It's a constant source of annoyance to me when the BBC News football coverage is limited only to the Premier League and the SPL, but STILL manages to factor in Rangers.
Honestly, I've seen them moving from Premier League/SPL/Rangers coverage to bloody hockey, with about 20 people in the entire stadium watching it. Maybe this post is for a different thread but, Grrrrrrr.
To be fair Ragers are one of the biggest clubs in the UK.
If Manchester United were kicked into League 2 I would imagine they would still garner pretty significant media coverage.
Yeah, you're right. It's just more annoyance that, according to BBC News, no other football exists apart from EPL, SPL and a former SPL team. Anyway, I'm more your Jeff Stelling/Soccer Saturday sort of bloke if I'm not going to an away game.
Surely everyone saw this coming with the players and money they spent. Must be the only club to die/liquidate and come back just to do it all again.
Outwith the old firm - apart from the standard being lower then other countries I think SPL clubs have a lot to be positive about - especially as they were all supposed to be doomed after the relegation of this lot.
Aberdeen for 2nd place and the league cup - heard it here first!
As a Rangers supporter I'm pretty horrified at what is being spent. McCoist is just being given carte Blanche and currently the recruitment strategy is all wrong.
Lots of the players being brought aren't good enough to compete with Celtic and/or in Europe, but they are good enough to keep young players out of the side. These players are unnecessary, with a talented youth team, training full time with the best training facilities in the country the bottom two tiers would have been a formality. There is absolutely no need for the wage bill as it stands.
Exactly this. Should've gone with a young squad and cheap players to get them back into the second tier and then started to build a side ready for when they got back into the SPL. Instead they've been signing the likes of Black, Templeton, Law, Shiels and Daly from SPL clubs. Completely unnecessary.
As a Rangers supporter I'm pretty horrified at what is being spent. McCoist is just being given carte Blanche and currently the recruitment strategy is all wrong.
Lots of the players being brought aren't good enough to compete with Celtic and/or in Europe, but they are good enough to keep young players out of the side. These players are unnecessary, with a talented youth team, training full time with the best training facilities in the country the bottom two tiers would have been a formality. There is absolutely no need for the wage bill as it stands.
Agree with the sentiment, but not sure the fans would wear it. They'll merrily boo the team off when served up a one nil win. The youth and a few decent older heads would win that league, but i think there would be a lot of rumblings if it were by 10 points. Whole thing is a remarkable car crash, would love celtic to follow suit.
Well as a Cowdenbeath/Celtic man who lived up there for 6 years and has personally witnessed their distain for the lower league clubs. I just want to say i am loving it. I usuallly have sympathy for clubs in this sort of plight but not this lot. And believe me when i say every non rangers fan living in Scotland feels the same.
It's a constant source of annoyance to me when the BBC News football coverage is limited only to the Premier League and the SPL, but STILL manages to factor in Rangers.
Honestly, I've seen them moving from Premier League/SPL/Rangers coverage to bloody hockey, with about 20 people in the entire stadium watching it. Maybe this post is for a different thread but, Grrrrrrr.
I do not really see the problem. If one of the big 4 in the English Premier League went into admin and forced to start again in League 2 they would be factored in as well.
For what it's worth, eaststandmike, I think what you said there actually is the problem. You're absolutely right in what you describe, of course, because we know that Man U, Arsenal, Rangers et al would still sell newspapers and people would switch on to see them on the telly because they've got a successful history. But that's the point. It's history. No team has a divine right to the top table, regardless of how successful you've been in the past. I'm sick of Liverpool fans in the last 25 fecking years going on about how their club deserves better players or better treatment or whatever. Their argument holds no more water than it does for Wolves or Huddersfield or Preston North End, but they were lucky enough to have their success in an era just when the money started coming in.
It's a fact of life, I'm afraid, that the teams who are at the top now will remain so for the foreseeable unless another super-billionaire transforms someone else into the next Chelsea or Man City. If they collapse, they'll get back up again and there's not a lot we can do about it.
So of course you're correct that that's what would happen, but it IS a problem because it just isn't right.
Rangers - the club that just keeps giving entertainment on all levels. Ha!
Bit like Celtic in the Champions League.......................Ha
I don't have any feeling towards Celtic but at least they're in it. I'd love Charlton to be at the level where they struggle in the Champions League. Ha!
Surely everyone saw this coming with the players and money they spent. Must be the only club to die/liquidate and come back just to do it all again.
Outwith the old firm - apart from the standard being lower then other countries I think SPL clubs have a lot to be positive about - especially as they were all supposed to be doomed after the relegation of this lot.
Aberdeen for 2nd place and the league cup - heard it here first!
It's a constant source of annoyance to me when the BBC News football coverage is limited only to the Premier League and the SPL, but STILL manages to factor in Rangers.
