Every other top flight manager - top 2 with Celtic or Rangers?

[Dons_1988]

15 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

You misunderstand what I mean by unflinching maybe it’s the wrong choice of wording however I take exception to being told how I should think, feel or indeed behave towards my football team by people who presume to know what it must be like without having experienced what I have. My aspirations for my team or opinions seem to count for less just because I’m a Celtic fan . I find that pretty condescending and not really a great foundation to start a debate, that’s not a specific call out towards you just a generalisation. If that’s closed mindedness then fair enough 

And to be clear I’ve never said the fundamental structure of Scottish football should remain how it is however what I’ve gotten from these debates in the past is that whilst people are genuinely interested in creating competition and closing the gap is that the only feasible way to do that is to cap what we can earn, distribute more of our revenue etc which will close a gap but also increases one to Europe and with big portions of our turnover coming from Europe impacting our ability to earn from those completions results in less to share to a point where it likely over time becomes non-existent.

Again I appreciate Europe may not be a priority for every club but it is for Celtic and Rangers fans and if you want them to engage you have to offer a solution that also affords them opportunity to grow in that space too but I’ve not seen an idea yet that does all of that with the exception of us finding a home elsewhere and then Scottish football can adopt the NFL type model many are keen on. 

So if you have a solution that closes the financial gap in Scottish Football whilst improving Scottish Clubs performances in Europe and closing in some way that particular gap then I’m happy to listen 

 

 

I’m not that interested in the European thing because the finances there have been the catalyst for destroying domestic competitions. 

You must surely accept though that at some point sporting achievement is devalued by the conditions that it’s played out in. 

Have you ever played 5 a sides and after 20 minutes one side is 4-0 up? Do you suggest making the teams fairer because it’s not that much fun or…do you keep those teams every week for the next 10 years and just let the same scenario play out over and over and over again to varying degrees?

 

[djchapsticks]

I noticed before the Cyprus-Spain double header that a lot of 'supporters' on social media were openly lamenting rewarding Stevie Clarke with a new Scotland contract.

These were almost exclusively Rangers and Celtic supporters who were lambasting the decision of 'rewarding mediocrity' as if Clarke hasn't been the most successful manager we've had in around three decades. I'm not saying that all OF team fans were dissenting but nearly all dissenters were of that persuasion.

This is, to me, what supporting Rangers and Celtic and not often experiencing actual rough times can do to you. The absolute steadfast refusal to accept progress and wanting the finished product yesterday. The majority of non-OF team fans (and to give at least some dues, a fair amount of Rangers and Celtic fans too) are chuffed with the progress of the national side over the last few years. 

Scottish football is at an impasse it will probably never work it's way out of. Celtic and Rangers supporters feel that other clubs' lack of ambition stifles competition, other supporters argue that lack of competitiveness stems from a massive imbalance of finances that the OF benefit from in a hugely lopsided way. Both have a chip on the shoulder about each other and probably both with some merit.

I had a Celtic fan on twitter, not two days ago, commenting that St. Mirren's transfer record fee of pulling in £850k for Ian Ferguson 35 years ago 'says a lot about Scottish football' and I asked him to clarify what he meant. He then started going on about St. Mirren not pulling in fees for players due to not being ambitious and I pointed out that 1) That's then a St. Mirren issue and a known one - we've a history of selling our best players too cheaply as contracts run down and 2) It doesn't reflect on Scottish football as a whole. So I asked him how that can improve in his eyes, maybe he had a ground breaking innovative idea that would pull us back onto a more level playing field.

His grand argument - his one man think-tank to improve Scottish football for the better? 'Scout better players and sell them for more money, then you'll have more money.' I mean just fucking.....WOW.

To back this up, he then pulled up a transfermarkt list of Celtic's record sales as if it was some sort of zinger. An impressive enough sales list to be fair but a list nonetheless that cost Celtic several million pounds to get on board in the first place and then turn into profit. 

