Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bald reynard

Callum McGregor

Recommended Posts

So Celtic are a bigger supported club than us in fact bigger supported than most Premier league clubs. But what does that matter? Their fans are going to watch the same old third division god awful football again this year and next and the year after and probably winning the same old pointless cups and league titles. I wouldn't swop with them for one moment.I don't care about them , we are never going to have to play them unless we meet them in Europe and even the we would beat them. for all their support imagine having the same old crap served up year in year out ? The predictability alone would kill me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, murphy said:

It does.

 

It says "We've got more money".  

 

(At least while we're in the PL)

 

That's why we are able to take players from bigger clubs like Porto and Celtic.  

 

Just ask yourself this question.  Are Bournemouth bigger than Leeds?

 

If you think yes, then we just have very different criteria for club size.

I don’t think it came down to just money. He sees Leicester as a very ambitious club but the main attraction is the EPL. Scottish league just can’t compare and Celtic not matter how big or whatever history they have are stuck there.

Edited by jmono84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ALC Fox said:

Celtic are far and away the bigger, more historic club. They also have many, many fans who have never set foot in Glasgow or even Scotland, and never will do, by virtue of their religious associations.

 

But a footballer's career is short and, really, so is a manager's. It's no surprise that Celtic's players and managers leave for the likes of us, Southampton or whoever in the Premier League, given the respective state of the Premier League vs the Scottish Premiership.

 

I think we need to be a bit more respectful of Scottish football though. It's given us some of the best footballers and managers English football has ever seen, football as we know it was probably invented there (the oldest known football in existence is kept at Stirling Castle), and the Scots were playing a passing game and destroying England in matches when we were still playing kick and rush.

 

The only reason we're a more attractive proposition is because our league has more money floating about in it, so more clubs can attract bigger players and better managers, and build better stadiums.

 

If we win the European Cup and stay at the top of our division, and our league remains one of the best in world football, perhaps we can legitimately say we're a bigger club in 50, 75, or 100 years. But now, no way.

 

That fact that none of us can agree if they’re bigger than us or not, sort of puts this into perspective. 

 

What makes a player choose? 

 

Celtic are the biggest fish in the pond. It’s no different to PSG, Bayern or Juventus at this point. If the SPL got invest like the above mentioned teams league do, players would be joined them, oppose to us. 

 

Weather aside ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively, we could assess how big clubs are by their Twitter following, which gives us an idea where the followers will go, as the world gets smaller in terms of global communication.

 

Leicester - 1.3m

Celtic - 630k

 

————

 

By comparison, a few more clubs - 

 

Liverpool - 11.9m

Real Madrid - 33.3m

Barcelona - 29.9m

Manchester United - 19.5m

Manchester City - 6.9m

West Ham - 1.4m

Rangers - 485k

Newcastle - 1.3m

Tottenham - 3.5m

Arsenal - 14.5m

Bayern - 4.6m

Juventus - 6.8m

PSG - 6.9m

Al Alhy - 4.1m

Grampus 8 - 412k

LA Galaxy - 489k

Palmeiras  - 3.0m

River Plate - 3.0m

Boca Juniors - 3.5m

Kashima Antlers - 409k

Orlando Pirates - 1.4m

Melbourne Victory - 101k

Mohun Bagan - 350k

Spartak Moscow - 628k

Zenit - 771k

Corinthians - 5.9m

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, murphy said:

We're not even close.  Nowhere near.  We've just got more money.

 

We're on upward trajectory but it won't last forever.  Leeds, Charlton, Bolton, West Brom, Stoke... I bet they all thought they were established and where are they now? 

 

We need to enjoy these times as they won't last forever but please get a grip with these delusions of grandeur as it just makes us all look like knobs.

 

Talk about a pessimist in the ranks. Celtic are only so well known because they are the only decent side in their Mickey mouse  league and henrik Larsson is arguably the only decent player anyone really remembers they’ve had for the last 20 years. Few more years and this wouldn’t even be up for debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If celtic had been formed by Irish immigrants in London they would be up there with man utd barca etc but they weren't and unfortunately for them they are stuck in an extremely poor league for good.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clarkey123 said:

Talk about a pessimist in the ranks. Celtic are only so well known because they are the only decent side in their Mickey mouse  league and henrik Larsson is arguably the only decent player anyone really remembers they’ve had for the last 20 years. Few more years and this wouldn’t even be up for debate

It isn't really up for debate, it's only delusional Leicester fans that seem to think we're bigger.  If we could ask unbiased people there would be no debate.  Celtic are bigger, their average gate is twice as much as ours and in a few more years, we could be in the Championship.

