We had "decent crowds" because of Celtic's demise perhaps? Maybe the crowds came out because they thought their team had a chance of finishing second.
Even Dunfermline Don't Want You
- Thread starter Go G YellowScreen
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
We had "decent crowds" because of Celtic's demise perhaps? Maybe the crowds came out because they thought their team had a chance of finishing second.
All teams have down-sized since then - apart from Celtic as they couldn't have got any worse. In it's current state, some of the teams in the SPL are not that far off the standard of Celtic and Rangers (of last season).
With the potential of a title fight or europe maybe some other teams might speculate and splash out on higher wages/transfers ...
Add, for instance, Stokes, Kayal, Wanyama, Mulgrew to Dundee United/Hearts (and if the renewed the contracts of those who left for **** all last season) ... couple of qulaity loans from EPL/Championships sides.
That would equal be a strong squad capable of challenging for the title.
I think this is the crux of the matter. To sustain interest, any competition needs to have an element of unpredictability as to who will win. It doesn't matter who specifically challenges for the title just that their is a genuine competition. * Nerdy stats alert *
Incidentally, it's not really true that Rangers were pushed particularly hard each season by Motherwell, Aberdeen etc during their 9 in a row - it only really happened twice, in 1990-91 and 93-94. If you take into account that for the first five seasons of their 9 in a row you only got 2 points for a win, then the winning margins are actually quite comfortable. If the 3 points for a win had been in place Rangers would have won the league by 14 points in 88-89, 10 in 89-90, 4 in 90-91, 15 in 91-92 and 15 in 92-93. In 93-94, 3 points for a win was introduced and Rangers won the league by 6 points, then 15 in 94-95. It was closer in 95-96 (4 points) and 96-97 (5 points) but it was Celtic who were doing the pushing (in 95-96 Rangers finished 32 points ahead of the 3rd place team).
Think that proves errr, something, maybe
Correct. We finally turned up against Celtic (according to the Blue Meanies anyway) and what happens - Rangers get ****ed at Ibrox for the third game running.
Priceless
They can't even help themselves.
**** 'em. Bought success and thyen cheated for success.
Flush 'em down the bog with their King Billy Burgers.
Come on to ****, nae **** on here can seriously think that any other SPL team is going to "step up" to challenge Celtic. It's no happened for 20 odd years, it's no going to change now. If any SPL team believed they could "step up" they'd have done it already, does it really take Rangers going out of business for a wee team to decide to show a bit of ambition? It won't happen
I know people are desperately trying to form a decent sounding argument for not needing Rangers in the SPL but this one is weak
I know people are desperately trying to form a decent sounding argument for not needing Rangers in the SPL but this one is weak
Like it's an option just now.
You have ****ed Scottish Football so **** off and die.
No team has done it since the 9IAR Rangers team as Celtic and Rangers had a duoploly ... it would have bene pointless, once Celtic became stronger, as both clubs could easily outspend the rest of the SPL. No other club felt the need to do it ...
Without Rangers/a strong Rangers there would be a gap ... 2 spot defo up for grabs - potentially the title. less money flowing to Celtic 9Rangers) now.
Just remember the 90s when Celtic struggled to finish 4th some seasons ...same sitiuation (just less cash all round now).
Where are the clubs going to get the money from to try to put up this challenge? Some clubs are struggling to get by as it is, they can't afford to spend money to try to challenge Celtic. There was a story reported during January that Dundee Utd had a £25k bid rejected for Dougie Imrie, they said they couldn't afford to go any higher, a week later he was sold to St Mirren for £35k. This from a team who recently sold Goodwillie for £2m yet can't spend more than £25k on bringing players in, even an extra £10k. Tells you all you need to know. Clubs are spending any money they get in on running costs etc. They can't bring any players in
* Nerdy stats alert *
Incidentally, it's not really true that Rangers were pushed particularly hard each season by Motherwell, Aberdeen etc during their 9 in a row - it only really happened twice, in 1990-91 and 93-94. If you take into account that for the first five seasons of their 9 in a row you only got 2 points for a win, then the winning margins are actually quite comfortable. If the 3 points for a win had been in place Rangers would have won the league by 14 points in 88-89, 10 in 89-90, 4 in 90-91, 15 in 91-92 and 15 in 92-93. In 93-94, 3 points for a win was introduced and Rangers won the league by 6 points, then 15 in 94-95. It was closer in 95-96 (4 points) and 96-97 (5 points) but it was Celtic who were doing the pushing (in 95-96 Rangers finished 32 points ahead of the 3rd place team).
Think that proves errr, something, maybe
you cant say oh if the 3 points for a win system was in place then this & that would of happened
You mean like when you were spending vasts amounts of money from 86 onwards to buy domestic success and flop in Europe and no other club could compete financially.
I've no idea, what's your take on it? Maybe we could all start not paying taxes and cheat on a grand scale and then WE could compete.
Stuart Milne's too nice a guy to allow that to happen.
I nearly said that with a straight face
rogueleader
suave gringo
you cant say oh if the 3 points for a win system was in place then this & that would of happened
Why not? My point was merely to illustrate that the title races weren't as close as people seem to think. If Rangers won the league by say 6 points in the early 90s, that was a 'bigger' margin than winning the league by 6 points now (as you had to win 3 games to get those 6 points, rather than 2).