RangeROFLs

[blindedbythelights]

getting 90 million a year or so on TV money

it'll ever happen.

thank fuck

[Tails]

You'd be no better than Leeds.....oh.

Oh what?

Makes no sense.

Watch out for the little englander everyone

A well supported side, but not going to be winning trophies. I very good season would have been getting around the top four.

Don't you know they take 4000+ fans every away game despite being shiote?

[Tails]

Albertz, de boer, flo, numan, klos, reyna and mols were all a good European standard at the time from the season before the one listed. Top european players are pushing it, but at least a good european standard than would have comfortably beaten anyone outside the top 4 in england. Celtic also had some good players around that time also. The reason the SPL is utter dire now is because English clubs have massively inflated and single highhandedly destroyed european football with silly money - they need to be capped because they aren't responsible. Why would you stay in scotland on 15k per week when you can play for relegation battlers in the prem for treble that? Readings wages are on a par with rangers, a team thats won over 50 domestic titles, european trophys and averages around 45-50,000 a week most seasons. Does that not tell you something?

Gr8 names m8.

In the 2001/02 season, it looked like most of those were in their thirties. I guess the highLOLands is a nice area to retire with all that golf on and all that.

[Arch]

Don't always say this, but Finerain wins this one. Some thunderingly dunderheaded objections.

[soggy biscuit]

None of those clubs would take anywhere close to 130,000 fans if the UEFA cup was up in glasgow.

First european final for over 35 years and it is played within a short drive/train journey. Reckon the likes of Newcastle & Spurs would take similar numbers in that scenario.

genuine question - where do you get the 130,000 figure from? I know Rangers fans used to get laughed at for quoting a figure up to 250,000, just interested to know how 130,000 was settled on.

[Ian Royal]

I'm still unable to understand your assertion that the Old Firm could compete with the Premier League's leading clubs on a transfer and wages basis.

Rangers have no-one in their current squad purchased for more than £4m. Their leading strikers were signed from Burnley and Kilmarnock. And journeyman David Healy. And James Beattie ffs. Likewise Celtic - Stokes and Samaras?

Even if you accept that the clubs' European pedigree could attract better players in the Premier League, which I don't (in a similar vein, Liverpool have much to thank Benitez for as without the profile of the 2005 CL win, I don't think they'd have retained their status amongst Europe's elite), neither Rangers or Celtic have millions of pounds splashing around. It would take some time to become financially structured in a way that would enable them to compete with the PL's big clubs.

Edit: That Jelavic looks handy though.

None of those clubs would take anywhere close to 130,000 fans if the UEFA cup was up in glasgow.

Taking a 130,000 to a cup final isn't an awful lot of help when your stadium capacity is 50k. Those extra 80k don't put any money into the club.

Their squads simply aren't good enough to hold out long in the Prem, especially when used to playing League One quality sides every week. They wouldn't build up the finances quick enough to be safe from avoiding relegation, at which point they'd seriously struggle to get out of the Championship if they didn't bounce straight back.

[FiNeRaIn]

They wouldn't build up the finances quick enough to be safe from avoiding relegation, at which point they'd seriously struggle to get out of the Championship if they didn't bounce straight back.

You have absolutely nothing to back that up with. Its simple really, you don't WANT them to succeed so you are simply dismissing them. Several people are falling for the " they are big mean and sectarian hope they fail" scenario, when in reality Rangers are bigger than every single club in the prem bar about 2/3 and would have no problems at all. Should they ever get the opportunity they would need a financial plan to make 2/3 good quality signings straight away and push on, more than possible. The current team would not be relegated but it would definitely be bottom half.

The 130,00 was quoted my manc police and the BBC but it could well have been more for whoever asked.

[cmonurz]

They wouldn't build up the finances quick enough to be safe from avoiding relegation, at which point they'd seriously struggle to get out of the Championship if they didn't bounce straight back.

You have absolutely nothing to back that up with.

You have nothing with which to back up your claim that the club would be financially competitive in two to three seasons. The most expensive player in Ranger's squad cost £4m. You say yourself that they pay wages similar to Reading. That is no base on which to become a top 4 or 5 Premier League club. You assertion that 'they just would' because the club has a history is ridiculous.

