(Maybe SHC) Celtc dont need Huns...

[Twa Cairpets]

According to Peter Lawell...

Interesting, when you think of the number of people who blindly repeat the mantra of "we need a strong Old Firm" - even the Old Firm dont believe it.

BBC Link

[Sylar]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

According to Peter Lawell...

Interesting, when you think of the number of people who blindly repeat the mantra of "we need a strong Old Firm" - even the Old Firm dont believe it.

BBC Link

So when Rangers go bust and there's no Old Firm derbies anymore and Sky decide that they don't want to pump the same level of money into the SPL as a result, where will Celtc make up their lost revenue, because their attendances are hardly weekly sell-outs?

The delusions/blinkered reality this man suffers from are astonishing.

[hughio]

Its just a blind OF reaction

Any and I mean ANY excuse to have a pop at the other lot is never missed by either.

[Dashing Bob S]

I think Lawell is being more transparent than usual here. The Huns have generally always needed Celtic more than the other way around. The OF sectarian strategy was to simplistically parcel Scotland off into indigenous (protestant) 'Scots', and interloping catholic 'Irish' immigrants.

One set of low-status white trash could enjoy the supremacist fantasy, the other could revel in the role of being part of an oppressed minority.

Murray's long-term strategy when he took over Rangers was to have them and Celtic play in England (preferably) and, if not, a European league. When he took over and Celtic were terrible, there was a genuine unease amongst the Rangers board that the fact that Celtic were rubbish was holding them back from realizing their ambitions - that the OF had to function as a job lot.

Celtic have long played that sectarian strategy with Rangers but since the 90's have been also running a parallel one - that of the football club of the global Irish diaspora. It's a strategy which doesn't require Rangers, or to even for Rangers to be in the same league as them. Before they beefed up this approach, they certainly did need Rangers. As had been said, 'Support based wise, Celtic without Rangers are Hibs, but Rangers without Celtic are Partick Thistle.' This is probably no longer true - at least in the case of Celtic.

The problem for Rangers is that for their supremacist strategy to operate, they can only really have their one historic hate figure (catholic, nationalist, republicans of Irish or Irish extraction) whereby the plastic paddy card gives Celtic a far greater number of options.

Rangers big fear now must be some broadcast-led reconstruction of football, and the emergence of European regional leagues will occur when they are at their weakest, and thus condemned to a lower tier than Celtic.

But it doesn't mean that Celtic can do without Rangers just yet, although they are working away from co-dependance. It's interesting to speculate what OF crowds would be like without 4-6 OF games a year. After a couple of seasons without those derbies, how much sense would those clubs make individually to those clowns who buy into their nonsense?

[Renfrew_Hibby]

Celtic have always been more vocal about their desire to move to the EPL than Rangers and many Celtic fans have the theory that it's only Rangers holding them back as the Gers are not wanted down south but Celtic would be. So the dimise of Rangers could speed up atempts at relocating the hoops.

[forthhibby]

this is the same celtic who have lost £7m in the current financial year, my arse they can survive without rangers, they've worked together for as long as i can remember to takeover scottish football

[Part/Time Supporter]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

this is the same celtic who have lost £7m in the current financial year, my arse they can survive without rangers, they've worked together for as long as i can remember to takeover scottish football

Celtc are suffering the delusion that if the Huns go bust, the English will feel sorry for them and let them in after all.

Erm, naw.

[Dashing Bob S]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Celtc are suffering the delusion that if the Huns go bust, the English will feel sorry for them and let them in after all.

Erm, naw.

I think it's least they can do after oppressing them for 900 years. Oh, wait, but they've been going for 100 odd years...

[Cocohibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think Lawell is being more transparent than usual here. The Huns have generally always needed Celtic more than the other way around. The OF sectarian strategy was to simplistically parcel Scotland off into indigenous (protestant) 'Scots', and interloping catholic 'Irish' immigrants.

One set of low-status white trash could enjoy the supremacist fantasy, the other could revel in the role of being part of an oppressed minority.

