Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[super_realist]

Super

I don't even know what the Khan/London issue is this week. From your responses I gather it must be some sort of "green" thing.

Given you live in a vacuum I'm not surprised. 

Why don't you look at what "evidence" Khan is putting forward to justify ULEZ. Even someone who doesn't accept evidence to come to a conclusion should find it amusing.

Just because he's left wing, doesn't mean he isn't being a complete tool. He's basically done a Poll Tax in London.

What is ULEZ? and should I care?

Because it's going to cost you a lot of money, for no real reason, especially in Edinburgh. 
Might make your bus a bit quicker though.

[JuliusHMarx]

Some interesting reading here, but since it's the Guardian, it's obviously all left-wing nonsense, lacking any credible evidence - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/05/pollutionwatch-debunking-myths-low-emission-zones-health-air-pollution

Given that Khan has already been pulled up for trying to get a university paper to reword their reports on the efficacy of ULEZ to cover up it is useless in its aims , and he was caught lying about the number of people poor air affects fatally I'm not trusting crap in a rag like The Guardian.

It's  the EXPANSION that's the issue, not ULEZ's in general.

Surprising that a self-proclaimed leftie such as yourself doesn't trust the Guardian, but in any case, I'm sure you read all links in the article before reaching any conclusions.

[super_realist]

Some interesting reading here, but since it's the Guardian, it's obviously all left-wing nonsense, lacking any credible evidence - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/05/pollutionwatch-debunking-myths-low-emission-zones-health-air-pollution

Given that Khan has already been pulled up for trying to get a university paper to reword their reports on the efficacy of ULEZ to cover up it is useless in its aims , and he was caught lying about the number of people poor air affects fatally I'm not trusting crap in a rag like The Guardian.

It's  the EXPANSION that's the issue, not ULEZ's in general.

Surprising that a self-proclaimed leftie such as yourself doesn't trust the Guardian, but in any case, I'm sure you read all links in the article before reaching any conclusions.

The Guardian is exactly as awful as The Dail Mail is. Wrong, extreme  and untrustworthy albeit from different viewpoints.

Your cited Guardian article was about ULEZ in general, not specifically about the ULEZ expansion in London which is what Khan is trying to dress up on health and environmental grounds and which isn't backed up by science or research and is transparently a cash grab, and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

[Duty281]

Springboks to win the world cu for me.

They only manage it every 12 years. France for moi.

[Duty281]

Super

How come you have such strong feelings about the mayor of the city you don't live in or have any meaningful connection to?

It's a standard right wing activity to demonise any high profile left of centre politician. Rishi's little foot soldier :-p

High profile left of centre politicians would also include Sunak.

[JAS]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

[JuliusHMarx]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

From that article -
"It is often said the zone charges unfairly penalise the least well off. There are many dimensions to this. It is not clear that the poorest people own the oldest cars. Some clearly do but data from 2010 shows a more complex picture.
Cars in the UK’s poorest areas were, on average, just over a year older than those owned by the most well off. This was generally due to multi-car households in wealthier areas and the age of their second, third and, in some cases, fourth cars. Wealthier people also tended to own more polluting diesel cars, which are those most affected by low-emission schemes.
It is unclear how these patterns have changed in the past 13 years but London data from 2019-20 showed the persistence of the clear relationship between wealth and multi-car households."

Also -
"More air pollution is produced per square kilometre in the poorest areas but, when it comes to driving, the poorest contribute least to the problem. Many poorer households do not own a car and those who do drive less than wealthier people.
In 2010, the cars owned in the poorest 10% of the UK travelled just 40% of the distance of those owned in the wealthiest segment."

Question - do we disregard the above out of hand simply because it comes from the Guardian?

[McLaren]

Still don't know what ULEZ is?

[JuliusHMarx]

Still don't know what ULEZ is?

Union of Llamas, Elephants and Zebras. Sort of a left wing safari alliance.

[Soul Requiem]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

From that article -
"It is often said the zone charges unfairly penalise the least well off. There are many dimensions to this. It is not clear that the poorest people own the oldest cars. Some clearly do but data from 2010 shows a more complex picture.
Cars in the UK’s poorest areas were, on average, just over a year older than those owned by the most well off. This was generally due to multi-car households in wealthier areas and the age of their second, third and, in some cases, fourth cars. Wealthier people also tended to own more polluting diesel cars, which are those most affected by low-emission schemes.
It is unclear how these patterns have changed in the past 13 years but London data from 2019-20 showed the persistence of the clear relationship between wealth and multi-car households."

Also -
"More air pollution is produced per square kilometre in the poorest areas but, when it comes to driving, the poorest contribute least to the problem. Many poorer households do not own a car and those who do drive less than wealthier people.
In 2010, the cars owned in the poorest 10% of the UK travelled just 40% of the distance of those owned in the wealthiest segment."

Question - do we disregard the above out of hand simply because it comes from the Guardian?

That misses the point altogether though. The Wealthy paying £12.50 a day is nothing, that amount for poorer households however is a significant number especially for those require their car for work, you can be looking at upwards of £250 a month.

[JuliusHMarx]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

From that article -
"It is often said the zone charges unfairly penalise the least well off. There are many dimensions to this. It is not clear that the poorest people own the oldest cars. Some clearly do but data from 2010 shows a more complex picture.
Cars in the UK’s poorest areas were, on average, just over a year older than those owned by the most well off. This was generally due to multi-car households in wealthier areas and the age of their second, third and, in some cases, fourth cars. Wealthier people also tended to own more polluting diesel cars, which are those most affected by low-emission schemes.
It is unclear how these patterns have changed in the past 13 years but London data from 2019-20 showed the persistence of the clear relationship between wealth and multi-car households."

Also -
"More air pollution is produced per square kilometre in the poorest areas but, when it comes to driving, the poorest contribute least to the problem. Many poorer households do not own a car and those who do drive less than wealthier people.
In 2010, the cars owned in the poorest 10% of the UK travelled just 40% of the distance of those owned in the wealthiest segment."

