How would Celtic and Rangers do in the Prem?

First topic message reminder :

This debate has been going around for ages. But whats your thoughts on this?
Will they challenge for the title or a European slot, or will they struggle?
Over to you people........

The Galveston Giant wrote:So unless everyone joins Man Utd and scores 30 odd goals a season they're not really that good?

Good/bad is too black and white a way to look at it. It's about levels. Fletcher has been very good for Wolves, but that doesn't mean he's on the same level as someone performing very well for a much bigger club at the top of the league (e.g. RVP or Rooney). Though admittedly most clubs would probably take him ahead of Torres right now.....

Ent wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:

You say 98-00 Rangers were one of the top sides in the UK yet in 97/98 they couldn't get passed the qualifiers (beaten by the mighty Gothenburg) whilst Newcastle at least got to the group stages and United the QF. In 98/99 they couldn't even get in the competition (presdumably as they couldn't even win their own league)

Erm, well this seems pretty obvious but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your just confusing yourself, by the time the 97/98 season came along, Rangers were an aging team, a lot of their players had been there for years and years and the manager was probably to loyal to most because they were going for a record breaking 10 in a row, they got knocked out of Europe in 1997, a year before they had the team I described, they also lost the league that season which explains their absense from the 98/99 CL, in the Summer of 1998 though they aquired one of the best coaches in Europe at the time in Dick Advocaat and they spent crazy money for that time, almost £40m and the talent that was signed was some of the best talent that was signed in the UK that year

In your 2000-2004 'Celtic glory period' you were knocked out of the griups three times and the qualifiers the other time

It's true, we were knocked out, but that's what happens when seedings come into play, Celtic who had no previous experiance in the Champions League in 2001/02 were fourth seeds, a group that contained Juventus, Rosenborg and Porto, teams who all went on to win their respective leagues that season, when inexperianced clubs enter the Champions League many are 'caught cold' as Arsenal found out in 98/99 and 99/00 and even the likes of Manchester City found out this year, Celtic had to build a European port folio which then allowed the club to climb the seedings so future far less talented Celtic teams could prosper, infact in 2006/07 Celtic qualified from their group before Manchester United could join us

I've got absolutely no problem at all with your stats and your 'facts' however with the very little knowledge or understanding surrounding them then they really don't mean much at all as I have pointed out in response to your above quotes

Gaffer these are just becoming excuses now really, the English clubs involved in the examples above e.g. Newcastle had never been there before either. Also if we were to consider bad luck and other mitigating circumstances then the EPL clubs would have gone further in the CL too.

Lets just face it Celtic had a good side from 00-04 but not good enough to cope with the top PL sides over the course of a league season.

I knew I wasn't speaking Dutch!

I said that all the talent not just scottish born talent, nobody said they were in high demand. Football isn't just about the top five or six that play in england who can afford anything they want. I don't actually care if they would be challenging in the top tier i think some teams should be proud to finish mid table in the Premiership.

Course they should be proud, but how many can say they can do that because of the presence and major influence of ex SPL players? None.

The Galveston Giant wrote:I said that all the talent not just scottish born talent, nobody said they were in high demand. Football isn't just about the top five or six that play in england who can afford anything they want. I don't actually care if they would be challenging in the top tier i think some teams should be proud to finish mid table in the Premiership.

our teams cant just afford what they want and certainly not the top 6, and even then if you can afford what you want you still cant get it.

even the top 6 have to buy wisely and scout talent. There is only one really rich team in the prem these days!

Not every team can be a barca or real madrid- where they are basically govnment owned and can effectively run operating loss after operating loss and just get bailed out whenever

there is no reason why teams with massive fan bases like newcastle or celtic(if there did come into the prem) cant get to an arsernal or totenham level(without suger dadies)- these are two clubs that arnt that rich and dont win much, yet have still acheived and do enough for there fans to feel very proud.