[Jinky67]

24 minutes ago, LiviLion said:

Life's losers desperately trying to make these things out to be "achievements" because it's the only thing that makes them feel like anything other than a, well, loser. Like when new Rangers fans/staff were demanding MORE credit for spending millions to get out of League 1 and 2.

Well thankfully we don’t need you to validate it for us mate. 

 

[Durnford]

Much as I struggle to understand the various Celtic supporting posters here; they have tried to argue the point in a reasoned and non-arrogant manner which should be recognised. This is a forum which replies on us having differing views else there's very little to talk about.

Getting back the the original point of the thread though; does anyone really think that the likes of Gerard or Lennon could have done the job in a cash hungry club such as pretty much anyone outside the old firm; maybe Aberdeen and the Edinburgh clubs. Could they have driven Motherwell to a point of safety? Could they have ensured that United avoid the drop?

Frankly I doubt it and yet they were virtually guaranteed of ending up in the top two basically down to the sheer buying power and size of the squad.

As an old firm manager it seems you don't need to be an excellent manager; just better than the one on the other side of Glasgow. I'm not saying that of the current managers necessarily but they've both had some real doozies in the past and still ended up in the top two.

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Durnford

[Jinky67]

14 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I’m not that interested in the European thing because the finances there have been the catalyst for destroying domestic competitions. 

You must surely accept though that at some point sporting achievement is devalued by the conditions that it’s played out in. 

Have you ever played 5 a sides and after 20 minutes one side is 4-0 up? Do you suggest making the teams fairer because it’s not that much fun or…do you keep those teams every week for the next 10 years and just let the same scenario play out over and over and over again to varying degrees?

 

I appreciate you may not be interested in Europe but the people you are trying to engage in this conversation are so you have to be considerate of their views if you ever want to get their buy in. If you are closing yourself off you become what you say I am which makes us not that different after all.

I‘ve never ever felt that I don’t get value from my football, if I did I wouldn’t pay for it but football isn’t just about sport now which is sad but the reality. The commercial and business side is a major influence and I don’t see how you would ever convince multi million pound owners and investors to take a course of action that sees their share price plummet. There has to be something in it for them and I doubt that just swimming in our own pond will be good enough, they will always be aspirations to emulate 67 no matter how much of a pipe dream it may be.

The best outcome for Scottish football is a solution that allows Celtic and Rangers to compete outwith Scottish football. Will the other clubs flourish without us? I have no idea but it seems we would all be happier 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Jinky67

[Antiochas III]

1 minute ago, Jinky67 said:

I appreciate you may not be interested in Europe but the people you are trying to engage in this conversation are so you have to be considerate of their views if you ever want to get their buy in. If you are closing yourself off you become what you say I am which makes us not that different after all.

Are Celtic fans keen on Europe?  I remember you all being estatic winning Trebles etc. while being punted left and right in Europe.  While lesser teams in Europe actually made some noise.  

 

Is Ange going to have question marks again if he ends a Champions League Campaign with 0 wins and over -10 goal difference?  

[Jinky67]

4 minutes ago, Antiochas III said:

Are Celtic fans keen on Europe?  I remember you all being estatic winning Trebles etc. while being punted left and right in Europe.  While lesser teams in Europe actually made some noise.  

 

Is Ange going to have question marks again if he ends a Champions League Campaign with 0 wins and over -10 goal difference?  

I can’t speak for everyone but it’s definitely something I’m keen on. The domestic success has to serve as a foundation to build on or what is the point? In the 00’s we reached a European final and managed to get ourselves out of the Champions League group stages as well as turning over some big sides pretty regularly. Those games mattered and not just seen as a cash cow.