Question - do we disregard the above out of hand simply because it comes from the Guardian?

That misses the point altogether though. The Wealthy paying £12.50 a day is nothing, that amount for poorer households however is a significant number especially for those require their car for work, you can be looking at upwards of £250 a month.

That is true, but equally a £2000 grant to scrap a very old car which is worth much less than that would allow them to buy a newer, better (and compliant) car, wouldn't it? A 2008 Ford must cost about that much I would have thought.

[super_realist]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

From that article -
"It is often said the zone charges unfairly penalise the least well off. There are many dimensions to this. It is not clear that the poorest people own the oldest cars. Some clearly do but data from 2010 shows a more complex picture.
Cars in the UK’s poorest areas were, on average, just over a year older than those owned by the most well off. This was generally due to multi-car households in wealthier areas and the age of their second, third and, in some cases, fourth cars. Wealthier people also tended to own more polluting diesel cars, which are those most affected by low-emission schemes.
It is unclear how these patterns have changed in the past 13 years but London data from 2019-20 showed the persistence of the clear relationship between wealth and multi-car households."

Also -
"More air pollution is produced per square kilometre in the poorest areas but, when it comes to driving, the poorest contribute least to the problem. Many poorer households do not own a car and those who do drive less than wealthier people.
In 2010, the cars owned in the poorest 10% of the UK travelled just 40% of the distance of those owned in the wealthiest segment."

Question - do we disregard the above out of hand simply because it comes from the Guardian?

That misses the point altogether though. The Wealthy paying £12.50 a day is nothing, that amount for poorer households however is a significant number especially for those require their car for work, you can be looking at upwards of £250 a month.

Not just that, if you're a van driver or run any sort of business such as scaffolding, deliveries etc you could be paying £100 a day just for each vehicle to leave the depot. 
It's a truly moronic policy from a moronic, hateful, racist mayor.

This is the same idiot whose office suggested plumbers and electricians "use public transport"

He hasn't given any thought to Nurses, Police, Shift workers, carers etc who are low paid, yet have to drive into his fiefdom to do their job in the very cars his party implored them to buy. 
These areas he has expanded into don't even have an air quality issue, so it is clearly revenue raising. 

As for the £2000 scrappage, what an insult. You can't buy a ULEZ compliant car for 2k

[super_realist]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

From that article -
"It is often said the zone charges unfairly penalise the least well off. There are many dimensions to this. It is not clear that the poorest people own the oldest cars. Some clearly do but data from 2010 shows a more complex picture.
Cars in the UK’s poorest areas were, on average, just over a year older than those owned by the most well off. This was generally due to multi-car households in wealthier areas and the age of their second, third and, in some cases, fourth cars. Wealthier people also tended to own more polluting diesel cars, which are those most affected by low-emission schemes.
It is unclear how these patterns have changed in the past 13 years but London data from 2019-20 showed the persistence of the clear relationship between wealth and multi-car households."

Also -
"More air pollution is produced per square kilometre in the poorest areas but, when it comes to driving, the poorest contribute least to the problem. Many poorer households do not own a car and those who do drive less than wealthier people.
In 2010, the cars owned in the poorest 10% of the UK travelled just 40% of the distance of those owned in the wealthiest segment."

Question - do we disregard the above out of hand simply because it comes from the Guardian?

Again, glossed over the point entirely. This is about the concept of ULEZ not what Kh*nt has done with the EXPANSION which he been shown to have LIED about. 
If this was a Tory Government who'd done this expansion you'd be all over it as a tax on the poor, a regressive tax etc but no, absolutely zero scepticism whatsoever.

Also, the bit about the poorest 10% of vehicles travelled 40% as far, yeah they tend to travel less distance at Lower speed, and multiple gear changing uses more fuel and causes more pollution. So more pollution per mile.

[JuliusHMarx]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

From that article -
"It is often said the zone charges unfairly penalise the least well off. There are many dimensions to this. It is not clear that the poorest people own the oldest cars. Some clearly do but data from 2010 shows a more complex picture.
Cars in the UK’s poorest areas were, on average, just over a year older than those owned by the most well off. This was generally due to multi-car households in wealthier areas and the age of their second, third and, in some cases, fourth cars. Wealthier people also tended to own more polluting diesel cars, which are those most affected by low-emission schemes.
It is unclear how these patterns have changed in the past 13 years but London data from 2019-20 showed the persistence of the clear relationship between wealth and multi-car households."

Also -
"More air pollution is produced per square kilometre in the poorest areas but, when it comes to driving, the poorest contribute least to the problem. Many poorer households do not own a car and those who do drive less than wealthier people.
In 2010, the cars owned in the poorest 10% of the UK travelled just 40% of the distance of those owned in the wealthiest segment."

Question - do we disregard the above out of hand simply because it comes from the Guardian?

Again, glossed over the point entirely. This is about the concept of ULEZ not what Kh*nt has done with the EXPANSION which he been shown to have LIED about. 
If this was a Tory Government who'd done this expansion you'd be all over it as a tax on the poor, a regressive tax etc but no, absolutely zero scepticism whatsoever.

Also, the bit about the poorest 10% of vehicles travelled 40% as far, yeah they tend to travel less distance at Lower speed, and multiple gear changing uses more fuel and causes more pollution. So more pollution per mile.

If this was a Tory Government who'd done this expansion you'd be praising them for tackling environmental issues.

[super_realist]

and more importantly a tax on the poor. Not very lefty from Sadiq Kh*nt.

Surprisingly you've actually highlighted what I also see and agree with i.e. the biggest flaw in plan...left leaning mayor tries to get suburbia to go green and tax them more in doing so but in reality disproportionately hits lower middle incomes, those with older generally non-compliant cars rather than new x5s and Range Rovers, Ferraris & Porches. He's just punched himself in the face with his own stupidity. Additionally the Tory Press machine in Bojo's vacated seat still managed to scare the Range Rover & Porsche set into believing it also applied to them.

