The Terrible Journalism & Tom English Thread

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

 

I suppose spending £450m vs £30m in transfer fees in 3 years is a lower ratio compared to £30m vs £0.

I'm sorry but ratios make no sense at all in this situation. You can take all the comfort you want though, I'm not going to debate it with you because it's irrelevant nonsense.

 

What?  How the Hell can it possibly be irrelevant?  Is it just freakish coincidence that Celtic do much less well against teams who are richer than them than they do against the ones who are poorer?

How should we measure that differential if not by ratio?  It's not just transfer fees, is it?  It's obviously wages too.  

[shull]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Your post needs updating Shull.

+  

[SilverWolfe]

What?  How the Hell can it possibly be irrelevant?  Is it just freakish coincidence that Celtic do much less well against teams who are richer than them than they do against the ones who are poorer?
How should we measure that differential if not by ratio?  It's not just transfer fees, is it?  It's obviously wages too.  

It's completely irrelevant in this context because we are comparing teams playing in a 38 match league campaign where the team with the much larger budget should win the league and a situation where two teams are effectively playing a one off game against each other where anything can happen. I refuse to accept that we should just be beaten by richer teams simply because they are richer, I also refuse to believe that Celtic should win all 38 league games simply because we are richer than the other teams in the league.

I also don't think you can compare two teams like PSG and Celtic in the same way you can compare Celtic to St Johnstone by simply using a ratio. The markets in which each combination have access to are massively different i.e. Celtics market is much closer to St Johnstone than it is to PSG and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the ratio.

If we sign a £900 a week player from St Johnstone and pay him £5000 a week is he suddenly 5 times better than he was?

I simply refuse to accept that budget ratios are the most important way to measure the differential. I would like to think that a clubs strategy, management, youth policy, signing policy, formation and tactics etc can reduce the effectiveness of a simple ratio otherwise what's the point? If we all had your attitude then we might as well just award Celtic 114 pts, Rangers 102 pts, Aberdeen 90pts etc etc and be done with it.

[coprolite]

Tell Brendan. It's his excuse.

[Dons_1988]

6 hours ago, Tartantony said:

 

It's completely irrelevant in this context because we are comparing teams playing in a 38 match league campaign where the team with the much larger budget should win the league and a situation where two teams are effectively playing a one off game against each other where anything can happen. I refuse to accept that we should just be beaten by richer teams simply because they are richer, I also refuse to believe that Celtic should win all 38 league games simply because we are richer than the other teams in the league.

I also don't think you can compare two teams like PSG and Celtic in the same way you can compare Celtic to St Johnstone by simply using a ratio. The markets in which each combination have access to are massively different i.e. Celtics market is much closer to St Johnstone than it is to PSG and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the ratio.

If we sign a £900 a week player from St Johnstone and pay him £5000 a week is he suddenly 5 times better than he was?

I simply refuse to accept that budget ratios are the most important way to measure the differential. I would like to think that a clubs strategy, management, youth policy, signing policy, formation and tactics etc can reduce the effectiveness of a simple ratio otherwise what's the point? If we all had your attitude then we might as well just award Celtic 114 pts, Rangers 102 pts, Aberdeen 90pts etc etc and be done with it.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing bigger budget = a win everytime.

But it's madness to suggest budget is completely irrelevant in this context.

If you're paying someone £5k a week it's probably because they've outgrown the £900 a week they were on at St Johnstone.  You can't see the relevance of St Johnstone have a good player, they lose him, Celtic see a good player, they obtain him?  Tell me how that has no relevance to the relative success of those two clubs?

Celtic could afford to pay a fee for our best player from last season and use him as a fringe player.  Again, how is this not relevant to the success of our two clubs? 

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, Tartantony said:

 

It's completely irrelevant in this context because we are comparing teams playing in a 38 match league campaign where the team with the much larger budget should win the league and a situation where two teams are effectively playing a one off game against each other where anything can happen. I refuse to accept that we should just be beaten by richer teams simply because they are richer, I also refuse to believe that Celtic should win all 38 league games simply because we are richer than the other teams in the league.