Honestly, I've seen them moving from Premier League/SPL/Rangers coverage to bloody hockey, with about 20 people in the entire stadium watching it. Maybe this post is for a different thread but, Grrrrrrr.
I do not really see the problem. If one of the big 4 in the English Premier League went into admin and forced to start again in League 2 they would be factored in as well.
For what it's worth, eaststandmike, I think what you said there actually is the problem. You're absolutely right in what you describe, of course, because we know that Man U, Arsenal, Rangers et al would still sell newspapers and people would switch on to see them on the telly because they've got a successful history. But that's the point. It's history. No team has a divine right to the top table, regardless of how successful you've been in the past. I'm sick of Liverpool fans in the last 25 fecking years going on about how their club deserves better players or better treatment or whatever. Their argument holds no more water than it does for Wolves or Huddersfield or Preston North End, but they were lucky enough to have their success in an era just when the money started coming in.
It's a fact of life, I'm afraid, that the teams who are at the top now will remain so for the foreseeable unless another super-billionaire transforms someone else into the next Chelsea or Man City. If they collapse, they'll get back up again and there's not a lot we can do about it.
So of course you're correct that that's what would happen, but it IS a problem because it just isn't right.
Spot on LR. I was not condoning Rangers spending the obscene money they are doing in a lower league, you would have thought they had learnt their lesson. I was merely pointing out the BBC still see them as a major force in Scottish football and therefore they will be reported on, whatever league they are playing in.
It's a constant source of annoyance to me when the BBC News football coverage is limited only to the Premier League and the SPL, but STILL manages to factor in Rangers.
Honestly, I've seen them moving from Premier League/SPL/Rangers coverage to bloody hockey, with about 20 people in the entire stadium watching it. Maybe this post is for a different thread but, Grrrrrrr.
I do not really see the problem. If one of the big 4 in the English Premier League went into admin and forced to start again in League 2 they would be factored in as well.
For what it's worth, eaststandmike, I think what you said there actually is the problem. You're absolutely right in what you describe, of course, because we know that Man U, Arsenal, Rangers et al would still sell newspapers and people would switch on to see them on the telly because they've got a successful history. But that's the point. It's history. No team has a divine right to the top table, regardless of how successful you've been in the past. I'm sick of Liverpool fans in the last 25 fecking years going on about how their club deserves better players or better treatment or whatever. Their argument holds no more water than it does for Wolves or Huddersfield or Preston North End, but they were lucky enough to have their success in an era just when the money started coming in.
It's a fact of life, I'm afraid, that the teams who are at the top now will remain so for the foreseeable unless another super-billionaire transforms someone else into the next Chelsea or Man City. If they collapse, they'll get back up again and there's not a lot we can do about it.
So of course you're correct that that's what would happen, but it IS a problem because it just isn't right.
Spot on LR. I was not condoning Rangers spending the obscene money they are doing in a lower league, you would have thought they had learnt their lesson. I was merely pointing out the BBC still see them as a major force in Scottish football and therefore they will be reported on, whatever league they are playing in.
From someone who lives in Scotland, it really is a bizarre situation. Lee McCulloch is getting paid £16k a week to play in the Scottish League One. Rangers are the only full time team in the division, so McCulloch is getting paid £16k a week to play against plumbers, joiners, etc.
The team is full of SPL quality players. Law, Daly, Wallace, Moshni, McCulloch, Black, Bell and Shiels are all earning in excess of £5k a week to play in the Scottish third tier. Teams like Ross County and ICT in the SPL (and doing well), aren't paying any players more than £1k a week, why do Rangers need to pay players £16k a week to beat part-time teams?! I don't understand it one bit.
Financially there's no way they can keep this up. Last summer Rangers had £22 million and now it's gone. Whoever is in charge of transfers and recruitment is surely the worst in Europe! They have a staff budget of at least 10x bigger than every SPL club (except Celtic) to win a league with part-time teams.
They should have had a squad of youngsters (apparently have the best academy in the country) and picked the best lower league talent. For example, the best Scottish Championship players would have romped League One and Two just as easily. They could have had the same success and spent nowhere near the crazy amount they have. They could have won League One and Two easily with a players budget of £16k a week (Lee McCulloch's weekly wage).
Surely everyone saw this coming with the players and money they spent. Must be the only club to die/liquidate and come back just to do it all again.
Outwith the old firm - apart from the standard being lower then other countries I think SPL clubs have a lot to be positive about - especially as they were all supposed to be doomed after the relegation of this lot.
Aberdeen for 2nd place and the league cup - heard it here first!
You're joking aren't you ?!!
On which part?
You don't ask players to take 15% paycuts if your finances are in order and you aren't losing more money than you have.
Incidentally I've heard a rumour that HMRC have asked for the accounts...
Of other clubs to spectacularly come back to spend above their means and go back into admin - I can't think of any although happy to be corrected.