 

[djchapsticks]

9 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

The best outcome for Scottish football is a solution that allows Celtic and Rangers to compete outwith Scottish football. Will the other clubs flourish without us? I have no idea but it seems we would all be happier 

Flourish? Who knows? It would certainly find it's level though one way or another and I genuinely believe that there are enough fans in Scotland of non-OF sides that it would remain competitive and at a relatively strong level. Most clubs like Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs would get an instant boost as they would then be expecting to go for championships but all three already play to near capacity. Motherwell, St. Mirren, St. Johnstone, the Dundee sides and Killie would also probably see modest boosts as we'd all be expecting to be contenders in the long term as well. Existing supporters won't disappear overnight if Rangers and Celtic play elsewhere as believe it or not, neither club is a draw to a non-OF club fan. No club's fans look at Rangers or Celtic on the calendar and mark it as a 'cannot miss' fixture.

The long-term attendance and level problems would be found in generations from now when future generations of supporters not yet born, choose to support the Scottish football system, or the bells and whistles money-bloated English football system unfortunately as I do genuinely believe that within 10 years and with English level money floating about, Rangers and Celtic would probably both be upper level top flight mainstays and likely billionaire owned. (As would Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen be high up in the English football pyramid after a few years with the funds floating about down there - nobody is going to convince me that somewhere like Leicester or Wolverhampton is a more attractive city to ply your trade in than Edinburgh if all financial aspects are equal).

It's well known that Scottish football is the most well supported per capita in all of Europe and again, a conversation with a Rangers fan on Twitter a while back led to 'Aye but without us....'.

I shot his argument down with numbers and showed that even without the OF and their estimated travelling supports, Scottish football still ranked third in Europe's top flights behind only the Netherlands and Iceland and that was before replacing Rangers and Celtic with two clubs from the division below, which would have pushed them back up again. At that point they pretty much accepted that Scottish football isn't really underperforming and actually does have an active and healthy numbered fan base on the whole. There is a lot rhetoric about 'If you did this or that you'd sell out grounds' but that is complete pie in the sky. We need to realise that Scotland is not exactly a populated part of either the UK or Europe. Towns with populations of 30-50k people are the norm and in fact, pulling in crowds of 5-6k in towns the size of Dunfermline, Perth, Motherwell and Kilmarnock is actually not bad and has the potential to improve a bit further. You'll never, ever get 25k crowds at clubs in towns the size of the majority of Scotland's settlements but again, a lot of people simply cannot or will not accept that and genuinely believe that a bit of speculation will lead to a lot of accumulation. We need to get real on that front. 

[AJF]

On the 'diminished achievement' debate, I think it's more nuanced than it often gets portrayed.

Rangers and Celtic have a higher expectation placed on them by everyone associated with Scottish football to win trophies, rightly or wrongly. That is not to come across as if other sides don't have those aspirations as well, but due to the financial gulf, that is how the two sides are measured.

I appreciate the arguments put across about how winning almost every game must get boring or feel more meaningless. I wouldn't argue against that wholeheartedly - there are absolutely a number of occasions during a season at Ibrox where you feel as though the match you are attending is a bit like going through the motions. However, I would probably argue that other clubs experience similar at times, although not on a similar scale I accept.

I think there is a slight difference though in terms of while there are matches where you do feel like that occasionally, it culminates with being measured against those expectations I previously mentioned.

Every football fan will likely share the same feelings: they'll be less engaged if the team aren't meeting expectations whereas they'll be more interested and engaged if the team are. That doesn't change regardless of your team, in my opinion.

With that being said, I totally get where people are coming from. Using my own experience as an example, I'd rank our title win under Gerrard as one of our most memorable, mainly down to the long barren spell that preceded it. So yeah, I'd say that successes are more meaningful if they don't come around as often, but that's not to agree that any games that lead to it (or doesn't, as is often our case recently) are meaningless.

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, Jinky67 said:

I appreciate you may not be interested in Europe but the people you are trying to engage in this conversation are so you have to be considerate of their views if you ever want to get their buy in. If you are closing yourself off you become what you say I am which makes us not that different after all.