 

It's not pessimism because it doesn't bother me that we're smaller than Celtic or smaller than Man U etc, I can live with that quite happily.  It bothers me when our fan base make themselves look like a laughing stock 

 

If you think Celtic are smaller than us, then explain to me how they have a turnover in excess of £100m?  

 

We have a turnover in excess of £150m but £130m is from the Premier League.  To put that in perspective, Celtic took about £18m.

 

So that is a net turnover of around £20m for us, against £80m+ for them.  Case closed.

 

So anyway, Callum McGregor.....

 

 

 

 

Edited by murphy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic are huge bust mostly irrelevant to the wider general public because of the league they play in. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Celtic are huge bust mostly irrelevant to the wider general public because of the league they play in. 

I like a huge bust! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, murphy said:

It isn't really up for debate, it's only delusional Leicester fans that seem to think we're bigger.  If we could ask unbiased people there would be no debate.  Celtic are bigger, their average gate is twice as much as ours and in a few more years, we could be in the Championship.

 

It's not pessimism because it doesn't bother me that we're smaller than Celtic or smaller than Man U etc, I can live with that quite happily.  It bothers me when our fan base make themselves look like a laughing stock 

 

If you think Celtic are smaller than us, then explain to me how they have a turnover in excess of £100m?  

 

We have a turnover in excess of £150m but £130m is from the Premier League.  To put that in perspective, Celtic took about £18m.

 

So that is a net turnover of around £20m for us, against £80m+ for them.  Case closed.

 

So anyway, Callum McGregor.....

 

 

 

 

Yes and that’s because 50% of Scotland support them/ 25% rangers and 25% support the other teams. Definitely going to have the bigger fan base when there is so little to choose from much like how man city and Liverpool’s fan base is on the rise. Stick them in the prem and they are just another average side 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, weller54 said:

I like a huge bust! 

Is bigger necessarily always better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Celtic are huge bust mostly irrelevant to the wider general public because of the league they play in. 

As you rightly say, they are a huge club, as are Rangers.  Anyone on here claiming they are not is either being dishonest or deluded.  On most matrices you could care to think of they are a "bigger" club than Leicester and it just looks a little classless of us to even bother to argue that.  Having said that, it is also true that at the present time they are nowhere near us in terms of quality and they play in a league that is so painfully uncompetetive that, as you say, it is hard to care about the results.  I have no doubt that were you to put Celtic and/or Rangers into the English League system that, in time, they would establish themselves as top 10 Premier League clubs, possibly top 6 but it would take time.  I firmly believe their current squads would struggle in the Championship.

 

On a personal note, living in Glasgow has changed my opinion of Celtic and Rangers a great deal.  Growing up, Rangers won everyhting and then when O'Neill went to Celtic I actually had a soft spot fot them and looked out for their results.  Since living up here I find less and less to like about either of the Old Firm and think they represent a lot of what is bad about football (and wider religious/cultural bigotry).  Apart from fans of either, most people up here hate them.  I would rather go watch St Mirren any day of the week (my closest team) and I pray for another team shaking it up and winning the league but it just seems so far away.  There are, of course, many decnt fans of both clubs but as "institutions" I find them both quite repugnant.

 

X

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SO1 said:

Is bigger necessarily always better?

My ex girlfriend seemed to think so...and the one before that...and the one before that come to think of it!!;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

My ex girlfriend seemed to think so...and the one before that...and the one before that come to think of it!!;)

What's your 4th imaginary girlfriend think? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ALC Fox said:

Celtic are far and away the bigger, more historic club. They also have many, many fans who have never set foot in Glasgow or even Scotland, and never will do, by virtue of their religious associations.

 

But a footballer's career is short and, really, so is a manager's. It's no surprise that Celtic's players and managers leave for the likes of us, Southampton or whoever in the Premier League, given the respective state of the Premier League vs the Scottish Premiership.

 

I think we need to be a bit more respectful of Scottish football though. It's given us some of the best footballers and managers English football has ever seen, football as we know it was probably invented there (the oldest known football in existence is kept at Stirling Castle), and the Scots were playing a passing game and destroying England in matches when we were still playing kick and rush.

 

The only reason we're a more attractive proposition is because our league has more money floating about in it, so more clubs can attract bigger players and better managers, and build better stadiums.

 

If we win the European Cup and stay at the top of our division, and our league remains one of the best in world football, perhaps we can legitimately say we're a bigger club in 50, 75, or 100 years. But now, no way.