Murray's long-term strategy when he took over Rangers was to have them and Celtic play in England (preferably) and, if not, a European league. When he took over and Celtic were terrible, there was a genuine unease amongst the Rangers board that the fact that Celtic were rubbish was holding them back from realizing their ambitions - that the OF had to function as a job lot.

Celtic have long played that sectarian strategy with Rangers but since the 90's have been also running a parallel one - that of the football club of the global Irish diaspora. It's a strategy which doesn't require Rangers, or to even for Rangers to be in the same league as them. Before they beefed up this approach, they certainly did need Rangers. As had been said, 'Support based wise, Celtic without Rangers are Hibs, but Rangers without Celtic are Partick Thistle.' This is probably no longer true - at least in the case of Celtic.

The problem for Rangers is that for their supremacist strategy to operate, they can only really have their one historic hate figure (catholic, nationalist, republicans of Irish or Irish extraction) whereby the plastic paddy card gives Celtic a far greater number of options.

Rangers big fear now must be some broadcast-led reconstruction of football, and the emergence of European regional leagues will occur when they are at their weakest, and thus condemned to a lower tier than Celtic.

But it doesn't mean that Celtic can do without Rangers just yet, although they are working away from co-dependance. It's interesting to speculate what OF crowds would be like without 4-6 OF games a year. After a couple of seasons without those derbies, how much sense would those clubs make individually to those clowns who buy into their nonsense?

Top post

[Vini1875]

I don't think they do need the huns. They could develop youth players without having to win every game and still win the league for a few seasons before any of the others were in a place to challenge them. Thereby saving a fortune. They would look to do better in europe which might be a bit of a pipe dream.

If the huns went under would their fans support anyone else, is the big question? If it was me and God forbid Hibs went out of business I would not watch any other team. I think the huns would find someway to be ressurected, which would mean celtc could gloat while waiting three years for the huns mark 2 to get into the SPL again.

I think their crowds might suffer as I know plenty through here who are bored with the present format. However with the huns gone reconstruction might bring a bigger league and playing each other twice instead of four times a season.

Who knows? I doubt the huns will die altogether, but it is funny watching them suffer.

[ancient hibee]

I don't understand how people think Rangers are going out of business-they will just continue as before-minus 10 points.The only fly inthe ointment for them is ifa major creditor such as Hearts who will be one of the biggest refuse to accede to the creditors arrangement.However as Whyte has structured the borrowing so that one of his companies is the biggest creditor it will probably go through.So Rangers will be in and out of administration and finish second in the league.The idea that Celtic would be content to win the league using young players won't wash as they need to be playing in Europe to a higher level than they are now.

[heartbreaker]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think Lawell is being more transparent than usual here. The Huns have generally always needed Celtic more than the other way around. The OF sectarian strategy was to simplistically parcel Scotland off into indigenous (protestant) 'Scots', and interloping catholic 'Irish' immigrants.

One set of low-status white trash could enjoy the supremacist fantasy, the other could revel in the role of being part of an oppressed minority.

Murray's long-term strategy when he took over Rangers was to have them and Celtic play in England (preferably) and, if not, a European league. When he took over and Celtic were terrible, there was a genuine unease amongst the Rangers board that the fact that Celtic were rubbish was holding them back from realizing their ambitions - that the OF had to function as a job lot.

Celtic have long played that sectarian strategy with Rangers but since the 90's have been also running a parallel one - that of the football club of the global Irish diaspora. It's a strategy which doesn't require Rangers, or to even for Rangers to be in the same league as them. Before they beefed up this approach, they certainly did need Rangers. As had been said, 'Support based wise, Celtic without Rangers are Hibs, but Rangers without Celtic are Partick Thistle.' This is probably no longer true - at least in the case of Celtic.

The problem for Rangers is that for their supremacist strategy to operate, they can only really have their one historic hate figure (catholic, nationalist, republicans of Irish or Irish extraction) whereby the plastic paddy card gives Celtic a far greater number of options.

Rangers big fear now must be some broadcast-led reconstruction of football, and the emergence of European regional leagues will occur when they are at their weakest, and thus condemned to a lower tier than Celtic.