I‘ve never ever felt that I don’t get value from my football, if I did I wouldn’t pay for it but football isn’t just about sport now which is sad but the reality. The commercial and business side is a major influence and I don’t see how you would ever convince multi million pound owners and investors to take a course of action that sees their share price plummet. There has to be something in it for them and I doubt that just swimming in our own pond will be good enough, they will always be aspirations to emulate 67 no matter how much of a pipe dream it may be.

The best outcome for Scottish football is a solution that allows Celtic and Rangers to compete outwith Scottish football. Will the other clubs flourish without us? I have no idea but it seems we would all be happier 

I do consider your views but they are just incompatible with mine. That’s not to be rude but you have to accept that what you’re essentially saying is you’re relatively happy to shit all over the domestic competition, that makes up 80-90% of your season, in pursuit of an impossible dream. That’s infuriating and people have the right to dislike Celtic for that.

 

54 minutes ago, AJF said:

On the 'diminished achievement' debate, I think it's more nuanced than it often gets portrayed.

Rangers and Celtic have a higher expectation placed on them by everyone associated with Scottish football to win trophies, rightly or wrongly. That is not to come across as if other sides don't have those aspirations as well, but due to the financial gulf, that is how the two sides are measured.

I appreciate the arguments put across about how winning almost every game must get boring or feel more meaningless. I wouldn't argue against that wholeheartedly - there are absolutely a number of occasions during a season at Ibrox where you feel as though the match you are attending is a bit like going through the motions. However, I would probably argue that other clubs experience similar at times, although not on a similar scale I accept.

I think there is a slight difference though in terms of while there are matches where you do feel like that occasionally, it culminates with being measured against those expectations I previously mentioned.

Every football fan will likely share the same feelings: they'll be less engaged if the team aren't meeting expectations whereas they'll be more interested and engaged if the team are. That doesn't change regardless of your team, in my opinion.

With that being said, I totally get where people are coming from. Using my own experience as an example, I'd rank our title win under Gerrard as one of our most memorable, mainly down to the long barren spell that preceded it. So yeah, I'd say that successes are more meaningful if they don't come around as often, but that's not to agree that any games that lead to it (or doesn't, as is often our case recently) are meaningless.

It’s not just the frequency of success that devalues it, it’s the conditions it’s achieved under. We all expect games to be played with a level of even playing field. We shoot to both ends, we play home and away equal times (split dependent), we have independent referees etc etc. but the fact that two clubs can shop in a completely different market to the rest is overlooked as diminishing the integrity of the competition. 

If we had a draft system like the NFL but we gave Celtic the first 25 picks then people would rightly think it was a farce. That’s basically what happens now but dressed up in a way that’s presented as fair. 

[Greenlantern]

2 hours ago, LiviLion said:

Life's losers desperately trying to make these things out to be "achievements" because it's the only thing that makes them feel like anything other than a, well, loser. Like when new Rangers fans/staff were demanding MORE credit for spending millions to get out of League 1 and 2.

Quite a skewed viewpoint. Personally, supported Celtic all my life and lived in various countries where Celtic aren’t the dominant or majority supported club. So these ‘achievements’ you suggest that makes me less of ‘life’s losers’ doesn’t really ring true to me, as I’m not really asking for anyone’s praise or credit to make me feel any better of a person. 
 

With that in mind, you can take your ‘credit’ and ram it my friend. 

[Ewanandmoreagain]

2 hours ago, Jinky67 said:

I appreciate you may not be interested in Europe but the people you are trying to engage in this conversation are so you have to be considerate of their views if you ever want to get their buy in. If you are closing yourself off you become what you say I am which makes us not that different after all.

I‘ve never ever felt that I don’t get value from my football, if I did I wouldn’t pay for it but football isn’t just about sport now which is sad but the reality. The commercial and business side is a major influence and I don’t see how you would ever convince multi million pound owners and investors to take a course of action that sees their share price plummet. There has to be something in it for them and I doubt that just swimming in our own pond will be good enough, they will always be aspirations to emulate 67 no matter how much of a pipe dream it may be.

