubs play in front of empty stadiums every week

Well done, you have identified the root cause of the problem.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Two clubs in the same street.

[kingjoey]

4 hours ago, Forever_blueco said:

The at the moment part I completely agree with. 

under the scenario being discussed then there is a possibility of a gap forming between the replacing possible big 3. Again I completely understand and agree that the gap would never be what it is now . But I do think a gap of sorts would still exist over time . Also as previously pointed out if all 3 became consistently successful then the crowds and merchandise sales would follow . Again completely agree not to the extent of what they are just now with us and the rest but a difference none the rest 

There are “gaps” in most countries of the world, but very few, if any, as large as in Scotland. Any “gap” that appears in our hypothetical senario will not be sufficient to stop teams outwith the top three have a more than decent chance of winning the league.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Two clubs in the same street.
[emoji23]

I know it doesn't happen like this but I've always imagined the people in the odd numbered houses are all Dees with blue front doors while the even numbered ones have Orange ones

[ol1vercloff]

On 22/04/2022 at 16:10, Monkey Tennis said:

Honestly, this is utterly senseless.

If you've got more money due to the overstated TV deal, then so do the others.  Money doesn't benefit your club in isolation - I've no idea how you don't get this.

Your club's chances of success are impacted much more by relative wealth than any absolute figure.  Of course your chances of winning a Cup would be helped by the disappearance of the OF.  Every club's would be.

Is everything ok, buddy?  angry man!

I get that everyone will impacted similarly in the pocket domestically.  There is the point that some clubs will make better use of the same money as others.  But in terms of competing in Europe, extra money will really come in handy!

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, ol1vercloff said:

Is everything ok, buddy?  angry man!

I get that everyone will impacted similarly in the pocket domestically.  There is the point that some clubs will make better use of the same money as others.  But in terms of competing in Europe, extra money will really come in handy!

What about competing in er... Scotland - you're bound to have heard of it?

It's the place where all of our teams compete every single season, playing over 40 matches.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[RawB93]

On 22/04/2022 at 15:21, Trackdaybob said:

There would be competition. Something actually worth winning. 

 

This is something I was going to ask - surely without the two strongest teams in it the competition becomes less worthy of winning?

[Trackdaybob]

2 minutes ago, RawB93 said:

This is something I was going to ask - surely without the two strongest teams in it the competition becomes less worthy of winning?

All about opinions I guess. I would suggest that the same two teams winning it for evermore makes it less worthy. Because there is no competition. The league is currently (pretty much) decided over the four bigotfests. Every season. To them it's all about x in a row. Playground levels of one upmanship. Whatever floats your boat I suppose

f**k them off out of the equation and there's two, three, maybe even four teams you'd likely look at as capable. Imagine kicking off in August not actually knowing who is going to win the league? That's competition. 

You can see I'm tired of it can't you?   Easy to say after the season we've right enough. 

[RawB93]

1 minute ago, Trackdaybob said:

All about opinions I guess. I would suggest that the same two teams winning it for evermore makes it less worthy. Because there is no competition. The league is currently (pretty much) decided over the four bigotfests. Every season. To them it's all about x in a row. Playground levels of one upmanship. Whatever floats your boat I suppose

f**k them off out of the equation and there's two, three, maybe even four teams you'd likely look at as capable. Imagine kicking off in August not actually knowing who is going to win the league? That's competition. 

You can see I'm tired of it can't you?   Easy to say after the season we've right enough. 

Aye I agree it's less worthy to the OF because of the expectation on them to win it anyway, whereas any other team overcoming the OF to win the title would be amazing. Contrast that with the first season post-OF (were it to happen) where say, Aberdeen or Hearts were favourites and they indeed won the league - then who cares? It's still the favourites winning again. And it wouldn't be the historic achievement it ought to be if they'd done it this season for example.

 

[ol1vercloff]

4 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What about competing in er... Scotland - you're bound to have heard of it?

It's the place where all our teams compete ever season, playing over 40 matches.

But going by your logic, every team will be on equal points at the end of a season anyway, so why worry about it? 

[Monkey Tennis]

5 hours ago, ol1vercloff said:

But going by your logic, every team will be on equal points at the end of a season anyway, so why worry about it? 

Don't be so bloody stupid.  Is that really the best you can do?

Of course that won't be the case.  They will however start with resources that are a bit more equal than is currently the case.

It's utterly moronic to suggest that someone highlighting the gross Imbalance we currently have, must be instead insisting everything has to be completely equal.  

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, RawB93 said:

This is something I was going to ask - surely without the two strongest teams in it the competition becomes less worthy of winning?

Right, so we're currently told to believe that the title race is enthralling, that 9 or 10 in a row, or quadruple trebles are worthy targets and achievements, when the clubs' turnovers are many, many times greater than those of all but one rival.

Somehow, these things are worthy, when all they do is roll over those tiny by comparison.

And yet, you've decided that in a new set up, the first among relative equals to emerge, would not be worthy?

Jeez, that is quite some media brainwashing that you've allowed.

[MacDonald Jardine]

46 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Right, so we're currently told to believe that the title race is enthralling, that 9 or 10 in a row, or quadruple trebles are worthy targets and achievements, when the clubs' turnovers are many, many times greater than those of all but one rival.

Somehow, these things are worthy, when all they do is roll over those tiny by comparison.

And yet, you've decided that in a new set up, the first among relative equals to emerge, would not be worthy?

Jeez, that is quite some media brainwashing that you've allowed.

See all this talk about the Old Firm hoovering up trophies?

This is the Rangers that haven't won a domestic cup in their current guise aye?

[Boo Khaki]

On 22/04/2022 at 21:17, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I know it doesn't happen like this but I've always imagined the people in the odd numbered houses are all Dees while with blue front doors while the even numbered ones have Orange ones

This is how it works once you are east of Dobbies