Surely everyone saw this coming with the players and money they spent. Must be the only club to die/liquidate and come back just to do it all again.
Outwith the old firm - apart from the standard being lower then other countries I think SPL clubs have a lot to be positive about - especially as they were all supposed to be doomed after the relegation of this lot.
Aberdeen for 2nd place and the league cup - heard it here first!
You're joking aren't you ?!!
On which part?
You don't ask players to take 15% paycuts if your finances are in order and you aren't losing more money than you have.
Incidentally I've heard a rumour that HMRC have asked for the accounts...
Of other clubs to spectacularly come back to spend above their means and go back into admin - I can't think of any although happy to be corrected.
Portsmouth?
Not really sure what happened with them to be honest!
Yeah, you're right. It's just more annoyance that, according to BBC News, no other football exists apart from EPL, SPL and a former SPL team. Anyway, I'm more your Jeff Stelling/Soccer Saturday sort of bloke if I'm not going to an away game.
Sky have committed to showing five Rangers games live this season though Hawksmoor. So they are not immune from the sucking up, or however you want to describe it?
If you need to stay in a 4-star hotel less than 100 miles from your home ground in order to compete against Forfar then your troubles are more than financial!!
If you need to stay in a 4-star hotel less than 100 miles from your home ground in order to compete against Forfar then your troubles are more than financial!!
If you need to stay in a 4-star hotel less than 100 miles from your home ground in order to compete against Forfar then your troubles are more than financial!!
Comments
If Manchester United were kicked into League 2 I would imagine they would still garner pretty significant media coverage.
Surely everyone saw this coming with the players and money they spent. Must be the only club to die/liquidate and come back just to do it all again.
Outwith the old firm - apart from the standard being lower then other countries I think SPL clubs have a lot to be positive about - especially as they were all supposed to be doomed after the relegation of this lot.
Aberdeen for 2nd place and the league cup - heard it here first!
Exactly this. Should've gone with a young squad and cheap players to get them back into the second tier and then started to build a side ready for when they got back into the SPL. Instead they've been signing the likes of Black, Templeton, Law, Shiels and Daly from SPL clubs. Completely unnecessary.
You're absolutely right in what you describe, of course, because we know that Man U, Arsenal, Rangers et al would still sell newspapers and people would switch on to see them on the telly because they've got a successful history.
But that's the point. It's history. No team has a divine right to the top table, regardless of how successful you've been in the past. I'm sick of Liverpool fans in the last 25 fecking years going on about how their club deserves better players or better treatment or whatever. Their argument holds no more water than it does for Wolves or Huddersfield or Preston North End, but they were lucky enough to have their success in an era just when the money started coming in.
It's a fact of life, I'm afraid, that the teams who are at the top now will remain so for the foreseeable unless another super-billionaire transforms someone else into the next Chelsea or Man City. If they collapse, they'll get back up again and there's not a lot we can do about it.
So of course you're correct that that's what would happen, but it IS a problem because it just isn't right.
From someone who lives in Scotland, it really is a bizarre situation. Lee McCulloch is getting paid £16k a week to play in the Scottish League One. Rangers are the only full time team in the division, so McCulloch is getting paid £16k a week to play against plumbers, joiners, etc.
The team is full of SPL quality players. Law, Daly, Wallace, Moshni, McCulloch, Black, Bell and Shiels are all earning in excess of £5k a week to play in the Scottish third tier. Teams like Ross County and ICT in the SPL (and doing well), aren't paying any players more than £1k a week, why do Rangers need to pay players £16k a week to beat part-time teams?! I don't understand it one bit.
Financially there's no way they can keep this up. Last summer Rangers had £22 million and now it's gone. Whoever is in charge of transfers and recruitment is surely the worst in Europe! They have a staff budget of at least 10x bigger than every SPL club (except Celtic) to win a league with part-time teams.
They should have had a squad of youngsters (apparently have the best academy in the country) and picked the best lower league talent. For example, the best Scottish Championship players would have romped League One and Two just as easily. They could have had the same success and spent nowhere near the crazy amount they have. They could have won League One and Two easily with a players budget of £16k a week (Lee McCulloch's weekly wage).
Rangers have gone about this so, so wrong.
You don't ask players to take 15% paycuts if your finances are in order and you aren't losing more money than you have.
Incidentally I've heard a rumour that HMRC have asked for the accounts...
Of other clubs to spectacularly come back to spend above their means and go back into admin - I can't think of any although happy to be corrected.
Not really sure what happened with them to be honest!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25824196
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10259984/Test-to-prove-the-worlds-most-expensive-coffee-really-has-come-from-civet-poo.html
£51 a cup and made from the poo of the Asian palm civet!! Probably explains everything about their predicament and his head in the sand approach!! ;-)