From that article -
"It is often said the zone charges unfairly penalise the least well off. There are many dimensions to this. It is not clear that the poorest people own the oldest cars. Some clearly do but data from 2010 shows a more complex picture.
Cars in the UK’s poorest areas were, on average, just over a year older than those owned by the most well off. This was generally due to multi-car households in wealthier areas and the age of their second, third and, in some cases, fourth cars. Wealthier people also tended to own more polluting diesel cars, which are those most affected by low-emission schemes.
It is unclear how these patterns have changed in the past 13 years but London data from 2019-20 showed the persistence of the clear relationship between wealth and multi-car households."

Also -
"More air pollution is produced per square kilometre in the poorest areas but, when it comes to driving, the poorest contribute least to the problem. Many poorer households do not own a car and those who do drive less than wealthier people.
In 2010, the cars owned in the poorest 10% of the UK travelled just 40% of the distance of those owned in the wealthiest segment."

Question - do we disregard the above out of hand simply because it comes from the Guardian?

Again, glossed over the point entirely. This is about the concept of ULEZ not what Kh*nt has done with the EXPANSION which he been shown to have LIED about. 
If this was a Tory Government who'd done this expansion you'd be all over it as a tax on the poor, a regressive tax etc but no, absolutely zero scepticism whatsoever.

Also, the bit about the poorest 10% of vehicles travelled 40% as far, yeah they tend to travel less distance at Lower speed, and multiple gear changing uses more fuel and causes more pollution. So more pollution per mile.

If this was a Tory Government who'd done this expansion you'd be praising them for tackling environmental issues.

I wouldn't at all. I've never praised a Tory government for anything.

[super_realist]

Great result for Rangers last night Jas.

[JAS]

Great result for Rangers last night Jas.

Aye, Europa League it is then which "should" give them the opportunity to start rebuilding what was an emerging half decent European pedigree until last years humiliation (the scars of which are clearly still there).  They're clearly not at that level for now. Beale now has to go away and think about how to build them back up to the level that got them to 2 last 16's and an EL final and to be able to avoid future CL humiliations. I think something better IS coming but it will need time (it took the Gerrard regime, of which Beal was a key part) 3 years to evolve an effective squad, trouble now is that if they fall to Celtic at Ibrox at the weekend he'll come under REAL pressure (which I personally think is crazy) but such is life in the Glasgow goldfish bowl.

PSV have certainly kicked on since this time last year. Think they're gonna be Pot 4 so Celtic will avoid them.

Really could do with Hearts and Aberdeen winning tonight now otherwise the automatic CL place for the Champions may come under threat.

Well done on being able to type your post without collapsing in hysterical laughter (or had you been trying since the final whistle and that's how long it took you?).

[superflyweight]

Great result for Rangers last night Jas.

Aye, Europa League it is then which "should" give them the opportunity to start rebuilding what was an emerging half decent European pedigree until last years humiliation (the scars of which are clearly still there).  They're clearly not at that level for now. Beale now has to go away and think about how to build them back up to the level that got them to 2 last 16's and an EL final and to be able to avoid future CL humiliations. I think something better IS coming but it will need time (it took the Gerrard regime, of which Beal was a key part) 3 years to evolve an effective squad, trouble now is that if they fall to Celtic at Ibrox at the weekend he'll come under REAL pressure (which I personally think is crazy) but such is life in the Glasgow goldfish bowl.

PSV have certainly kicked on since this time last year. Think they're gonna be Pot 4 so Celtic will avoid them.

Really could do with Hearts and Aberdeen winning tonight now otherwise the automatic CL place for the Champions may come under threat.

Well done on being able to type your post without collapsing in hysterical laughter (or had you been trying since the final whistle and that's how long it took you?).

I thought you were a Killie fan, JAS, or are they your 'wee team'.

[super_realist]

Great result for Rangers last night Jas.

Aye, Europa League it is then which "should" give them the opportunity to start rebuilding what was an emerging half decent European pedigree until last years humiliation (the scars of which are clearly still there).  They're clearly not at that level for now. Beale now has to go away and think about how to build them back up to the level that got them to 2 last 16's and an EL final and to be able to avoid future CL humiliations. I think something better IS coming but it will need time (it took the Gerrard regime, of which Beal was a key part) 3 years to evolve an effective squad, trouble now is that if they fall to Celtic at Ibrox at the weekend he'll come under REAL pressure (which I personally think is crazy) but such is life in the Glasgow goldfish bowl.

PSV have certainly kicked on since this time last year. Think they're gonna be Pot 4 so Celtic will avoid them.

Really could do with Hearts and Aberdeen winning tonight now otherwise the automatic CL place for the Champions may come under threat.

Well done on being able to type your post without collapsing in hysterical laughter (or had you been trying since the final whistle and that's how long it took you?).

Like I said before. It's better for the club to be in a competition which befits the clubs ability. A good run in Europa is probably worth more reputation wise than another abject capitulation in Champions League. 
Also worth considering that another year in CL will yield virtually zero coefficient points given they'd get horsed x6.


PSV are Pot 3.

[JAS]

Great result for Rangers last night Jas.

Aye, Europa League it is then which "should" give them the opportunity to start rebuilding what was an emerging half decent European pedigree until last years humiliation (the scars of which are clearly still there).  They're clearly not at that level for now. Beale now has to go away and think about how to build them back up to the level that got them to 2 last 16's and an EL final and to be able to avoid future CL humiliations. I think something better IS coming but it will need time (it took the Gerrard regime, of which Beal was a key part) 3 years to evolve an effective squad, trouble now is that if they fall to Celtic at Ibrox at the weekend he'll come under REAL pressure (which I personally think is crazy) but such is life in the Glasgow goldfish bowl.

PSV have certainly kicked on since this time last year. Think they're gonna be Pot 4 so Celtic will avoid them.

Really could do with Hearts and Aberdeen winning tonight now otherwise the automatic CL place for the Champions may come under threat.

Well done on being able to type your post without collapsing in hysterical laughter (or had you been trying since the final whistle and that's how long it took you?).