Ent wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:

You say 98-00 Rangers were one of the top sides in the UK yet in 97/98 they couldn't get passed the qualifiers (beaten by the mighty Gothenburg) whilst Newcastle at least got to the group stages and United the QF. In 98/99 they couldn't even get in the competition (presdumably as they couldn't even win their own league)

Erm, well this seems pretty obvious but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your just confusing yourself, by the time the 97/98 season came along, Rangers were an aging team, a lot of their players had been there for years and years and the manager was probably to loyal to most because they were going for a record breaking 10 in a row, they got knocked out of Europe in 1997, a year before they had the team I described, they also lost the league that season which explains their absense from the 98/99 CL, in the Summer of 1998 though they aquired one of the best coaches in Europe at the time in Dick Advocaat and they spent crazy money for that time, almost £40m and the talent that was signed was some of the best talent that was signed in the UK that year

In your 2000-2004 'Celtic glory period' you were knocked out of the griups three times and the qualifiers the other time

It's true, we were knocked out, but that's what happens when seedings come into play, Celtic who had no previous experiance in the Champions League in 2001/02 were fourth seeds, a group that contained Juventus, Rosenborg and Porto, teams who all went on to win their respective leagues that season, when inexperianced clubs enter the Champions League many are 'caught cold' as Arsenal found out in 98/99 and 99/00 and even the likes of Manchester City found out this year, Celtic had to build a European port folio which then allowed the club to climb the seedings so future far less talented Celtic teams could prosper, infact in 2006/07 Celtic qualified from their group before Manchester United could join us

I've got absolutely no problem at all with your stats and your 'facts' however with the very little knowledge or understanding surrounding them then they really don't mean much at all as I have pointed out in response to your above quotes

Gaffer these are just becoming excuses now really, the English clubs involved in the examples above e.g. Newcastle had never been there before either. Also if we were to consider bad luck and other mitigating circumstances then the EPL clubs would have gone further in the CL too.

Lets just face it Celtic had a good side from 00-04 but not good enough to cope with the top PL sides over the course of a league season.

And how many times did you actually see Celtic during this period to make such a statement? You're entitled to your opinion of course regardless of how wrong it is, you can only play what's in front of you but anytime Celtic faced Premiership opposition during this period be it in European fixtures or anything else they never failed to perform or succeed

Oakey,
Osmanov has more money than Abramovich

super_realist wrote:Course they should be proud, but how many can say they can do that because of the presence and major influence of ex SPL players? None.

Your are just really negative, your making out that they have to go down there and set the league alight by themselves. Who cares the point is they are good enough to be signed.

neither use it tho(well abromovich did) and fair play- only city are going nuts buying players at any amount possible on a level with real madrid and barca. the one team i am talking about is man city not chelsea.

ok i said that arsernal wernt that rich in comparion to city- but i am talking about the club itself not a major shareholder. in citys case there is no difference from the owner and the club, its a play thing, arsernal tries to operate like a business and tries to not overspend

The Galveston Giant wrote:

super_realist wrote:Course they should be proud, but how many can say they can do that because of the presence and major influence of ex SPL players? None.

Your are just really negative, your making out that they have to go down there and set the league alight by themselves. Who cares the point is they are good enough to be signed.

a few half decent players moving from the SPL doesn't make it a good league though. Players come from all leagues around the world, some even worse than the SPL.
It doesn't mean the SPL is some sort of production line of talent, it just means that it's better for a career to play in the championship and lower echelon EPL clubs than play for Celtic or Rangers.

No it doesn't make it a good league but it makes it ten times better than you like to make out. You are in love with the Premiership that's your problem

alot of people all over the world are in love with the prem- i wouldnt call it a problem

No Galveston, it is what it is, currently something like the 26th ranked league in Europe by UEFA. Hardly a ringing endorsement for quality, behind the luminaries of Denmark and Israel.

It's hard to argue looking at that that the SPL is better than I'm making out. The league could quite easily die, and hardly anyone would care/notice.

super_realist wrote:Oakey,
Osmanov has more money than Abramovich

He doesn't have 100% control though, therefore doesn't invest in the club (by way of transfer funds etc). Osmanov and that Wallmart Yank own Arsenal between them pretty much but neither has over-riding control. Citeh and Chelski are the only clubs with sugar-daddies.

mystiroakey wrote:alot of people all over the world are in love with the prem- i wouldnt call it a problem

It is when you constantly try to compare your own league to it when there difference in money is huge.

super_realist wrote:No Galveston, it is what it is, currently something like the 26th ranked league in Europe by UEFA. Hardly a ringing endorsement for quality, behind the luminaries of Denmark and Israel.

It's hard to argue looking at that that the SPL is better than I'm making out. The league could quite easily die, and hardly anyone would care/notice.

