If/When Rangers die/decline, what will happen to Celtic?

I think the only game most people really care outside Scotland about is the Old Firm. I know that's the only game I watch. It'll take a lot of interest out of the league too if Celtic just walk it every year.

Plus playing against better players tends to improve the talent you have, so I can't imagine it will help youth development.

Is there any way a Rangers decline can make Celtic a better team? I can't see it.

Another team might jump on the continental money and become better than Rangers and improve the league.

The guarantee of CL football every year would be helpful in the long run.

Celtic will most probably die as well eventually. Not as a club, but on the field.

Celtic will suffer without Rangers. As you say Zzonked, the only big game in Scotland is the old firm. No decent player is going to want to come to Celtic and play the likes of Aberdeen, St Mirren etc. every week without the promise of a handful of huge games a season.

What I want to see is a new league set up with all the current teams in. If Celtic want to stay in Scotland, then they can, if they want to fuck off to wherever then they can.

Totti wrote:The guarantee of CL football every year would be helpful in the long run.

The SPL could lose all places (due to coefficient points) if they other teams in the league fail to compete in Europe.

Asked if nine-in-a-row could ever be achieved again, were Rangers to be holed indefinitely, Neil Lennon said: "Nine? Listen, I'll be bloody happy with one
"I am not saying we are going to do nine or 10-in-a-row or anything like that. But would it damage us? History tells us it wouldn't.
"Lyon won the league seven years in a row in France because of Marseille's problems and with PSG falling away.
"It didn't affect them too badly or cause French football to suffer.
"Lyon made the semi-finals of the Champions League and produced some great young players who made the club a hell of a lot of money. Celtic and Rangers have won nine-in-a-row at some stage in their history. Did it affect the clubs then? Did it affect crowds?
"During our run of title wins Celtic won the European Cup and went to another European Final.
"During Rangers' nine they almost made the Champions League Final and competed at a high level in Europe.
"There was no complacency then and it certainly didn't damage their reputation. If anything, it enhanced it."

ayvee1 wrote:Celtic will suffer without Rangers. As you say Zzonked, the only big game in Scotland is the old firm. No decent player is going to want to come to Celtic and play the likes of Aberdeen, St Mirren etc. every week without the promise of a handful of huge games a season.

What I want to see is a new league set up with all the current teams in. If Celtic want to stay in Scotland, then they can, if they want to fuck off to wherever then they can.

No matter what happens to Rangers, the league has to change. It's simply pathetic, no attractions whatsoever and quite frankly, embarrassing to us as a nation.

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

ayvee1 wrote:Celtic will suffer without Rangers. As you say Zzonked, the only big game in Scotland is the old firm. No decent player is going to want to come to Celtic and play the likes of Aberdeen, St Mirren etc. every week without the promise of a handful of huge games a season.

What I want to see is a new league set up with all the current teams in. If Celtic want to stay in Scotland, then they can, if they want to fuck off to wherever then they can.

No matter what happens to Rangers, the league has to change. It's simply pathetic, no attractions whatsoever and quite frankly, embarrassing to us as a nation.

How the fuck is the league going to 'change?' We're a tiny country, the league structure means relatively little when the size of the country is on a par with the likes of Norway and Iceland. It's only the fact that we have punched above our weight in the past and our proximity to the premiership that is making people like you slag off the SPL rather than other small leagues.

Any promising youth players that could have joined Rangers could go to Celtic instead. That's like the only positive I can see here for Celtic, because even if they qualify for Europe every year they're probably not good enough to make any decent impact.

As for the development for the national team, it's difficult to say since Republic of Ireland are doing so well despite not having a major club side.

The comparison made by Conor/Lennon there is nonsensical because the standard of football of both Lyon and past Old Firm sides were much higher than now.