But it doesn't mean that Celtic can do without Rangers just yet, although they are working away from co-dependance. It's interesting to speculate what OF crowds would be like without 4-6 OF games a year. After a couple of seasons without those derbies, how much sense would those clubs make individually to those clowns who buy into their nonsense?

Very well argued and insightful post.

Rangers are in long term decline nad have been for decades. Until the late '60s they dwarfed Celtic nationally and in every way. The Stein era equalled things and recently Celtic's more attractive marketing appeal has seen them probably overtake Rangers asa global brand.....I have no doubt the Celtic brand is now more attractive to global invertors.

The supremacist, imperialist We are the People totems they build the brand on are just not attractive in the 21st century and the club seems old fashioned inward looking and venomous to outsiders.

[bigwheel]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Very well argued and insightful post.

Rangers are in long term decline nad have been for decades. Until the late '60s they dwarfed Celtic nationally and in every way. The Stein era equalled things and recently Celtic's more attractive marketing appeal has seen them probably overtake Rangers asa global brand.....I have no doubt the Celtic brand is now more attractive to global invertors.

The supremacist, imperialist We are the People totems they build the brand on are just not attractive in the 21st century and the club seems old fashioned inward looking and venomous to outsiders.

I heard a story from a senior Rangers insider that illustrates this....around 2003/4 Rangers undertook a marketing campaign across their 100,000+ members database. They asked them to introduce a friend and had hoped to almost double their membership numbers. They got little more than 2000 names. An analysis concluded that their fan base is actually very west coast of Scotland and parts of N I dominated, with small populations in America and a few other places. Celtic have the Irish ex pats to call on, Rangers don't have the volume of equivalents in their extended fan base.... they are a big club in a small country, but nowhere near a worldwide brand....

[heretoday]

Don't want Rangers to go bust. They'll all be over here pretending to follow Hearts if that happens. The streets of Gorgie are filthy enough as it is!

[down-the-slope]

Well lets see if his claims hold fast when it comes to voting / lobbying for Rangers to receive suitable sanction (i.e. New Huns 2012 starting in Div 3) rather than a slap on wrist and OF bile fest continuing with a mere 'speed bump' in their progress........

[NAE NOOKIE]

IMO the current buns will continue and there is no chance that they will not survive in some form or another.

The question is in what form will they survive?

I have to say that I cant remember such a negative reaction from any clubs fans in such a short space of time. It isnt even as if there has been a period of crushing failure running for two or three seasons. It would appear from what I have seen on the TV heard on the Radio and read in the papers, that the so called fans who follow, follow rangers cant wait to jump ship, not in the face of failure, but at the very prospect of it.

From an average crowd of around 45,000 they could only manage 17,000 - 18,000 for the Dundee Utd game, of which 1,000 were Utd fans. For a club of say Hibs size that would translate to a crowd of approximately 4,000 - 5,000 for the same fixture and we are near enough at rock bottom.

That for the current buns is the real problem. How many of their 45,000 average would be able to live for season after season watching celtic win the league, with their lot perhaps not even being able to finish 3rd. Add on to that perhaps having to rent Hampden coz there is no way they would rent celtic park and Firhill is just a bit too wee, but Hampden is about 35,000 too big. What a terrible scenario the current buns face. I.E. no money and not enough supporters paying money to revive the club.

And that brings us to celtic ..... There is a school of thought that the TV folk only care about giving Scotland a TV deal because of the OF matches. If that is true and the TV folk lose interest because rangers cant compete and / or celtic are a runaway train, then the question becomes ....... of what use are celtic or rangers to the other clubs in Scotland. The away support of both OF clubs would drop off in that scenario and they would not ( as they have banged on about for years ) be the ones bringing in the TV money.

In that case what would be the point of the other clubs keeping the OF around. Why allow celtic to domimate the league, when there would be a reasonable chance of generating more fans through the gates and perhaps getting a reasonable TV deal for a competetive league without them in it.

[joe breezy]

English people hate Celtic fans even more than Rangers so they wouldn't be welcomed with open arms either

I would love it if there was a British Isles league so I could see and support Hibs but not sure it will ever happen

We definitely need something else, TV money will go down the pan if Rangers & Hearts go bust. 4 biggish clubs in Scotland, Hibs, Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee United...