Guest Bilo Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 Got to love The Vicar of Dibley references I know of no better way to convey how bad an idea this is.
Father Ted Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 I can't see this happening. And as Lisa says, Rangers and Celtic should start right at the bottom if they want to join English football. And they will just keep going down. When your main strikeforce is Scott Mcdonald, a Southampton and Wimbledon reject and Samaras, who is useless. Need I say more? We are probably better than Celtic and Rangers at the minute
Samilktray Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 We are probably better than Celtic and Rangers at the minute Daft.
Vacamion Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 The Scottish Press is raving about this. At work in Glasgow today, I suggested that last year's trouble in Manchester by the Rangers fans would guarantee that every Chief Constable in England would oppose this plan. I then got some silence and some tumbleweed from my Rangers supporting colleagues... That's before you get to the footballing/financial reasons not to do this. A stooooopid idea. I hope they don't get the 14 clubs votes they need to do this.
Edmund Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 The Scottish League would fall apart without them. The SFA is very near putting Celtic and Rangers B teams in the Third Division to give their clubs much needed revenue. Seriously? I know they do this in Spain already but what happens if the b team makes it to the spl which is inevitable. Will just become corrupt surely. Has this ever happened in Spain where the b team has made it to la liga or are they not allowed to be promoted?
Fosse Boy Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 Celtic and Rangers reserves are toss. If you're ever bored enough to find yourself watching Celtic TV or Rangers TV, don't bother. Switch over to Setanta Sports 2 and watch some Aussie Rules.
Edmund Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 Celtic and Rangers reserves are toss. If you're ever bored enough to find yourself watching Celtic TV or Rangers TV, don't bother. Switch over to Setanta Sports 2 and watch some Aussie Rules. Fair enough but the standard of the scottish third divison can't be that great.
Ultra Posted 20 April 2009 Author Posted 20 April 2009 Seriously?I know they do this in Spain already but what happens if the b team makes it to the spl which is inevitable. Will just become corrupt surely. Has this ever happened in Spain where the b team has made it to la liga or are they not allowed to be promoted? They can't get any higher than the second division. However, they have played in the Copa Del Rey (Spanish FA Cup). I can remember Real Madrid playing Castilla (their B team) in a final one year and as Real had won the league that year, Castilla played in the Cup Winners Cup! As far as the Gartside plan goes, it's completely unworkable. But the same was said about the proposal for Game 39, and that's not been killed off yet..
Edmund Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 They can't get any higher than the second division.However, they have played in the Copa Del Rey (Spanish FA Cup). I can remember Real Madrid playing Castilla (their B team) in a final one year and as Real had won the league that year, Castilla played in the Cup Winners Cup! As far as the Gartside plan goes, it's completely unworkable. But the same was said about the proposal for Game 39, and that's not been killed off yet.. So im guessing if one of the b teams won the second division the promotion would just be handed to the next highest ranked team? As for a final of Real madrid vs Castilla that's ridiculous. That's why b teams shouldn't be allowed to compete with there own first team as it would just be corrupt.
FilboFox Posted 20 April 2009 Posted 20 April 2009 Terrible plan... why change something that works fine... this is all the mind-work of poor Premiership teams who know they will struggle to stay there and so have to think of a way of extending their stay before the inevitable happens... If anything had to be changed, I would personally like to see the leagues moving towards this, however very unlikely it is: Premiership --- 24 teams --- 4 Champions League places (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) and 2 Europa League places (5th, 6th). Winners of League Cup and FA Cup get Europa League places too so 4 in total, all as normal. --- 4 teams relegated at the end of the season meaning a more intense and gripping relegation battle for more teams however hard that may be on their fans. --- As much as I love winter football and watching matches over the Christmas holidays, starting the season slightly earlier and ending it slightly later to incorporate a winter break might be necessary with the longer season... albeit only 8 games more... Championship --- Possibly rename it to Division Two. --- 24 teams --- 4 teams promoted, 2 automatically and 2 won through 2 play-off finals rather than 2 semi's and then a final, 4 teams go down. --- As with Premiership, have a winter break. League One --- Possibly rename it to Division Three. --- 24 teams --- 4 teams promoted, 2 automatically and 2 won through 2 play-off finals rather than 2 semi's and then a final, 4 teams go down. --- As with Premiership, have a winter break. League Two --- Possibly rename it to Division Four. --- 24 teams --- 4 teams promoted, 2 automatically and 2 won through 2 play-off finals rather than 2 semi's and then a final, 4 teams go down. --- As with Premiership, have a winter break. Conference --- 24 teams --- 4 teams promoted, 2 automatically and 2 won through 2 play-off finals rather than 2 semi's and then a final, 4 teams go down. --- As with Premiership, have a winter break. Scrap the Conference North/South leagues and return to just having the Conference. Can't be bothered with all this North/South split stuff... how do they work it out if 4 northern teams get relegated from the Conference? All these ideas have major flaws I know... International fixtures amongst such a congested fixture list... Champions League teams having lots more games... I know all of these could be possible issues but I just thought I'd say what I thought.