I'm sure you would be there licking your lips.

How much exactly are Rangers in debt?

I heard 40 something million, then 75 million. Very strange for a league that doesn't have large TV money..

rangers owe 40 mill in taxes at the momment, however they also owe money to an owner- who is a prefered creditor- he gets the money first. There also could owe way more based on not paying the correct tax in some paye scheme(or something like that) which is also going to court which is the 75 million pound figure.

so if there loose that they could owe hmrc 75 mill plus 40 mill, they also owe plenty of other creditors

The best plan is to buy a few thousand euro lotto tickets then!

Re Scots players in the Championship.
An agent on Radio Scotland said that there were 75 young Scots playing in the Championship teams.
Surprised me...I doubt if there are 75 English players in the EPL('')

How many of these 75 Scottish players will even contemplate playing Scottish football...

Championship > SPL

Well there's well over 300 english players in the premier league, I do hate it when people try to be funny and fail so badly.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:How many of these 75 Scottish players will even contemplate playing Scottish football...

Championship > SPL

Why don't you do one you Holly Wilaboobie, why not debate instead of trying to take the urine.

Interesting fact. Rangers own something like 10 shares in Arsenal.

Ghosty.. So that's 15 per team. Not even 50% of the squad, that's very poor.

Anyone know how Arsenal are getting on?

how and why do you think thats poor?

areseranl are getting battered

Robinho looks a bit overweight but he is playing superb. I didn't think Milan would dominate them like this.

arsernal need a couple of goals or they are out oif this.

they have been so light weight and inconsitant this season

Doon the Water wrote:Ghosty.. So that's 15 per team. Not even 50% of the squad, that's very poor.

Anyone know how Arsenal are getting on?

It would actually equate to 60% of the squad and that wouldn't even be including the youngsters who get a run out now and then.

rather have 35% of something worthwhile than 100% of something that isnt. its simple as that, also the premier league is only a quarter of our league which overall is full of english players, which is supported better by having good quality players from all over the world, and by making alot of money for the FA.

eirebilly wrote:Gibbo mate, you're a good man but i have to pull you up. As you know i dont live far from you but i have to pull you out on the eredivisie in comparision to the SPL.

The eredivisie is in a shambles and young Dutch talent is fleeing by the droves to look for decent clubs. The standard in the eredivisie is no better than in the SPL.

How many of the Dutch side actually ply their trade in Holland and the eredivisie? Its mainly Spanish, Bundesliga and EPL so using the eredivisie as a comparison is not right. They are also falling by the wayside in Europe, with the exception of this year in the UEFA cup, so are in no better state than the SPL.

Anyway, back to the original topic. I believe that both Celtic and Rangers would be competitive in the Premier league, not challenging for the title but competetive. The thing that some people forget is that the SPL is not that an a competition to attract big stars so if either team went to the PL they could attract some big stars, being that they are big clubs with a rich history, and be very competitive within a year or two.

Billy,
Totally disagree with all of that mate. 4 NL sides in the last 32, proves my point as to the disparity between the 2 leagues. So the standard is obviously higher, when truly tested on the European stage.
Also, indigenous Dutch players, are far more technically-skilled than Scottish players - by design. Its the System. One I have been involved with for years, via my son. He knew how to trap a ball from height, control it, pass it and move - waiting for it back - aged 4. I have seen players at Celtic now, who still cant do that.

It is the very same for most English Prem sides indigenous players. This, is the very reason they spend fortunes getting players in who can. And the reason why England will always fail at international-level. They are basically, not technically skilled enough to compete at the high-end.

I rest my case.

I grew up with and loved Celtic. But. Im a realist. They are not a competitive European side anymore. And the inferior quality of the sides they have to play - week-in, week-out - really doesnt help that.

So, in answer to the OP - Yes, it would be a good idea for Celtic to join the English Championship - in the 1st instance. Not the Prem. Then, see them improve on the promise of the vast sums of money on offer in the Prem. They are not ready for the Prem now. No way. Not in this state anyway. They would need a sugar-Daddy, with piles of dosh to invest, based on a lucrative move to the richer English Leagues, to make it work . Dont know about Rangers now. Its really sad. I hope they recover - for their fans sake. Too much great History and Pride at stake, not to.