Like I said before. It's better for the club to be in a competition which befits the clubs ability. A good run in Europa is probably worth more reputation wise than another abject capitulation in Champions League. 
Also worth considering that another year in CL will yield virtually zero coefficient points given they'd get horsed x6.


PSV are Pot 3.

Exactly, don't disagree with that. Yes nothing wrong with aspiring to be better but when reality bites you need to re-establishwhere your level is at and not go into freefall.

[JAS]

Great result for Rangers last night Jas.

Aye, Europa League it is then which "should" give them the opportunity to start rebuilding what was an emerging half decent European pedigree until last years humiliation (the scars of which are clearly still there).  They're clearly not at that level for now. Beale now has to go away and think about how to build them back up to the level that got them to 2 last 16's and an EL final and to be able to avoid future CL humiliations. I think something better IS coming but it will need time (it took the Gerrard regime, of which Beal was a key part) 3 years to evolve an effective squad, trouble now is that if they fall to Celtic at Ibrox at the weekend he'll come under REAL pressure (which I personally think is crazy) but such is life in the Glasgow goldfish bowl.

PSV have certainly kicked on since this time last year. Think they're gonna be Pot 4 so Celtic will avoid them.

Really could do with Hearts and Aberdeen winning tonight now otherwise the automatic CL place for the Champions may come under threat.

Well done on being able to type your post without collapsing in hysterical laughter (or had you been trying since the final whistle and that's how long it took you?).

I thought you were a Killie fan, JAS, or are they your 'wee team'.  

Do have a wee bit of a soft spot for Killie, I actually used to live a couple of hundred yards away from Rugby Park in the last couple of years before I moved south.

[super_realist]

Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs all out too.

Maybe these competitions need pre qualifying for qualifying.

[JAS]

Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs all out too.

Maybe these competitions need pre qualifying for qualifying.

They’ve been through pre qualifying!! Also Aberdeen drop into conference group stage so they’ll still get European football up to Xmas. All in all pretty dire week for the Jocks but sadly there will be a mad rush within the SFA to do absolutely nothing.

[super_realist]

Quite right JAS, I had not realised the sheep sh@ggers go into the Conference. 

Don't you think the clubs should use their influence to do something about the quality of Scottish football? You can't just blame the SFA for everything. What exactly would you like the SFA to do? Not as if they can convince a TV company to put more money into a product they won't get a return on. 

There's a lot the clubs could campaign for, but as usual they do nothing. 

It's pretty clear we have too many leagues and too many teams, whilst playing winter football is pretty pointless. 

Scottish football is a bit like the NHS, it clearly needs serious reform, but everyone is too afraid to do anything about it.

[JAS]

Quite right JAS, I had not realised the sheep sh@ggers go into the Conference. 

Don't you think the clubs should use their influence to do something about the quality of Scottish football? You can't just blame the SFA for everything. What exactly would you like the SFA to do? Not as if they can convince a TV company to put more money into a product they won't get a return on. 

There's a lot the clubs could campaign for, but as usual they do nothing. 

It's pretty clear we have too many leagues and too many teams, whilst playing winter football is pretty pointless. 

Scottish football is a bit like the NHS, it clearly needs serious reform, but everyone is too afraid to do anything about it.

Christ where would one start Super, yes it's easy to moan at the governing body (with reasonable justification) but you're right, it is the Club's themselves that need to take the responsibility to take something workable to the governing body in terms of a long term plan.
The reason that won't happen is that across the piece you'd never get agreement, all clubs (OF included) are absolutely riven with short sighted self interest rather than thinking about the bigger picture. A big part of the problem is the gulf between the OF and the rest. I've repeatedly blamed the "wee teams" for the predicament. Non OF supporters no doubt blame the OF. In reality, it's neither, it's actually the gulf between the 2 which means totally different agendas.

A few oligarchs and billionaires would help short term but realistically that's not going to happen. Any change has to happen from grass roots up. They've got to get football back in PE at schools, get schools leagues going again at all levels. I don't know the extent to which Rangers use Murray Park but I'm sure it wouldn't be 24/7 (and Celtic whatever their MP equivalent is). They should be renting out free slots to lower league clubs to use the facilities. That's not much but it's a start, the more engagement you get, the more numbers you get. The more numbers you get, the higher the chances become of finding the diamonds that can progress through the structure.
So eventually you improve the product, clubs start getting a better income from selling on diamonds regularly, the product improves, that gives better opportunity to negotiate better TV deals, more funds come in for better facilities and eventually you're on an upward cycle. But you HAVE to start right at the bottom and if I'm honest the OF should be helping fund that initial engagement. Do I see that happening any time soon??  Eh...No.

[super_realist]

I don't think it helps that the OF routinely complain about the lack of competition, but are complicit in skimming "talent" from teams in the league which might give them sterner opposition. 
They can't have it both ways. For example it didn't improve Celtic to sign Johnny Hayes, but it severely depleted Aberdeen, likewise Souttar at Rangers, and that list is very long. 
Plenty of other places they could get players from, but then they don't like it when they don't beat Kilmarnock or St Johnstone. It's a double edge sword. You want competitive football or not? 

There's also an issue now with business models. Celtic and Rangers have started offering 5 year deals, no doubt with a silent promise to the player to move on in 2 years. It helps keep them solvent, but it means they can't build a team. They are bottom rung clubs on career ladders and it means that unless they refill the hopper with the same quality or better they go backwards. 

For comparison here in Norway they have a tv deal which is twice what Scotland get, there are good some reasons for that on both sides, it is not interesting to TV companies to invest in the Scottish Premier when it is the least competitive league in football history. 

Another interesting difference is that in Norway, you can use outdoor training facilities FOR FREE. 
We play floodlit 3G pitch for nothing here, same for athletics tracks. If I go for a run around the town, I might see 100 people swimming in the lake or fjord, and even in winter I'll see dozens of other runners and walkers in the worst weather.

Scotland is just idle, fat,  lazy, uninspired and wants to blame everyone else. They don't do anything for themselves or take any personal responsibility.