 

Did your haggis go cold while you wrote that?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, weller54 said:

What's your 4th imaginary girlfriend think? 

She doesn't speak, is blown up and is made of plastic.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Clarkey123 said:

For any player wanting to make something of their career Leicester are the bigger club 

I think this is spot on. Its not the same as saying we are a bigger club though. The whole 'we're bigger than you' debate is utter bullsh*t anyway. Even if you wanted to dive head first into it there are so many ways you could define 'bigger' that each party to the conversation is usually just arguing past the other

 

just read this back to myself and the way Ive written it is a bit circular - hopefully you get what i mean :D

Edited by Jacnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jacnah said:

I think this is spot on. Its not the same as saying we are a bigger club though. The whole 'we're bigger than you' debate is utter bullsh*t anyway. Even if you wanted to dive head first into it there are so many ways you could define 'bigger' that each party to the conversation is usually just arguing past the other

 

just read this back to myself and the way Ive written it is a bit circular - hopefully you get what i mean :D

The debate is like..........

0e0d2e762754a2e6e2ee78d1714522511fe7fa17af44aff13c9afc6b9e984d95.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, David Guiza said:

You can go anywhere in the world and see a Celtic fan. You can walk streets of Leicestershire and not see a sign of a Leicester fan. Part of that is down to the fact that some Celtic fans would wear the hoops to their own wedding, but still 

 

Being in a better league doesn't mean anything in terms of being better know globally. Ajax etc are proof of that. 

Yes you can go anywhere in the world and see someone wearing a Celtic shirt. It's a religious and political statement tribal and sectarian as is the rangers shirt. Personally I'm very glad our shirt represents nothing other than being a Leicester city fan regardless of any religion or politics or race. I'm quite happy for them to be a so called bigger club and the stigma of terrorism support that goes with it .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Chris Sutton a bigger Tool than say Jon Moss?

 

Back on track what about McGregor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RumbleFox said:

As you rightly say, they are a huge club, as are Rangers.  Anyone on here claiming they are not is either being dishonest or deluded.  On most matrices you could care to think of they are a "bigger" club than Leicester and it just looks a little classless of us to even bother to argue that.  Having said that, it is also true that at the present time they are nowhere near us in terms of quality and they play in a league that is so painfully uncompetetive that, as you say, it is hard to care about the results.  I have no doubt that were you to put Celtic and/or Rangers into the English League system that, in time, they would establish themselves as top 10 Premier League clubs, possibly top 6 but it would take time.  I firmly believe their current squads would struggle in the Championship.

 

On a personal note, living in Glasgow has changed my opinion of Celtic and Rangers a great deal.  Growing up, Rangers won everyhting and then when O'Neill went to Celtic I actually had a soft spot fot them and looked out for their results.  Since living up here I find less and less to like about either of the Old Firm and think they represent a lot of what is bad about football (and wider religious/cultural bigotry).  Apart from fans of either, most people up here hate them.  I would rather go watch St Mirren any day of the week (my closest team) and I pray for another team shaking it up and winning the league but it just seems so far away.  There are, of course, many decnt fans of both clubs but as "institutions" I find them both quite repugnant.

 

X

Oh no, Rumble!!! Not St. Midden??!! 

 

(I'm from Greenock so Morton are my hometown team)

 

 

5 hours ago, Clarkey123 said:

Talk about a pessimist in the ranks. Celtic are only so well known because they are the only decent side in their Mickey mouse  league and henrik Larsson is arguably the only decent player anyone really remembers they’ve had for the last 20 years. Few more years and this wouldn’t even be up for debate

So, of someone offered you the chance to have Van Dijk at Leicester, you wouldn't take it because you don't think he's decent?! Wanyama? He's not decent either? Lennon wasn't decent? Sutton or Hartson? No? Petrov? Not decent enough? Nakamura not decent in his prime? I'm supposing you dont think Guppy was decent either? As for Larsson himself being "decent"... Mate, that's laughable. The guy was world class in his prime and even past his prime, he was good enough for Man Utd and Barcelona. 

 

I, in no way shape or form have any love for Celtic but to say they've only had one decent player in the last 20 years (who are memorable) is either ignorant or arrogant.... or both. Mind sets like that are exactly why fans of clubs like Leiceter, dislike the likes of Utd and Liverpool. 

 

To be fair, I don't care about Celtic and would prefer not to discuss them on a Leicester forum but arrogance like that boils ma pish.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...