ConorCelticFC wrote:Asked if nine-in-a-row could ever be achieved again, were Rangers to be holed indefinitely, Neil Lennon said: "Nine? Listen, I'll be bloody happy with one
"I am not saying we are going to do nine or 10-in-a-row or anything like that. But would it damage us? History tells us it wouldn't.
"Lyon won the league seven years in a row in France because of Marseille's problems and with PSG falling away.
"It didn't affect them too badly or cause French football to suffer.
"Lyon made the semi-finals of the Champions League and produced some great young players who made the club a hell of a lot of money. Celtic and Rangers have won nine-in-a-row at some stage in their history. Did it affect the clubs then? Did it affect crowds?
"During our run of title wins Celtic won the European Cup and went to another European Final.
"During Rangers' nine they almost made the Champions League Final and competed at a high level in Europe.
"There was no complacency then and it certainly didn't damage their reputation. If anything, it enhanced it."

Winning it over and over, although boring, isn't going to ruin the league I guess. However I would say that Lyon won it because of their very shrewd spending and tactics in their buying of players, rather than the other competition imploding. Not to say the current Celtic team isn't good, just saying Lyon took a step forward rather than everyone else taking a step back.

I've read a fair bit about Lyon's model, it's quite interesting.

MickStupp wrote:Any promising youth players that could have joined Rangers could go to Celtic instead. That's like the only positive I can see here for Celtic, because even if they qualify for Europe every year they're probably not good enough to make any decent impact.

As for the development for the national team, it's difficult to say since Republic of Ireland are doing so well despite not having a major club side.

The comparison made by Conor/Lennon there is nonsensical because the standard of football of both Lyon and past Old Firm sides were much higher than now.

Think before you post, the quality of the teams is irrelevant - it's the principle that domestic dominance doesn't have to affect a club's stature and quality.

Lyon are shit now.

The French league improved so much, Lyon got caught behind.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

No matter what happens to Rangers, the league has to change. It's simply pathetic, no attractions whatsoever and quite frankly, embarrassing to us as a nation.

How the fuck is the league going to 'change?' We're a tiny country, the league structure means relatively little when the size of the country is on a par with the likes of Norway and Iceland. It's only the fact that we have punched above our weight in the past and our proximity to the premiership that is making people like you slag off the SPL rather than other small leagues.

There is no project in Scottish football, we need a better youth structure, grass roots level if you want to call it that. At this moment in time, the quality that we produce simply isn't good enough. Rangers, maybe produce 3 youth players every couple of season who are good i.e. Ness, Hutton, McCabe etc and Celtic, maybe 1. That is not at all a pop at Celtic as when you do, they seem to be good i.e. McGeady, Forrest etc. But the standard of youth coming through from Scotland's top sides is pathetic. The way forward (you will laugh this off) is to make clubs only have 3 foreign players in their squad, or something similar to that. i.e. forcing us to use the youth system, spend money to improve it. Having say 8 Scottish players starting every week in every squad, would over time increase the quality of Scottish football as a whole. Something needs to be done.

The Bat-Man wrote:Lyon are shit now.

The French league improved so much, Lyon got caught behind.

That's the thing isn't it, to become a good team you either have to have a load of money or beat people to the punch with new ideas. The second way is only temporary, because if you start doing that pretty soon people notice and catch up. It's like moneyball.

Zzonked wrote:

The Bat-Man wrote:Lyon are shit now.

The French league improved so much, Lyon got caught behind.

That's the thing isn't it, to become a good team you either have to have a load of money or beat people to the punch with new ideas. The second way is only temporary, because if you start doing that pretty soon people notice and catch up. It's like moneyball.

Fucking amazing film, amazing sports theory.

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

How the fuck is the league going to 'change?' We're a tiny country, the league structure means relatively little when the size of the country is on a par with the likes of Norway and Iceland. It's only the fact that we have punched above our weight in the past and our proximity to the premiership that is making people like you slag off the SPL rather than other small leagues.

There is no project in Scottish football, we need a better youth structure, grass roots level if you want to call it that. At this moment in time, the quality that we produce simply isn't good enough. Rangers, maybe produce 3 youth players every couple of season who are good i.e. Ness, Hutton, McCabe etc and Celtic, maybe 1. That is not at all a pop at Celtic as when you do, they seem to be good i.e. McGeady, Forrest etc. But the standard of youth coming through from Scotland's top sides is pathetic. The way forward (you will laugh this off) is to make clubs only have 3 foreign players in their squad, or something similar to that. i.e. forcing us to use the youth system, spend money to improve it. Having say 8 Scottish players starting every week in every squad, would over time increase the quality of Scottish football as a whole. Something needs to be done.