The best outcome for Scottish football is a solution that allows Celtic and Rangers to compete outwith Scottish football. Will the other clubs flourish without us? I have no idea but it seems we would all be happier 

Well they will not be playing in the English Premier League !

It used to be " the big four " down there

Man U , Liverpool , Arsenal , Spurs.

Now it is hard to keep count

As above plus Man City , Newcastle Utd , Chelsea.

Aston Villa ?

 

 

 

[AJF]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

It’s not just the frequency of success that devalues it, it’s the conditions it’s achieved under. We all expect games to be played with a level of even playing field. We shoot to both ends, we play home and away equal times (split dependent), we have independent referees etc etc. but the fact that two clubs can shop in a completely different market to the rest is overlooked as diminishing the integrity of the competition. 

If we had a draft system like the NFL but we gave Celtic the first 25 picks then people would rightly think it was a farce. That’s basically what happens now but dressed up in a way that’s presented as fair. 

Yeah, again points that I wouldn’t argue against too strongly.

[Jinky67]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

I do consider your views but they are just incompatible with mine. That’s not to be rude but you have to accept that what you’re essentially saying is you’re relatively happy to shit all over the domestic competition, that makes up 80-90% of your season, in pursuit of an impossible dream. That’s infuriating and people have the right to dislike Celtic for that.

 

But it is rude mate and pretty pretentious tbf and kind of takes me back to the point I originally made which is that my opinion counts for less solely based on the fact I’m a Celtic fan.

This is why I can’t understand why you would want a debate with me on the subject as it doesn’t feel like that’s what you want. To even start a conversation you have to be considerate of all viewpoints and there has to be a benefit to all participants which there isn’t here imo. The points you make to AJF are all reasonable but your solution to it isn’t. 

I don’t doubt you feel shat on and to you that feels unfair because you make up 80% of the competition but when your only solution to that is to then shit on 60-65% of fans who regularly attend football matches in the league every week then that isn’t a solution, it feels more like retribution.

I’m open to discussion and happy to consider views and opinions as to how all clubs mutually benefit whilst growing the game domestically and in Europe (the only viable one in my opinion is a league without Celtic/Rangers) but being told what I value isn’t important is telling me I don’t count and again that isn’t the foundation for good debate and fails to engage me so on that note I’m out 

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Jinky67

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

I do consider your views but they are just incompatible with mine. That’s not to be rude but you have to accept that what you’re essentially saying is you’re relatively happy to shit all over the domestic competition, that makes up 80-90% of your season, in pursuit of an impossible dream. That’s infuriating and people have the right to dislike Celtic for that.

 

It’s not just the frequency of success that devalues it, it’s the conditions it’s achieved under. We all expect games to be played with a level of even playing field. We shoot to both ends, we play home and away equal times (split dependent), we have independent referees etc etc. but the fact that two clubs can shop in a completely different market to the rest is overlooked as diminishing the integrity of the competition. 

If we had a draft system like the NFL but we gave Celtic the first 25 picks then people would rightly think it was a farce. That’s basically what happens now but dressed up in a way that’s presented as fair. 

Excellent post.

All of it.

[Dons_1988]

7 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

But it is rude mate and pretty pretentious tbf and kind of takes me back to the point I originally made which is that my opinion counts for less solely based on the fact I’m a Celtic fan.

This is why I can’t understand why you would want a debate with me on the subject as it doesn’t feel like that’s what you want. To even start a conversation you have to be considerate of all viewpoints and there has to be a benefit to all participants which there also isn’t here. The points you make to AJF are all reasonable but your solution to it isn’t. 

I don’t doubt you feel shat on and to you that feels unfair because you make up 80% of the competition but when your only solution to that is to then shit on 60-65% of fans who regularly attend football matches in Scotland every week then that isn’t a solution, it feels more like retribution.