[FiNeRaIn]

Whats ridiculous is that you clearly haven't been reading anything, or have left your brain somewhere else. I never based their success upon history, however this helps to attract high quality players. Rangers are a massive name, like it or not. When football wasn't about money they were able to attract players like laudrup, gascoigne, de boer, van bronkhorst,etc etc
By being in the most famous league in the world and allowing the wage budget to be 10 times higher, who would a player rather join...sunderland/villa/fulham,etc or Rangers? I would say rangers as they are a bigger European name with a bigger support than any of those.

If you wan't to believe that Rangers would be relegated because their current team is distinctly average, you just live in that dream world. I mean its not as if stoke managed to push on as a club from the championship to europe is it? Wolves also. Without having an attendance HALF as much as Rangers. Success isn't guaranteed I am not claiming that, but all you haters claiming that relegation and failure is almost certain is beyond silly for people that should know better.

[Tails]

Hey, I never said you would be relegated. I just said you would be as 'successful' as Newcastle. You may have times when you could have competed for top four spaces but you wouldn't these days. Tell me what makes the avearage attendance of Rangers sooooo much better than Newcastle's? Furthermore, Rangers have indeed attracted massive names [all beit toward the end of their respective careers] but then again, so has Newcastle.

Just because you don't like it....

[cmonurz]

I, also, never said that Rangers would be relegated if they played in the Premier League.

[Ian Royal]

Whats ridiculous is that you clearly haven't been reading anything, or have left your brain somewhere else. I never based their success upon history, however this helps to attract high quality players. Rangers are a massive name, like it or not. When football wasn't about money they were able to attract players like laudrup, gascoigne, de boer, van bronkhorst,etc etc
By being in the most famous league in the world and allowing the wage budget to be 10 times higher, who would a player rather join...sunderland/villa/fulham,etc or Rangers? I would say rangers as they are a bigger European name with a bigger support than any of those.

If you wan't to believe that Rangers would be relegated because their current team is distinctly average, you just live in that dream world. I mean its not as if stoke managed to push on as a club from the championship to europe is it? Wolves also. Without having an attendance HALF as much as Rangers. Success isn't guaranteed I am not claiming that, but all you haters claiming that relegation and failure is almost certain is beyond silly for people that should know better.

They'd need to buy an entirely new team. They couldn't afford to do that. They'd hover in midtable and then probably go down. They've got absolutely nothing on Liverpool, Man City or Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, or half a dozen other clubs, except attendence.

Only 7 clubs have spent all of the last 11 years in the Premier League. And three of them have had seasons of stuggle. Rangers and Celtic would drop out eventually, because they haven't got a chance of breaking the top 4.

[FiNeRaIn]

Whats ridiculous is that you clearly haven't been reading anything, or have left your brain somewhere else. I never based their success upon history, however this helps to attract high quality players. Rangers are a massive name, like it or not. When football wasn't about money they were able to attract players like laudrup, gascoigne, de boer, van bronkhorst,etc etc
By being in the most famous league in the world and allowing the wage budget to be 10 times higher, who would a player rather join...sunderland/villa/fulham,etc or Rangers? I would say rangers as they are a bigger European name with a bigger support than any of those.

If you wan't to believe that Rangers would be relegated because their current team is distinctly average, you just live in that dream world. I mean its not as if stoke managed to push on as a club from the championship to europe is it? Wolves also. Without having an attendance HALF as much as Rangers. Success isn't guaranteed I am not claiming that, but all you haters claiming that relegation and failure is almost certain is beyond silly for people that should know better.

They'd need to buy an entirely new team.

lol...no they wouldn't. Did stoke buy an entirely new team when they went up? Did wolves? Did sunderland ? West Brom? Newcastle?

Don't be ridiculous. Rangers have players with champions league and uefa cup final experience in that squad. They wouldn't be challenging top four for a good few years, they would however push on to be top half of the table pretty quickly. Being that both of their fan bases are bigger than everyone outside of liverpool, man utd, arsenal and chelsea ( who are debatable actually) the transformation would happen pretty quickly with the added merchandising and other monies this brings on top of TV money being 20 times more than it is in the SPL.