I also don't think you can compare two teams like PSG and Celtic in the same way you can compare Celtic to St Johnstone by simply using a ratio. The markets in which each combination have access to are massively different i.e. Celtics market is much closer to St Johnstone than it is to PSG and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the ratio.

If we sign a £900 a week player from St Johnstone and pay him £5000 a week is he suddenly 5 times better than he was?

I simply refuse to accept that budget ratios are the most important way to measure the differential. I would like to think that a clubs strategy, management, youth policy, signing policy, formation and tactics etc can reduce the effectiveness of a simple ratio otherwise what's the point? If we all had your attitude then we might as well just award Celtic 114 pts, Rangers 102 pts, Aberdeen 90pts etc etc and be done with it.

 

So they played PSG in one off matches, er twice?

Celtic don't win all 38 domestic league games.

The bit about access to markets is just rubbish.  St Johnstone don't have access to a Dembele in the same way Celtic don't to a Neymar.   

I'm not the one advocating a wildly imbalanced game which wrecks the uncertainty on which sport thrives.  I do however recognise what happens when such imbalance is created.

 

[tree house tam]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

 

The bit about access to markets is just rubbish.  St Johnstone don't have access to a Dembele in the same way Celtic don't to a Neymar.   

 

There are U20 players at Celtic on more than first teamers at Saints. It's a whole different world at Celtic compared to St Johnstone, just as it is at PSG. That is why we consider top 3 or 4 and a diddy round in Europe a success. Celtic need to accept they're level. 3rd in a Champions league group is what they should be striving for every year, they might make it through on a good year bit that's their level right there.

[SilverWolfe]

I don't think anyone is arguing bigger budget = a win everytime.
But it's madness to suggest budget is completely irrelevant in this context.
If you're paying someone £5k a week it's probably because they've outgrown the £900 a week they were on at St Johnstone.  You can't see the relevance of St Johnstone have a good player, they lose him, Celtic see a good player, they obtain him?  Tell me how that has no relevance to the relative success of those two clubs?
Celtic could afford to pay a fee for our best player from last season and use him as a fringe player.  Again, how is this not relevant to the success of our two clubs? 

Im not saying that budgets are irrelevant when comparing scottish teams to each other. What is irrelevant is using ratios to compare PSG to Celtic to Scottish Premiership clubs because it makes no sense.

The ratio of Celtic to Scottish teams is higher than PSG to Celtic but it doesn't necessarily mean that Celtic are as far ahead because of the market that each club has access to. I.e.

Cavani (£55m) - Dembele (£0.5m) - May (£0.3m)
Neymar (£200m) - Sinclair (£3.5m) - GMS (£0.1m)

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the point. I don't care what the ratio of transfer fees or wages is, the quality of player that Celtic can buy is still clearly closer to Aberdeen than it is to PSG. It's not even debatable.

That's why it's irrelevant to use ratios to compare this particular situation.

[Salvo Montalbano]

Im not saying that budgets are irrelevant when comparing scottish teams to each other. What is irrelevant is using ratios to compare PSG to Celtic to Scottish Premiership clubs because it makes no sense.

The ratio of Celtic to Scottish teams is higher than PSG to Celtic but it doesn't necessarily mean that Celtic are as far ahead because of the market that each club has access to. I.e.

Cavani (£55m) - Dembele (£0.5m) - May (£0.3m)
Neymar (£200m) - Sinclair (£3.5m) - GMS (£0.1m)

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the point. I don't care what the ratio of transfer fees or wages is, the quality of player that Celtic can buy is still clearly closer to Aberdeen than it is to PSG. It's not even debatable.

That's why it's irrelevant to use ratios to compare this particular situation.

You know fine well using Dembele and the fee laid for him is a massive red herring - his value was more like £10 million and had you been in the English Premiership that's what you'd have paid - and that's before comparing his wages. I expected better from you there tbh.