[JAS]

I don't think it helps that the OF routinely complain about the lack of competition, but are complicit in skimming "talent" from teams in the league which might give them sterner opposition. 
They can't have it both ways. For example it didn't improve Celtic to sign Johnny Hayes, but it severely depleted Aberdeen, likewise Souttar at Rangers, and that list is very long. 
Plenty of other places they could get players from, but then they don't like it when they don't beat Kilmarnock or St Johnstone. It's a double edge sword. You want competitive football or not? 

There's also an issue now with business models. Celtic and Rangers have started offering 5 year deals, no doubt with a silent promise to the player to move on in 2 years. It helps keep them solvent, but it means they can't build a team. They are bottom rung clubs on career ladders and it means that unless they refill the hopper with the same quality or better they go backwards. 

For comparison here in Norway they have a tv deal which is twice what Scotland get, there are good some reasons for that on both sides, it is not interesting to TV companies to invest in the Scottish Premier when it is the least competitive league in football history. 

Another interesting difference is that in Norway, you can use outdoor training facilities FOR FREE. 
We play floodlit 3G pitch for nothing here, same for athletics tracks. If I go for a run around the town, I might see 100 people swimming in the lake or fjord, and even in winter I'll see dozens of other runners and walkers in the worst weather.

Scotland is just idle, fat,  lazy, uninspired and wants to blame everyone else. They don't do anything for themselves or take any personal responsibility.

So you've now scatter gunned in a whole plethora of socio economic factors :-/ Not saying your last statement is wide of the mark in fact that's exactly why I'm saying change has to start at grass roots level.

To be honest there is an element of needing it both ways for the OF and by the way it can also cut both ways, Soutar may have gone one way but Lowry went the other to get game time. This conversation started as a result of utterly gash European performances. If restrictions are placed on the OF not being able to 'skim' then I'm not sure how that helps? They ALL, from the OF, Hibs Hearts, Aberdeen through to the Mortons, Alloa's need to make a much better effort at growing their own and they, especially the lower clubs need all the help they can get building a conveyor belt of talent.

[super_realist]

Well, for a start Celtic have started getting players from Asia, perhaps because it's an untapped resource, perhaps because it adds a commercial aspect for a new market. 

I'm not asking for "restrictions", I'm asking for a Gentleman's agreement. There aren't many examples where a player moving to an Old Firm team hasn't made the loss far worse for the former team than the benefit it gave the OF team in return. 
There's no need for the OF to denude other teams and weaken the league when they could get better elsewhere without damaging the league. 
The 4 games per team a year fixture also plays into OF hands and exacerbates the gap between position 1/2 and 3rd.

[JAS]

Well, for a start Celtic have started getting players from Asia, perhaps because it's an untapped resource, perhaps because it adds a commercial aspect for a new market. 

I'm not asking for "restrictions", I'm asking for a Gentleman's agreement. There aren't many examples where a player moving to an Old Firm team hasn't made the loss far worse for the former team than the benefit it gave the OF team in return. 
There's no need for the OF to denude other teams and weaken the league when they could get better elsewhere without damaging the league. 
The 4 games per team a year fixture also plays into OF hands and exacerbates the gap between position 1/2 and 3rd.

Yeah lets see how much they continue that in the post-Ange era (having worked there he had excellent knowledge of the talent pool there) tapping into the commercial aspect of the new market is a good point though.

Show me a league anywhere that would have that kind of "gentleman's agreement", it happens the world over (that doesn't necessarily make it right). Whilst the OF are on one side of that equation domestically, they're on the other side of it internationally. You could now say the Saudis are skimming. Bottom line in any conversation about skimming talent...generally speaking it's all about financial means.

I agree with you about the 4 times a season, I don't think it helps anyone except the broadcasters who have 4 OF games a year rather than 2.

[super_realist]

There isn't a Gentleman's agreement anywhere as far as I know. It was simply a suggestion as to do something to help the smaller teams be at least a little bit more competitive. The point was that Scotland doesn't have the strength in depth to allow the top teams to skim off talent. It's already the least competitive league in football history, even a small thing could help that. Why don't Celtic and Rangers have better academies? Hardly anyone comes through their ranks for clubs their size. I'd say Aberdeen, Hibs and Dundee United produce more players than they do. 

The Saudi thing isn't really an issue in this discussion, because it's different country and different league, I'm simply thinking about improving the domestic competition which is akin to one workplace in a sector skimming off a lot of the best employees of another employer in the same market, bound to be detrimental. 

PS, I don't see how Saudi can be long term. Does anyone know anyone watching it?

[JAS]

So Real Betis, Sparta Prague and some Cypriot outfit. Could have been slightly better, could have been worse.
Acid test for Beale really, that would have been a straightforward expectation of qualification in the Gerrard & GvB era's. I know Beale did a lot to make them tick during the Gerrard era, he had coaching skills and knowledge Gerrard didn't have. He still has that and that's why I was happy they got him. What does "appear" to maybe be missing is that relentless drive to be a winner that Gerrard oozed, the two of them together and Gary Mac were a great combo.

Time will tell, I would expect them to beat the Cypriots, share the spoils with Betis so the Sparta Prague games become crucial if they are to progress.

This will be a real measure of whether they're going backwards or not.

[super_realist]

So Real Betis, Sparta Prague and some Cypriot outfit. Could have been slightly better, could have been worse.
Acid test for Beale really, that would have been a straightforward expectation of qualification in the Gerrard & GvB era's. I know Beale did a lot to make them tick during the Gerrard era, he had coaching skills and knowledge Gerrard didn't have. He still has that and that's why I was happy they got him. What does "appear" to maybe be missing is that relentless drive to be a winner that Gerrard oozed, the two of them together and Gary Mac were a great combo.

Time will tell, I would expect them to beat the Cypriots, share the spoils with Betis so the Sparta Prague games become crucial if they are to progress.

This will be a real measure of whether they're going backwards or not.

What would you say was par JAS? QF, Last 16? I'd suggest much more might not be all that realistic.