I am done arguing with any of you, well informed pundits and ex pro's know the size of the Old firm clubs and what they'd bring to the table. You can believe what you want.

[Tails]

Still yet to differentiate any significant gap between attendances of Celtic/Rangers and say Newcastle/Sunderland.

[NTRoyal]

Interesting read this thread. Having lived in Scotland for 4 or 5 years, I absolutely agree Rangers and Celtic are both massive clubs, and given time they probably both would be knocking on the door of the top 4 after a few years, depending on certain factors and a bit of luck. However, the assumption that they wouldn't be relegated in their first season or two is a massive question mark, frankly both would really, really struggle. Aside from the fact that both teams are made up of decent Championship players and Premiership flops, its also fair to say the outrageous amount of decisions both teams get would drop rapidly (and please don't try and dispute this, the SFA and the refs up there give them absolutely everything, time and time again.) So you can write off alot of the 'controversial' decisions both clubs get, stonewall penalties that never get given against them, and a league that isn't absolutely terrified of either club.

So I personally think it's fair to say they would definately do well given time, but they would have to get their act together really quick, or I think they would be nothing more that any of the other teams outside the top 4.

[Tails]

Interesting read this thread. Having lived in Scotland for 4 or 5 years, I absolutely agree Rangers and Celtic are both massive clubs, and given time they probably both would be knocking on the door of the top 4 after a few years, depending on certain factors and a bit of luck. However, the assumption that they wouldn't be relegated in their first season or two is a massive question mark, frankly both would really, really struggle. Aside from the fact that both teams are made up of decent Championship players and Premiership flops, its also fair to say the outrageous amount of decisions both teams get would drop rapidly (and please don't try and dispute this, the SFA and the refs up there give them absolutely everything, time and time again.) So you can write off alot of the 'controversial' decisions both clubs get, stonewall penalties that never get given against them, and a league that isn't absolutely terrified of either club.

So I personally think it's fair to say they would definately do well given time, but they would have to get their act together really quick, or I think they would be nothing more that any of the other teams outside the top 4.

Pretty much what I've been saying

[Handsome Man]

Having Rangers and Celtic in the Premiership would be fantastic. 60,000 crowds and clubs with history, great former players and European success would be much better than having to watch Wigan and Blackburn.

If the current squads joined the Championship, they would struggle dreadfully (playe for player Reading are better at the moment) and probably be more likely to go down than up, but it would happen with huge crowds, massive season ticket sales and finally a fair amount of TV money, so it wouldn't take long before they made the premiership.

Nothing should change the current system for international football where the different home countries have differnt international football teams, but Celtic and Rangers should be allowed to join the English league without threatening this.

[FiNeRaIn]

If the current squads joined the Championship, they would struggle dreadfully (playe for player Reading are better at the moment)

I agree with all of your post other than this, which quite honestly is a bit ridiculous. I think only jimmy kebe or mcanuff would get near the Rangers team, I would pick a Rangers player in every single other position without hesitation.

[Mr Angry]

Mr A, you make a fairly valid point, but that doesn't take into account what may happen should Celtic and Rangers have the financial muscle that the Premier League club have. Fundamental flaw in your argument - the fact that Rangers were able to attract some of European football's top names a mere 10 years ago suggests that Rangers, at least, have a pedigree in European football.

But you could use that argument for pretty well any team, all of whome would be better if they had access to the financial muscle offered by the Premier League. You even have Stoke being linked with £20M transfers now FFS.

As for the their "pedigree" in European football, when you are one of 2 teams who are going to win your national Laegue EVERY season, of course you are going to have a European pedigree; however, if you can't even qualify for the knock out stages of the Europa League (when a team like Shamrock Rovers - who, incidentally, had a tougher draw than either Rangers or Celtic - can) it rather suggests that those "top names" won't be beating a path to Glasgow any day soon.

[SpaceCruiser]

Having Rangers and Celtic in the Premiership would be fantastic.

I disagree with this statement.