[Darren]

Not much fun watching your team get pumped by a club with loads more money than you, is it?

[Raidernation]

Im not saying that budgets are irrelevant when comparing scottish teams to each other. What is irrelevant is using ratios to compare PSG to Celtic to Scottish Premiership clubs because it makes no sense.

The ratio of Celtic to Scottish teams is higher than PSG to Celtic but it doesn't necessarily mean that Celtic are as far ahead because of the market that each club has access to. I.e.

Cavani (£55m) - Dembele (£0.5m) - May (£0.3m)
Neymar (£200m) - Sinclair (£3.5m) - GMS (£0.1m)

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the point. I don't care what the ratio of transfer fees or wages is, the quality of player that Celtic can buy is still clearly closer to Aberdeen than it is to PSG. It's not even debatable.

That's why it's irrelevant to use ratios to compare this particular situation.

That’s pish min and you know it. We couldn’t get any of rasellik squad not just because of fees but wages as well
You be happy to see your team hump Brechin in the cup?
Or do you think they should be competitive?
PSG>rasellik >>>>>>>Brechin?

[7-2]

This should be renamed Tartantony's Terrible Trolling Thread.

[SilverWolfe]

That’s pish min and you know it. We couldn’t get any of rasellik squad not just because of fees but wages as well
You be happy to see your team hump Brechin in the cup?
Or do you think they should be competitive?
PSG>rasellik >>>>>>>Brechin?

Genuinely didn't understand a word of that tbh

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, 7-2 said:

This should be renamed Tartantony's Terrible Trolling Thread.

Possibly.  I suspect though that he's maybe being sincere.

Tragic I know, but there you are.

[7-2]

22 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Possibly.  I suspect though that he's maybe being sincere.

Tragic I know, but there you are.

Trolling suited the alliteration to be honest but he's not far off it.  He's so blinkered and indoctrinated in the cult of Celtic you'll never get a genuine discussion/argument from him.  His continued long winded and deliberate bloody mindedness in threads is really just a form of trolling though. 

[nsr]

3 hours ago, 7-2 said:

This should be renamed Tartantony's Terrible Trolling Thread.

Tartantony's Terrible Tragicomic Thread?

[SilverWolfe]

I don't get the trolling comments. I've said our budget is the reason we are the best in Scotland. I also accept that our situation is the reverse in Europe and we just have to live with it. My only argument is that ratios cannot be used as a comparison in this context because there are too many other material variables. I don't see what's so controversial here, I'm not even defending Celtic.

Is that short enough for you 7-2?

[thisal]

34 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

I don't get the trolling comments. I've said our budget is the reason we are the best in Scotland. I also accept that our situation is the reverse in Europe and we just have to live with it. My only argument is that ratios cannot be used as a comparison in this context because there are too many other material variables. I don't see what's so controversial here, I'm not even defending Celtic.

Is that short enough for you 7-2?

So to summarize .  Your answer to  people ridiculing journalists for getting upset about Celtics financial disadvantage v PSG and Bayern when the boot is on the other foot in 95% of their games is it's different because it's the same. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by thisal

[The Minertaur]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/board-saved-rangers-you-ask-11575912

Barry is back.  Not a horrendous article but there is one paragraphy I feel needs to be highlighted...

Quote

 

It’s simply not fair on the supporters who have stuck by the club through thick and thin over the last few years. I feel their pain because I am one of them.

And like them I just want to know what direction the club is going in.

Rangers has always prided itself on handling its business in an immaculate manner on the pitch and off it. Right now it’s an absolute mess.

 

Let's read that last bit again...

Quote

Rangers has always prided itself on handling its business in an immaculate manner on the pitch and off it.

Where do you even start with that sentence?

 

[7-2]

He's never really been away.  Barry's Broadcasting Corporation always have at least one of his edicts readily visible on their website every day.