[JAS]

Yep qualification from the group would be par. If they qualify 2nd they’d by unlikely to beat the CL dropout in the playoff round, if they won the group then yeah QF would be a bonus. Hard to say in September what the expectation would be past Xmas. The last 2 years have been a huge contrast from the heady heights of beating quality in 2021 to last years humiliation.

[super_realist]

Yep qualification from the group would be par. If they qualify 2nd they’d by unlikely to beat the CL dropout in the playoff round, if they won the group then yeah QF would be a bonus. Hard to say in September what the expectation would be past Xmas. The last 2 years have been a huge contrast from the heady heights of beating quality in 2021 to last years humiliation.

Be interesting to see what happens after Derby tomorrow. 
PS, how ridiculous and petty is the situation of no away fans at this fixture? It used to be a famous match, but club childishness seems to have ruined it. 
It seems to be a case of "they started it, so they don't get any either"
Heard some wonk Celtic fan claiming it wasn't a "safe space" just laughable.

[McLaren]

Is there any reason to think Rangers won't get pumped in the Europa league as well? They are a very poor team.

Saw some Celtic supporting friends getting very excited about beating rangers at the weekend? Why? Surely there must be more ambition in Scottish football than to beat a poor rival?

Just think that sort of parochial attitude sums up why Scottish football will always be stuck with such a low standard.

[super_realist]

Is there any reason to think Rangers won't get pumped in the Europa league as well? They are a very poor team.

Saw some Celtic supporting friends getting very excited about beating rangers at the weekend? Why? Surely there must be more ambition in Scottish football than to beat a poor rival?

Just think that sort of parochial attitude sums up why Scottish football will always be stuck with such a low standard.

For once we absolutely agree Mac. I've heard a lot of Huns ask for Beale to be sacked. Who do they expect to tempt to Scotland? That's why they have a nobody in the first place. 

You have to ask why any player or manager worth anything more than a fag end would ever go to Rangers or Celtic. 
You earn less, have poor players, very little money, guaranteed European failure, have to spend every other weekend in Dingwall, Paisley, Livingston or Kilmarnock and on top of that you have to live in Glasgow. 

Celtic and Rangers will never move on, they're obsessed with each other.

[superflyweight]

Is there any reason to think Rangers won't get pumped in the Europa league as well? They are a very poor team.

Saw some Celtic supporting friends getting very excited about beating rangers at the weekend? Why? Surely there must be more ambition in Scottish football than to beat a poor rival?

Just think that sort of parochial attitude sums up why Scottish football will always be stuck with such a low standard.

For once we absolutely agree Mac. I've heard a lot of Huns ask for Beale to be sacked. Who do they expect to tempt to Scotland? That's why they have a nobody in the first place. 

You have to ask why any player or manager worth anything more than a fag end would ever go to Rangers or Celtic. 
You earn less, have poor players, very little money, guaranteed European failure, have to spend every other weekend in Dingwall, Paisley, Livingston or Kilmarnock and on top of that you have to live in Glasgow. 

Celtic and Rangers will never move on, they're obsessed with each other.

Leaving aside the incredulity at why two long standing rivals who have fought it out for decades for top spot would be obsessed by each other (it hasn't done Real Madrid and Barcelona any harm over the years) and focusing on the other points you raised, they essentially provide the reasons why Celtic and Rangers won't consistently complete in Europe under the current status quo.  

Due to the market they are operating in they are essentially 'taking a punt' with almost every managerial appointment and player they sign.  When it works there's usually domestic success and sometimes there's a decent or very good run in Europe followed by the better players leaving either for profit or at the end of their contracts and the manager might leave as well.  It's essentially the same model that everyone outside the top 5 or 6 in England, the top 2 in Spain, PSG, and Munich is working to and is not conducive to consistent success at Champions League level.  

Where Celtic and Rangers probably fall behind other clubs of similar size is that they fail to produce enough top quality homegrown players to supplement the transfer policy and part of that is due to their academies not being good enough and part is due to the size of the talent pool in Scotland (compared to somewhere like France or Spain).  

Should also be noted that retaining homegrown players is becoming even harder (see Liverpool taking Ben Doak from Celtic and Chelsea taking Billy Gilmour from Rangers) so even when a club (and I include other clubs in Scotland in this who might see players being lost to the big 2) does everything right, they derive next to no benefit from it.

[super_realist]

Their biggest problem is that they still think they're the same size of clubs they were in days gone by. Most fans don't realise how far they have fallen down the pecking order and that they are effectively feeder clubs to the likes of Southampton.

[JAS]

Is there any reason to think Rangers won't get pumped in the Europa league as well? They are a very poor team.

Saw some Celtic supporting friends getting very excited about beating rangers at the weekend? Why? Surely there must be more ambition in Scottish football than to beat a poor rival?

Just think that sort of parochial attitude sums up why Scottish football will always be stuck with such a low standard.

For once we absolutely agree Mac. I've heard a lot of Huns ask for Beale to be sacked. Who do they expect to tempt to Scotland? That's why they have a nobody in the first place. 

You have to ask why any player or manager worth anything more than a fag end would ever go to Rangers or Celtic. 
You earn less, have poor players, very little money, guaranteed European failure, have to spend every other weekend in Dingwall, Paisley, Livingston or Kilmarnock and on top of that you have to live in Glasgow. 

Celtic and Rangers will never move on, they're obsessed with each other.

Christ you should be a recruitment consultant Supes, you really know how to sell a role :-p

[super_realist]

True though isn't it?

Wasn't all that long ago that both sides had some really great players, bow they're gambling on players for two years in the hope to sell on, then refill the hopper and try again.

[superflyweight]

True though isn't it?

Wasn't all that long ago that both sides had some really great players, bow they're gambling on players for two years in the hope to sell on, then refill the hopper and try again.

But who isn't outside the sides I mentioned before? Most sensible fans on both sides know where they are in the grand scheme of things and are resigned to the fact that this means no consistent success at the top European level (which isn't something that any side in Scotland has ever managed - other than Celtic from '67 to around '72) in the current climate.

