I go along with this. It's not really up to Celtic to decide what the penalty should be or whether to 'support' or 'veto' it (as I rather facetiously alluded to in my first post) - the rules as they stand should be seen to be applied fairly. And I agree that some people are being very shortsighted about the whole issue. It's deeply embarrassing and harmful for scottish football if Rangers go into administration. Yes, it's all quite amusing to us celtic fans and the short term benefits to us of a points deduction and weakening of their squad are obvious. But, if Rangers were to be genuinely ****ed (relegated etc etc), the prestige (as much as such a thing exists) of the SPL is seriously knackered. The quality would go down yet further, and with it the TV interest and finances. And I have no doubt that (with our current balance sheet-obsessed board) Celtic would cut back - why spend when your biggest rival is financially destitute? And we're still basing all this on an assumption - that Rangers will lose the tax case. They might well do, in fact the murmurings from Ibrox and CW suggest they're preparing for the worst, but like most people I'm not exactly qualified to make a judgement on the likelihood of that happening and I prefer not to pre-judge on the basis of an anonymous internet blog.
If celtic were to veto this then it would look like sour grapes towards rangers - which is exactly the reason the original posters and phil are angry at this. if it was anyone else you wouldnt give a ****. we couldnt ask for a 50 point deduction to rangers and then when the next club enters administration (as many teams may well do soon in Scotland) we'd have to ask for the same again - thus ****ing up a **** league even more and potentially hitting Celtic in the pocket They are also probably thinking if the same thing were to happen us and we went tits up then we'd be protected a bit as a 10 point precedent will have been set However i do think it might send out a message to any other SPL team in debt. If say they are 10 points clear of relegation and in debt - why not enter administration - dump the debt and start next season afresh with no debt??
Does anyone actually believe that Celtic will prosper in a league with no Rangers? Do you think Sky and ESPN will be renewing TV rights for the SPL with no Old Firm games? It would turn the SPL into a league similar in stature to the Irish or Welsh league.
Can't believe the response to this Rangers have broken the rules over the years bought players they couldn't afford and paid players illegally.They have gained through this and other clubs not just Celtic have lost out, we might as well pack up Scottish football if there are different rules for different clubs . If Celtic had done the same I doubt the other spl clubs and our rivals would be falling over each other to bail us out
So what do you want to see happen? Them start every season for the next 10 on -25 points? What good will that do?
There are no more Celtic men left at parkhead There have been 7 transfer Windows where Celtic have not strengthened or improved the quality of the team This is because Celtic boardroom is full of businessmen They see the Old Firm as an investment Winning the league is not a priority if it costs money It's cheaper to gamble on rangers struggling than spending to ensure victory....at the end of the season if you win the league but fail to qualify for Europe its as good as not spending and coming second Fans can still be fleeced, Just Can't Get Enough has been squeezed for cash by Corporate Celtic Rangers death is bad news for Celtic businessmen, and maybe they have a point....Rome fell because their great enemy Carthage were no longer around to keep them on guard and test their war machine Old Firm....its almost a brand on sportswear....to me, its a swear word
I think an appropriate punishment would be for Rangers to play the rest of the season with their laces tied together.
The Celtic Board have continually failed to take advantage of the situation with Rangers. They refused to push the boat out to sign Stephen Fletcher in Gordon Strachan's final year. A year later they did the same thing with James McCarthy. How much Champion's League money have we lost out on because of their penny pinching?
regardless of buying Steven Fletcher and the board not buying better players , we've been denied by a team not playing within the rules. How so called Celtic fans seem to think this is ok !!! The champions league money we've been denied might have bought the better players you wanted, luckily your views are in the minority if you read other Celtic forums , we are Celtic football club , not Old Firm United
Oh ffs . As I pointed out, citing the examples of other clubs (Gretna, Dundee etc), the point is there isn't different rules for different clubs. The rules for going into administration are the same across the board. You might think they're not strict enough, and you may well have a point, but no one as far as I can see is suggesting Rangers be treated differently except you and no one is suggesting we 'bail them out'.
Who said it was okay? I've said many times that Rangers have been living outwith their means for many years. They are potentially paying the price for that. You cannot, however, deny that our Board has failed to capitalise on Ranger's financial situation. Our Board does not spend a penny more than it feels it needs to. The only reason we signed the likes of Izzy, Kayal and Hooper last summer was because we sold Boruc and McGeady. I have no problem living within our means but when you're losing out on up to £12m a year in CL and worse that money is going to your bitter rivals then the Board has to take responsibility for that. It is not Ranger's fault that we've fallen short these last three years. It is ours.
I agree with much of this. One point, the 10 point deduction as a punishment for entering administration is part of the SPL rules, has already been used (against Gretna) and so the precedent has already been set. As you say, the danger of a crippling penalty to Rangers (or indeed anyone) is the further weakening of our league which, whether we like it or not, we're stuck in. I'm no fan of the 'Old Firm' tag, but the reality is that it's the only selling point our ****e, uncompetitive league has. As a general point, I find it very irritating when fellow celtic fans suggest I'm somehow disloyal or less of a fan when I point this out.
Not saying disloyal , but when we had our money troubles can't ever recall anybody worrying about what would happen to Rangers.
but without them we would never qualify for the CL. both teams record at the play off stage is ****ing ****e and if they were no more the meagre tv money we get would be slashed further. the biggest draw for the tv companies is celtic v rangers without that is oblivion. so without any tv money at all we would struggle to buy anyone of any calibre the knock on effect of this is failure year on year to reach the group stages where the cash is. you get **** all for getting knocked out in the play offs.
I think Phil mac has set the cat amongst the pidgeons, and it sort of diminishes his blog. I doubt the SPL, or is it SFA, members, have formally or informally met as a group to discuss the Rangers situation. Don't forget, Rangers are also a member and would be rightly outraged if such a discussion took place until after the FTT decision is announced. They probably still wouldn't meet after that because I'm sure there is a fair bit of governance to go through beforehand. Phil is getting Celtic fans going mental with some threatening never to return bl;ah blah blah. What is his agenda by putting this on a blog?