Can we not have a single conversation without you trying to score points? Hutton is in the second division and McCabe is only playing for you because your squad has been decimated - we have players like Keatings, Toshney and Towell loaned in the SPL, and McGeouch, Twardzik and Watt already showing very promising signs in the first team.

And I think that the three foreign player rule is just sucide, no dominant league in Europe has pursued that, let alone a country where the domestic talent intake is so low.

Celtic would go with Rangers, they're the only thing keeper each other a float. Even with guaranteed CL money (which isn't really guaranteed because they have to qualify -- right?) what promising player would go to Celtic to play scrubs and be eliminated in the group stages? They could continue to pick off lesser leagues (Scandinavia, Eastern Europe) and hope to develop them, but unless they join the English system (which is a stretch) they'll decline as well.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

MickStupp wrote:Any promising youth players that could have joined Rangers could go to Celtic instead. That's like the only positive I can see here for Celtic, because even if they qualify for Europe every year they're probably not good enough to make any decent impact.

As for the development for the national team, it's difficult to say since Republic of Ireland are doing so well despite not having a major club side.

The comparison made by Conor/Lennon there is nonsensical because the standard of football of both Lyon and past Old Firm sides were much higher than now.

Think before you post, the quality of the teams is irrelevant - it's the principle that domestic dominance doesn't have to affect a club's stature and quality.

Don't take that attitude with me Conor. As Zzonked said, in previous years the team that dominates has made a step up ahead of the competition, not because the only other competitive side has stepped down. Even during Rangers' nine in a row they were pushed all the way by other sides.

I hate how moneyball is referenced everywhere these days

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

There is no project in Scottish football, we need a better youth structure, grass roots level if you want to call it that. At this moment in time, the quality that we produce simply isn't good enough. Rangers, maybe produce 3 youth players every couple of season who are good i.e. Ness, Hutton, McCabe etc and Celtic, maybe 1. That is not at all a pop at Celtic as when you do, they seem to be good i.e. McGeady, Forrest etc. But the standard of youth coming through from Scotland's top sides is pathetic. The way forward (you will laugh this off) is to make clubs only have 3 foreign players in their squad, or something similar to that. i.e. forcing us to use the youth system, spend money to improve it. Having say 8 Scottish players starting every week in every squad, would over time increase the quality of Scottish football as a whole. Something needs to be done.

Can we not have a single conversation without you trying to score points? Hutton is in the second division and McCabe is only playing for you because your squad has been decimated - we have players like Keatings, Toshney and Towell loaned in the SPL, and McGeouch, Twardzik and Watt already showing very promising signs in the first team.

What? I just said that when you do, you usually produce something special, that's a compliment. Hutton is at Dunfermline on loan (couldn't get the paperwork through in time to join Sheffield Wednesday) and McCabe won MOTM on his OF debut, having only played once for us before. I'm not saying that Watt doesn't have promise by any stretch of the imagination, but 30 mins is nowhere near enough time to judge a player.

dena wrote:Celtic would go with Rangers, they're the only thing keeper each other a float. Even with guaranteed CL money (which isn't really guaranteed because they have to qualify -- right?) what promising player would go to Celtic to play scrubs and be eliminated in the group stages? They could continue to pick off lesser leagues (Scandinavia, Eastern Europe) and hope to develop them, but unless they join the English system (which is a stretch) they'll decline as well.

Neither club will ever play in England, period.

MickStupp wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Think before you post, the quality of the teams is irrelevant - it's the principle that domestic dominance doesn't have to affect a club's stature and quality.

Don't take that attitude with me Conor. As Zzonked said, in previous years the team that dominates has made a step up ahead of the competition, not because the only other competitive side has stepped down. Even during Rangers' nine in a row they were pushed all the way by other sides.

That's not the point you made. Zzonked's argument is a good one, but a lot of the points made by Lennon still stand.