[JAS]

Their biggest problem is that they still think they're the same size of clubs they were in days gone by. Most fans don't realise how far they have fallen down the pecking order and that they are effectively feeder clubs to the likes of Southampton.

They are pretty much the same size, it’s other parts of the football world that have moved on mostly courtesy of the evil Murdoch empire and other dubious fat cat “businessmen” catapulting them into a financial environment that the old firm are pretty much locked out of.

Judging by the foaming at the mouth reaction by some fellow Rangers supporters (and a significant proportion actually) calling for Beales head he’s now under real pressure. I don’t subscribe to knee jerk manager sacking, he said quite clearly he needed a rebuild so he’s been reasonably supported to do that rebuild. I don’t think it’s as extensive as the Gerrard rebuild but you simply don’t bring 9 new players into a squad without hitting some bumps in the road. People just need to calm down. To me he gets this season to show progress, he’s an experienced coach but a rookie manager. Can have all the clever tactics in the world but sometimes a group of players need to know the Manager has a “hairdryer”. They need a Richard Gough, Terry Butcher type enforcer supplementing in the dressing room. Where’s the fight they had less than a year and a half ago where they came off extra time on a Europa league QF in midweek and beat Celtic in extra time in a cup semi final a few days later….where the hell has that mindset gone??

[super_realist]

Their biggest problem is that they still think they're the same size of clubs they were in days gone by. Most fans don't realise how far they have fallen down the pecking order and that they are effectively feeder clubs to the likes of Southampton.

They are pretty much the same size, it’s other parts of the football world that have moved on mostly courtesy of the evil Murdoch empire and other dubious fat cat “businessmen” catapulting them into a financial environment that the old firm are pretty much locked out of.

Judging by the foaming at the mouth reaction by some fellow Rangers supporters (and a significant proportion actually) calling for Beales  head he’s now under real pressure. I don’t subscribe to knee jerk manager sacking, he said quite clearly he needed a rebuild so he’s been reasonably supported to do that rebuild. I don’t think it’s as extensive as the Gerrard rebuild but you simply don’t bring 9 new players into a squad without hitting some bumps in the road. People just need to calm down. To me he gets this season to show progress, he’s an experienced coach but a rookie manager. Can have all the clever tactics in the world but sometimes a group of players need to know the Manager has a “hairdryer”. They need a Richard Gough, Terry Butcher type enforcer supplementing  in the dressing room. Where’s the fight they had less than a year and a half ago where they came off extra time on a Europa league QF in midweek and beat Celtic in extra time in a cup semi final a few days later….where the hell has that mindset gone??

Size is relative, and relatively speaking they aren't the draw they once were. You can't blame anyone for not investing in Scottish football.

[JAS]

Their biggest problem is that they still think they're the same size of clubs they were in days gone by. Most fans don't realise how far they have fallen down the pecking order and that they are effectively feeder clubs to the likes of Southampton.

They are pretty much the same size, it’s other parts of the football world that have moved on mostly courtesy of the evil Murdoch empire and other dubious fat cat “businessmen” catapulting them into a financial environment that the old firm are pretty much locked out of.

Judging by the foaming at the mouth reaction by some fellow Rangers supporters (and a significant proportion actually) calling for Beales  head he’s now under real pressure. I don’t subscribe to knee jerk manager sacking, he said quite clearly he needed a rebuild so he’s been reasonably supported to do that rebuild. I don’t think it’s as extensive as the Gerrard rebuild but you simply don’t bring 9 new players into a squad without hitting some bumps in the road. People just need to calm down. To me he gets this season to show progress, he’s an experienced coach but a rookie manager. Can have all the clever tactics in the world but sometimes a group of players need to know the Manager has a “hairdryer”. They need a Richard Gough, Terry Butcher type enforcer supplementing  in the dressing room. Where’s the fight they had less than a year and a half ago where they came off extra time on a Europa league QF in midweek and beat Celtic in extra time in a cup semi final a few days later….where the hell has that mindset gone??

Size is relative, and relatively speaking they aren't the draw they once were. You can't blame anyone for not investing in Scottish football.

It depends what you mean by size, if it’s balance sheet (a bit odd to refer to that as size rather than wealth but hey ho) then compared to teams in big 5 nations + Portugal and Holland then yeah they’ve gone backwards. In terms of supporter base, season ticket holders, season ticket holder waiting list, average home gate? None of those things gone backwards (if you’re judging from to 1970s after the old stadium was changed after the disaster). Not sure the same can be said of non OF clubs, which brings us back to the point we both make but in different ways about the stagnation in Scottish football and the stalemate of the OF blaming the rest and the rest blaming the OF

[JAS]

Has Parkhead been checked for rac? It was rebuilt in the 90s was it not ? Just asking for a friend, I know when it was rebuilt it was dubbed breezeblock castle

[JAS]

Is there any reason to think Rangers won't get pumped in the Europa league as well? They are a very poor team.

Saw some Celtic supporting friends getting very excited about beating rangers at the weekend? Why? Surely there must be more ambition in Scottish football than to beat a poor rival?

Just think that sort of parochial attitude sums up why Scottish football will always be stuck with such a low standard.

For once we absolutely agree Mac. I've heard a lot of Huns ask for Beale to be sacked. Who do they expect to tempt to Scotland? That's why they have a nobody in the first place. 

You have to ask why any player or manager worth anything more than a fag end would ever go to Rangers or Celtic. 
You earn less, have poor players, very little money, guaranteed European failure, have to spend every other weekend in Dingwall, Paisley, Livingston or Kilmarnock and on top of that you have to live in Glasgow. 

Celtic and Rangers will never move on, they're obsessed with each other.

Leaving aside the incredulity at why two long standing rivals who have fought it out for decades for top spot would be obsessed by each other (it hasn't done Real Madrid and Barcelona any harm over the years) and focusing on the other points you raised, they essentially provide the reasons why Celtic and Rangers won't consistently complete in Europe under the current status quo.  