Ultra Posted 20 April 2009 Author Posted 20 April 2009 The problem with winter breaks is that in Britain you never know if and when winter will start. This season, for example, it started at the end of October! And a couple of seasons ago, a Premier League game in April had to be abandoned.
potter3 Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 The problem with winter breaks is that in Britain you never know if and when winter will start. This season, for example, it started at the end of October! And a couple of seasons ago, a Premier League game in April had to be abandoned. The main reason for a winter break is for the players to recover.
davieG Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 The main reason for a winter break is for the players to recover. That only applies to the teams in Europe and then they have big enough squads to cope, if it's still a problem then cut out some of the pointless European games. I guarantee also that the time would be filled with money generating games half way around the world.
Ultra Posted 21 April 2009 Author Posted 21 April 2009 I guarantee also that the time would be filled with money generating games half way around the world. Indeed. That's exactly what the old firm did when the SPL had a winter break.
Alexikokopops Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 And they will just keep going down. When your main strikeforce is Scott Mcdonald, a Southampton and Wimbledon reject and Samaras, who is useless. Need I say more? We are probably better than Celtic and Rangers at the minute Daft. Howard & Fryatt > Mcdonald & Samaras One of them two teams has made it to the knock out stages of the Champions League every season since 2005-06 apart from this one. Can you honestly see Leicester managing that with our current squad?
Corky Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 One of them two teams has made it to the knock out stages of the Champions League every season since 2005-06 apart from this one. Can you honestly see Leicester managing that with our current squad? Although I don't want them in our league, it would be interesting to see how Celtic and Rangers fare down here.
Mickey O'Neil Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 Why has this turned into a 'Bash Glasgow' thread!? It's not either of their faults, although I would think that either of them wouldn't have to think twice about joining. I see Gartside & Scudamore as the bad b@stards in this. All Gartside is concerned about is if Bolton go down, their crappy 22K attendances will drop to about 11Kif they're lucky. 21,095 for Man City 22,694 for Arsenal 24,893 for Liverpool Awful. why the fcuk do they bother!? Norwich have sold 20K season tickets for next year ffs!!
Jon the Hat Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 Although I don't want them in our league, it would be interesting to see how Celtic and Rangers fare down here. They have plenty of resources n terms of fan base and stadia. Add the Premier League cash and they would be top 6 in a year or three.
Jon the Hat Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 I can see this happening. The top 4 would rather play fewer banana skin type teams, and the rest would take a cut in revenue to ensure they don't take the dive associated with a drop to the championship. Shake it up a bit, why not. People said the Premier League was not necessary in 1990. From our point of view, if we are going to yo-yo - which is likely - then better to do it without a plummet in revenue each time. Caveats - still need at least the 3 up 3 down to the lower leagues, Rangers and Celtic to get reduced revenues for the first few years to compensate the English clubs which lose out.
Sir Fynwy Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 I can see this happening. The top 4 would rather play fewer banana skin type teams, and the rest would take a cut in revenue to ensure they don't take the dive associated with a drop to the championship. Shake it up a bit, why not. People said the Premier League was not necessary in 1990.From our point of view, if we are going to yo-yo - which is likely - then better to do it without a plummet in revenue each time. Caveats - still need at least the 3 up 3 down to the lower leagues, Rangers and Celtic to get reduced revenues for the first few years to compensate the English clubs which lose out. And people were right, concentrating all the money in 4 or 5 teams has created a league were only a few have a chance to win or even qualify for the main European competition. This won't go ahead because 14 teams in the prem have to vote for it, the top 4 won't because they will lose revenue and at least 3 of the rest won't because they don't see relegation as a threat (Villa, Spurs, Everton etc.). At least one chairman of a cr@ppy prem team comes up with a stupid idea to keep his club from being relegated every year.
Fosse Boy Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 Why has this turned into a 'Bash Glasgow' thread!? It's not either of their faults, although I would think that either of them wouldn't have to think twice about joining.I see Gartside & Scudamore as the bad b@stards in this. All Gartside is concerned about is if Bolton go down, their crappy 22K attendances will drop to about 11Kif they're lucky. 21,095 for Man City 22,694 for Arsenal 24,893 for Liverpool Awful. why the fcuk do they bother!? Norwich have sold 20K season tickets for next year ffs!! Bolton fans do not deserve to watch top flight football week in, week out. The same could also be said for Wigan, Blackburn, Middlesbrough etc...
Jon the Hat Posted 21 April 2009 Posted 21 April 2009 Bolton fans do not deserve to watch top flight football week in, week out. The same could also be said for Wigan, Blackburn, Middlesbrough etc... Leciester, Stoke, Hull, Reading, West Brom, Sheffield Utd...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.