I’m open to discussion and happy to consider views and opinions as to how all clubs mutually benefit whilst growing the game domestically and in Europe (the only viable one in my opinion is a league without Celtic/Rangers) but being told what I value isn’t important is telling me I don’t count and again that isn’t the foundation for good debate and fails to engage me so on that note I’m out 

 

 

 

You’ve completely missed the point and leapt to faux outrage. 

It’s not rude at all. What I said was our views aren’t compatible. I don’t know what you mean by saying I need to be ‘considerate’ of your views. I’m under no obligation to agree with any of it. If your only compromise is this stuff about ‘growing the game while Celtic continue to compete in Europe’ then im absolutely not entertaining it. It suggests you’re open to a levelling of the playing field but only up to the point Celtic reach any jeopardy of losing out. 

It views the issue entirely through the prism of Celtic and is entirely partisan. If that’s how you feel then fine, I’m not going to give out abuse, call you life’s losers/bigots/or tell you what to think/value or anything. But I am not going to pretend to see your point. At all. 

[gannonball]

I get why you may question what it means to win something, or why you would support a certain team but if your constantly asking why or always suggesting other reasons then clearly you are just trying to convince yourself of those reasons imo. It's a strange thing to be hung up about really.

Edited April 17, 2023 by gannonball

[Jinky67]

11 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

You’ve completely missed the point and leapt to faux outrage. 

It’s not rude at all. What I said was our views aren’t compatible. I don’t know what you mean by saying I need to be ‘considerate’ of your views. I’m under no obligation to agree with any of it. If your only compromise is this stuff about ‘growing the game while Celtic continue to compete in Europe’ then im absolutely not entertaining it. It suggests you’re open to a levelling of the playing field but only up to the point Celtic reach any jeopardy of losing out. 

It views the issue entirely through the prism of Celtic and is entirely partisan. If that’s how you feel then fine, I’m not going to give out abuse, call you life’s losers/bigots/or tell you what to think/value or anything. But I am not going to pretend to see your point. At all. 

I’m not outraged mate not in the slightest, what I am is completely apathetic because ultimately there is not enough to excite me but like I said we are at an impasse in terms of how we see a way forward. 

[Monkey Tennis]

I genuinely think that our problem here is simply that it suits OF fans to have it this chronically imbalanced.  Winning every week does prove seductive.

Lots of us struggle with that a bit because we know we genuinely wouldn't find it appealing.  If we thought we would, we'd simply become fans of one of them.  

I don't suppose there's much mileage really in speculating about the motives or sincerity of them.  Lots of people like things I don't.

 

I feel though that the view that it's less appealing this way, is objectively sensible, given that loads of rules exist to make it otherwise fair.

The facts that it used to be less lopsided in the past, and that the media generally collude in the distortion, also play a part in the distaste many of us feel.

 

I still think that the fact there's two of them is absolutely key.  An absent and crippled new Rangers, did result in a diminishing of Celtic.

The idea that each of them has overcome something comparable in any 'triumphs', lends them an air of legitimacy and helps prop up the illusory farce.

 

I hate how it is, and as regards any notion of what's fair in sport, I'm convinced I'm right.  Too many people see it quite differently for that to matter though.  

[Jinky67]

28 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I genuinely think that our problem here is simply that it suits OF fans to have it this chronically imbalanced.  Winning every week does prove seductive.

 

I think I’ve told you this before however I’d happily take an exit route into the English Championship as firstly it would be competitive and secondly affords opportunity to grow and really see if we could realise our potential. Yes I know there is no European football initially which is something I want however I’d take the punt for that opportunity

There are many clubs in the Championship with a higher net worth than us so financially I don’t think it would hurt us significantly.

Yes I know they don’t want us blah blah blah however offering an opinion of someone who would happily see competitive football where it isn’t weighted in our favour if it offered opportunity to grow and realise potential

Edited April 17, 2023 by Jinky67