Due to the market they are operating in they are essentially 'taking a punt' with almost every managerial appointment and player they sign.  When it works there's usually domestic success and sometimes there's a decent or very good run in Europe followed by the better players leaving either for profit or at the end of their contracts and the manager might leave as well.  It's essentially the same model that everyone outside the top 5 or 6 in England, the top 2 in Spain, PSG, and Munich is working to and is not conducive to consistent success at Champions League level.  

Where Celtic and Rangers probably fall behind other clubs of similar size is that they fail to produce enough top quality homegrown players to supplement the transfer policy and part of that is due to their academies not being good enough and part is due to the size of the talent pool in Scotland (compared to somewhere like France or Spain).  

Should also be noted that retaining homegrown players is becoming even harder (see Liverpool taking Ben Doak from Celtic and Chelsea taking Billy Gilmour from Rangers) so even when a club (and I include other clubs in Scotland in this who might see players being lost to the big 2) does everything right, they derive next to no benefit from it.

Pretty much nails the predicament they're in yes and it would also help if the other teams were more competitive. Look at Ajax and their academy...that should be the aspiration. That year they did well in the CL 3-4 years back, the talent from that squad scattered over europe raking in about 270m Euros for Ajax. Even if by a lucky twist of fate Rangers academy (or Celtics for that matter) suddenly started producing diamonds, such is the low reputation of Scottish football in general, they'd go for peanuts (like as you mention Gilmour and Doak).Tierney and Patterson were exceptions rather than the rule.

[super_realist]

Their biggest problem is that they still think they're the same size of clubs they were in days gone by. Most fans don't realise how far they have fallen down the pecking order and that they are effectively feeder clubs to the likes of Southampton.

They are pretty much the same size, it’s other parts of the football world that have moved on mostly courtesy of the evil Murdoch empire and other dubious fat cat “businessmen” catapulting them into a financial environment that the old firm are pretty much locked out of.

Judging by the foaming at the mouth reaction by some fellow Rangers supporters (and a significant proportion actually) calling for Beales  head he’s now under real pressure. I don’t subscribe to knee jerk manager sacking, he said quite clearly he needed a rebuild so he’s been reasonably supported to do that rebuild. I don’t think it’s as extensive as the Gerrard rebuild but you simply don’t bring 9 new players into a squad without hitting some bumps in the road. People just need to calm down. To me he gets this season to show progress, he’s an experienced coach but a rookie manager. Can have all the clever tactics in the world but sometimes a group of players need to know the Manager has a “hairdryer”. They need a Richard Gough, Terry Butcher type enforcer supplementing  in the dressing room. Where’s the fight they had less than a year and a half ago where they came off extra time on a Europa league QF in midweek and beat Celtic in extra time in a cup semi final a few days later….where the hell has that mindset gone??

Size is relative, and relatively speaking they aren't the draw they once were. You can't blame anyone for not investing in Scottish football.

It depends what you mean by size, if it’s balance sheet (a bit odd to refer to that as size rather than wealth but hey ho) then compared to teams in big 5 nations + Portugal and Holland then yeah they’ve gone backwards. In terms of supporter base, season ticket holders, season ticket holder waiting list, average home gate?   None of those things gone backwards (if you’re judging from to 1970s after the old stadium was changed after the disaster). Not sure the same can be said of non OF clubs, which brings us back to the point we both make but in different ways about the stagnation in Scottish football and the stalemate of the OF blaming the rest and the rest blaming the OF

I can't see any circumstances in which Scottish football will improve because no side, no government body or in fact anyone who has any skin in the game is open to trying anything new to change the status quo, and that in a nutshell mirrors the Scottish mentality. 
It's like the R&A, a typical arcane institution, stuck in the past and incapable of moving forward. Scotland should have a conveyor belt of talent in both golf and football, but it's just a backwater for both. 

Scottish football has never been great, it's always been a bit grizzled, a bit fake hard man, more perspiration than talent, long ball, sleeves rolled up,  more stick the boot in than finesse, but it did have a place in the game at some point, now it's just a bit of a graveyard. An ever decreasing product with talent more thinly spread and really only seen as the bottom rung on the ladder of a football career, you can't really blame the likes of Doak, Paterson, Gilmour etc getting out as soon as they could. 

Celtic and Rangers appear to have joined the ranks of Gothenburg, AEK Athens, Dukla Prague, Blackburn, Partisan Belgrade and the likes who used to be famous but now are largely nothing teams that people outside Scotland barely give a second thought to.

[superflyweight]

Has Parkhead been checked for rac? It was rebuilt in the 90s was it not ? Just asking for a friend, I know when it was rebuilt it was dubbed breezeblock castle

I believe the main stand needs to be replaced before 2030 (hence why the board are being particularly frugal at the moment) but that was built in the early 70's so has had a decent enough shelf-life and from an aesthetic point of view, should have been replaced a few years ago.

[super_realist]

Has Parkhead been checked for rac? It was rebuilt in the 90s was it not ? Just asking for a friend, I know when it was rebuilt it was dubbed breezeblock castle

I believe the main stand needs to be replaced before 2030 (hence why the board are being particularly frugal at the moment) but that was built in the early 70's so has had a decent enough shelf-life and from an aesthetic point of view, should have been replaced a few years ago.      

Always thought it was a massive waste having that turd of a stand there, bit like Tynecastle with their crappy stand before the new one.

[JAS]

Anybody else enjoy Keegan's little potty mouthed hissy fit? If I'm honest i can have some sympathy for her frustration but I also cant help but thinking, did she do that deliberately to deflect the spotlight away from Sunak?

Don't think I have any problem with her swearing at least she said what she thought instead of what she thinks people like to hear like that poisonous racist dwarf Sadiq Kh*nt. 
I didn't care when Brown swore or Prescott punched a guy. 
I think you are far too conspiratorial JAS. This concrete is an issue of successive governments.
Think you meant this for a different post anyway didn't you, unless you were referring to Keegan swearing in your four-ball.

[Sponsored content]