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Can we not have a single conversation without you trying to score points? Hutton is in the second division and McCabe is only playing for you because your squad has been decimated - we have players like Keatings, Toshney and Towell loaned in the SPL, and McGeouch, Twardzik and Watt already showing very promising signs in the first team.

What? I just said that when you do, you usually produce something special, that's a compliment. Hutton is at Dunfermline on loan (couldn't get the paperwork through in time to join Sheffield Wednesday) and McCabe won MOTM on his OF debut, having only played once for us before. I'm not saying that Watt doesn't have promise by any stretch of the imagination, but 30 mins is nowhere near enough time to judge a player.

OK, I guess it's natural that you would think McCabe and Hutton are better simply because you don't follow the Celtic youth players.

But seriously, three-player rules? That might help the national team but it would completely end any European aspirations whatsoever. We would end up like the Welsh/Irish league IMO.

No they will probably suffer from it in the short term. The OF games are the only fixtures that gather world wide audiences of significant amounts. Without Rangers in the SPL they will slowly drag Celtic down a notch too, unless another club steps up (which I doubt will happen for many years).

Gatsby wrote:I hate how moneyball is referenced everywhere these days

Moneyball is that shi-

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

dena wrote:Celtic would go with Rangers, they're the only thing keeper each other a float. Even with guaranteed CL money (which isn't really guaranteed because they have to qualify -- right?) what promising player would go to Celtic to play scrubs and be eliminated in the group stages? They could continue to pick off lesser leagues (Scandinavia, Eastern Europe) and hope to develop them, but unless they join the English system (which is a stretch) they'll decline as well.

Neither club will ever play in England, period.

Hence the word, stretch.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

What? I just said that when you do, you usually produce something special, that's a compliment. Hutton is at Dunfermline on loan (couldn't get the paperwork through in time to join Sheffield Wednesday) and McCabe won MOTM on his OF debut, having only played once for us before. I'm not saying that Watt doesn't have promise by any stretch of the imagination, but 30 mins is nowhere near enough time to judge a player.

OK, I guess it's natural that you would think McCabe and Hutton are better simply because you don't follow the Celtic youth players.

But seriously, three-player rules? That might help the national team but it would completely end any European aspirations whatsoever. We would end up like the Welsh/Irish league IMO.

Right now, yes. But in the long run it would be incredibly beneficial. My main point is, look at the Lisbon Lions.

dena wrote:

Gatsby wrote:I hate how moneyball is referenced everywhere these days

Moneyball is that shi-

Jelavić7|EFC wrote:

Neither club will ever play in England, period.

Hence the word, stretch.

It was for the avoidance of doubt.

You see, I don't mind speaking partially normal i.e. not using lo lo lo etc when people are game for some constructive discussion. I speak the way that I'm spoken to, therefore attempt to troll me and I'll do it back.

Celtics chairman has already denied that Celtic would be worse off without Rangers

The league would be more competitive without Rangers. Their financial doping has resulted in the demise of Scottish football. The league would immediately present more opportunities for success. It would present other teams with the chance to compete.

There's no getting away from the fact that Scottish football will suffer to some degree financially, the people that go to see Rangers away from home, won't be there. That's financial hardship. We'll just have to readjust to it.

Teams like Aberdeen have been denied the opportunity to compete because of Rangers financial doping. The last time Rangers were in the doldrums Aberdeen were in European finals, the league was much more competitive. We had four different title winners in ten years.

As for television money, the current Sky deal is derisory, as has already been said it's something like 5% of Celtics income. Are you honestly telling me that instead of renegotiating the deal, obviously downwards to a degree, and sending their cameras two hours up the road to Scotland, will instead try and look for something else to fill the schedule at the weekend when they show Scottish football, the same way they show Blue Square, the same way the show the Irish League? There will always be Scottish football on Sky, there's no two ways about it.

The standard of football just doesn't stay the same. Over time, as other teams are presented opportunities, and become more successful, just take this year for example, both Edinburgh teams in the Scottish Cup Final and Kilmarnock winning the League Cup .. and also teams, take Motherwell for example, getting a chance in the Champions League without Rangers .. that can only be a good thing. That's something I would have thought was common sense and didn't need an explanation. The league will be a lot more competitive without Rangers.