But maybe it had gone a wee bit stale anyway with both clubs meeting so often ? But when the biggest n best and most successful football club Scotland has ever produced return in 3 years time then it will be sweeter than ever when we horse the smelly tramps ! Roll on that day !
Yes delay your gratification Rocket In my opinion the whole SPL thing has been stale for years. You'll get the tic fans saying that's just sour grapes, but they're going to be bored ****less without us.
Old rangers couldn't live with in their means to try and match celtics wage bill - and even then you couldn't match the level Celtic can afford with their turnover. Will newco generate enough support to generate a turnover to ever catch up?? Doubt it! Will be like playing hearts 8 times a year if sevco get to the spl
Why do people bang on about turnover, turnover, to an extent means **** all. No point having a massive turnover, if you have no profit.
Profit is turnover minus outgoings - if you have a smaller turnover you need to have smaller outgoings or you will go bust...
Mick, why did you pull the "Irish Rappers Revealed" thread from GC? Oh, let me guess, it portrayed the Irish in a bad light even though Hash and Keyrung were having a good laugh at it? "Youre making Cork people look thick, Oi've got Dooblin tattooed on me dick"
Because if you can't get the turnover you can't get the same level of profit. Celtic and rangers both operate in the same market. Celtic can attract more money- therefore if they can afford more outgoings to say break even and put a team on the pitch. A team that start from scratch and can't get a decent turnover won't have the cash to buy a team to compete. Simple
**** me, my point is, it is possible to have a huge turnover, but have little or no profit, it isn't that difficult to work out surely? Having a big turnover doesn't mean you are going to have a big profit. You only have to look at GM for that.
It's football. You dont need a profit. Break even will do. But When your outgoings are larger than your incomings (as was the case with rangers) it goes tits up If you have a high turnover you can afford more outgoings, like transfer fees, wages and tax. If you have a low turnover but try to pay high transfer fees and wages you eventually run into trouble. Point is the reality is rangers cannot bring in as much money as Celtic. Therefore cannot afford as expensive a product as Celtic ( more expensive doesn't always mean better) when you start with nothing (as newco are) it might not take you 3 years to get back to the level you were at, it might take 10, 15..,.
We'll meet in the cups before Sevco reach the SPL, it'll be great when the first one comes around. I bet about 5 ****s get sent aff.
For example, if Celtic have more turnover than Rangers, but Rangers have more profit because of CL football or whatever, it is better to have the larger turnover? Remind me never to go into business with you, in fact, I was going to pitch an idea to you until about 30 minutes ago! And to say it is ok just to break even is the worst business model I have ever heard(apart from some of David Murray's and Craig Whyte's obviously).
I reckon we will meet in this season's cup(if we even get to round 3), SKY will have demanded that we meet each other.
The money generated from the CL increases the turnover which in turn increase the profit. The only way to increase profit without increasing turnover is to reduce outgoings i.e shrink a business. Who gives a **** about turnover and profit anyway, it will be fairly evenly matched sides going at it as before.
The draw will be done out of a glass bowl with a green ball a blue ball and the rest white. bet the SFA still **** it up and you end up playing hibs.
Yes, I know CL money would increase the turnover also, but it would be like a bonus, as there wouldn't be any outgoings as such to get the CL money and anyway, my point was, I would rather have less turnover and more profit. I don't see what is so difficult about this. The more profit, the more you can plough back into your team/pocket. Just because a club's turnover is bigger, it means **** all, like I said about an hour ago.
Of course profit is good, and ideal in business, but fact is you need money coming in to afford to pay money going out. In this case if a football if a club operate a plan to bring in x and decide to spend x then there is no surplus, no profit, but no debt. If you bring in x minus £5m but try to spend x to compete with someone else to try and get more money and it fails you'll end Up in trouble. If you decide to live within your means and bring in x minus £5m and as a result spend x minus £5m then you'll have weaker product than the team who can afford to spend x What I'm saying is rangers don't have the ability to generate as much income as Celtic, the past has shown this. Now ive no doubts celtics outgoings are high. But you need the money coming in in the first case. In the past rangers have gambled by spending more than they have. I don't think you'll be allowed to repeat that. So unless a billionaire buys you , if Celtic bring in more than you, we can spend more than you
But if are getting profit, then you can spend more and more each year, I believe it is called growth!
Without question Celtic will play rangers in both cups this year. And the refs will be told to do there best to ensure they finish as draws