And Gaffer, mo chara. I openly apologise about the WUM posts the other night big man. I blame de Medoc. I know you love the Tic passionately. Its what the club was built on - against all the odds. Passion and Belief. It shines. I would never disrespect that intentionally But, it must be tempered with present reality. They can come to the Top Table again and Id be over the Moon, if and when it does happen.

It never really dies. Does it?

Hail Hail.

And Believe.

And those who are technically skilled are overlooked in favour of a more conventional english style as Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard proved some 8 years ago.

scholes is technically skilled!!

he quit england to early, gerarrd and lampard are the archtypical england CM not scholes!

luckily(i say that with baited breath!) we have a few decent techinally gifted players that will get the nod if fit for the euros-scholes,wlishire,rooney.

shame about joe cole and hargreaves injury troubles, another two that were techinically gifted.

mat letissier- he was criminally underused, and a good example of someone that never got the nod who had technical ability and was also good enough to be a started in every england game!

the-gaffer wrote:

Ent wrote:

the-gaffer wrote:

You say 98-00 Rangers were one of the top sides in the UK yet in 97/98 they couldn't get passed the qualifiers (beaten by the mighty Gothenburg) whilst Newcastle at least got to the group stages and United the QF. In 98/99 they couldn't even get in the competition (presdumably as they couldn't even win their own league)

Erm, well this seems pretty obvious but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your just confusing yourself, by the time the 97/98 season came along, Rangers were an aging team, a lot of their players had been there for years and years and the manager was probably to loyal to most because they were going for a record breaking 10 in a row, they got knocked out of Europe in 1997, a year before they had the team I described, they also lost the league that season which explains their absense from the 98/99 CL, in the Summer of 1998 though they aquired one of the best coaches in Europe at the time in Dick Advocaat and they spent crazy money for that time, almost £40m and the talent that was signed was some of the best talent that was signed in the UK that year

In your 2000-2004 'Celtic glory period' you were knocked out of the griups three times and the qualifiers the other time

It's true, we were knocked out, but that's what happens when seedings come into play, Celtic who had no previous experiance in the Champions League in 2001/02 were fourth seeds, a group that contained Juventus, Rosenborg and Porto, teams who all went on to win their respective leagues that season, when inexperianced clubs enter the Champions League many are 'caught cold' as Arsenal found out in 98/99 and 99/00 and even the likes of Manchester City found out this year, Celtic had to build a European port folio which then allowed the club to climb the seedings so future far less talented Celtic teams could prosper, infact in 2006/07 Celtic qualified from their group before Manchester United could join us

I've got absolutely no problem at all with your stats and your 'facts' however with the very little knowledge or understanding surrounding them then they really don't mean much at all as I have pointed out in response to your above quotes

Gaffer these are just becoming excuses now really, the English clubs involved in the examples above e.g. Newcastle had never been there before either. Also if we were to consider bad luck and other mitigating circumstances then the EPL clubs would have gone further in the CL too.

Lets just face it Celtic had a good side from 00-04 but not good enough to cope with the top PL sides over the course of a league season.

And how many times did you actually see Celtic during this period to make such a statement? You're entitled to your opinion of course regardless of how wrong it is, you can only play what's in front of you but anytime Celtic faced Premiership opposition during this period be it in European fixtures or anything else they never failed to perform or succeed

I'm not sure what you want here other than to continually shift the goal posts, Celtic weren't experienced enough, didn't have enough money, were unlucky, had a tough group etc etc

I mean could celtic with a better squad, more money, good luck and an easy group etc have done better in europe - yes but so could any other team who qualified.

I think I'm being more than fair, one off games - very capable, full league season and all it entails - wouldn't match the top sides in England at that time.

mystiroakey wrote:scholes is technically skilled!!

he quit england to early, gerarrd and lampard are the archtypical england CM not scholes!

luckily(i say that with baited breath!) we have a few decent techinally gifted players that will get the nod if fit for the euros-scholes,wlishire,rooney.

shame about joe cole and hargreaves injury troubles, another two that were techinically gifted.

mat letissier- he was criminally underused, and a good example of someone that never got the nod who had technical ability and was also good enough to be a started in every england game!

My point exactly, he was aside from Zidane the most technically gifted midfielder of his generation but was overlooked in favour of Gerrard and Lampard, a criminal move by Eriksson, a player that was feared on the continental more than any other.

sorry ghostly lol- i totally misread your post

mystiroakey wrote:scholes is technically skilled!!

he quit england to early, gerarrd and lampard are the archtypical england CM not scholes!

luckily(i say that with baited breath!) we have a few decent techinally gifted players that will get the nod if fit for the euros-scholes,wlishire,rooney.

shame about joe cole and hargreaves injury troubles, another two that were techinically gifted.

mat letissier- he was criminally underused, and a good example of someone that never got the nod who had technical ability and was also good enough to be a started in every england game!

Scholes was an exception. Stunning player. As is Rooney. The only other English player I can see, at that level, is that lad Chamberlain at Arsenal. He's special.

Agree on Le Tissier. But, he didnt fit the boring English template, so was excluded. WHY, do England do that? Kill any hope of invention at source?

Wilshere as well Gibson, an exceptionally technical midfielder.

Le Tissier main problem was Sheringham who had very good techincal ability and struck up a very good partnership with Shearer, he should have played more than he did though.

Rio Ferdinand was as technically gifted as pretty much any centre half I have ever watched.

Very true, could always tell with Ferdinand he was a converted midfielder, ironically moved back because of Cole and Lampard at West Ham.

God. Alan Shearer. Deadly from 2 inches. But no skill. Like Lineker.

Can anyone see a pattern here?

Lads. Sorry This is a Celtic/Rangers for the Prem thread.

Ok. I'll set up a thread on it. Have a go a me. It wont be purdy for English fans, but feic it. All right Crimey man? Tanks for de PM btw, ya feicer.

have we all forgotten the most technically gifted player ever in the history of english players.

PAUL GASCOIGNE!!

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Very true, could always tell with Ferdinand he was a converted midfielder, ironically moved back because of Cole and Lampard at West Ham.

Always felt he could have been used in a holding role a bit more often for man U and England his reading of the game is second to none.

Ferdinand in a holding role seems like a waste when he was such a commanding centre back, personally thought he was the best defender in the world for a fair while 2004-2010

England tried playing Carragher and King in the holding role under Sven when Ferdinand would have been much better with the less technically gifted players being put at centre half.

I think for man U it could have worked against the top sides he was better defensively then the likes of Carrick, Hargreaves and Fletcher and probably better on the ball.

I agree with you on him being the best defender of his time he easily makes the best 11 I've ever watched live.

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Rio Ferdinand was as technically gifted as pretty much any centre half I have ever watched.

But never a Top Class international, central-defender. Great Prem player. But, check Maldini or Puyol - for reference. Its like Men & Boy. No comparison.

Gibson wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Rio Ferdinand was as technically gifted as pretty much any centre half I have ever watched.

But never a Top Class international, central-defender. Great Prem player. But, check Maldini or Puyol - for reference. Its like Men & Boy. No comparison.

Puyol is part of a great team but he isn't as good a defender as Ferdinand he regularly gets caught out of position yes he's good on the ball but not any better than Ferdinand imo.

Maldini is a different story one of the best defenders of all time.

Gibson wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Rio Ferdinand was as technically gifted as pretty much any centre half I have ever watched.

But never a Top Class international, central-defender. Great Prem player. But, check Maldini or Puyol - for reference. Its like Men & Boy. No comparison.

Maldini about 10 years ago maybe but Ferdinand was a far better defender than Puyol, don't forget it's only recently that Spain have become the worlds premier team, his lack of pace was exposed tournament after tournament for years. He was a top class international level defender, not his fault that he had Terry next to him for most of that period.

not sure if its fair to suggest that not fullfilling potential at international level makes you a boy!

look at giggs/best or messi/cantona.

however all 4 have/had certain boyish qualities, certainly men on the pitch mind

[quote="SugarRayRussell (PBK)"]

Gibson wrote:

SugarRayRussell (PBK) wrote:Rio Ferdinand was as technically gifted as pretty much any centre half I have ever watched.

But never a Top Class international, central-defender. Great Prem player. But, check Maldini or Puyol - for reference. Its like Men & Boy. No comparison.

Puyol is part of a great team but he isn't as good a defender as Ferdinand he regularly gets caught out of position yes he's good on the ball but not any better than Ferdinand imo.

Maldini is a different story one of the best defenders of all time.[/quote]

Sugar.

Dont agree on Ferdinand v Puyol. One is a class above. But hey. Its an opinion-based forum man. Respect.