What has that got to do with anything?
The guys opinion differs from yours so he must be a tim.
Typical OF pish

He acts like one all the time, I have yet to see him really take a go at Celtic FC, and show he isn't just a closet dhim.

Can I just ask what denomination of school you went to?

Of course you can, and it was R.C.

Perhaps you will now exaplin the relevance of the question?

Just don't call him a 'Fenian b*****d'...

Any chance you could use your crystal ball to help me with my coupon for the weekend?

Certainly.

Try Falkirk 0 - Aberdeen 1.

Hmmmmmmmm...................................................
. a feeble atempt to do what ? All I am doing is questioning your logic, about the theory Celtic will dominate scottish football for a further 20 years. Lets face it your argument can be easily turned around and we could see Rangers again dominating scottish football for the forseeable future.

I dont know why you dont just admit that you are a (closet) tim.

Can I just ask what denomination of school you went to?

Perhaps the argument has now been laid to rest?

Indeed, can there be any further doubt about my predictions? Though predicting Falkirk would lose to Aberdeen without scoring is akin to predicting bears creating brown stuff in wooded areas.



It's not difficult to grasp. I can't stand Celtic PLC. However, that pales into insignificance compared to how much I utterly despise Rangers football club and everything they stand for. The decades of bigotry and sectarianism, the Nazi salutes, and the triumphalist, white Protestant supremacist (and now racist) attitudes of the fanbase.

I am absolutely loving the fact that this arrogance has come back to haunt Rangers, as they are now very much Scotland's second team. It's great </FONT>

Seems as though your agenda is political rather than being based within the realms of football. I take it your beliefs have allowed you to overlook the stark similarities to the attitude of the fans in green and white hoops.

So did you win 7 houses by putting the mortgage on my prediction for Saturday? Just imagine how many steak bakes you'll be able to get with your winnings!

Some Celtic fans have problems to address, namely the disgusting support for murdering terrorist scum, and the bigotry they have exhibited towards their manager because of his religion, but their problems are far less evidenced than Rangers.

Celtic really do have a minority problem, whereas Rangers have a majority problem. I would hate to associate myself with either club however.

I would say you have hit the nail on the head when you say the incidents of Celtic fans behaving badly is less well evidenced. I have personally found the Celtic support to be less gracious in defeat as well as when they have been victorious. If you are looking for evidence of poorly behaved Celtic fans please feel free to search you tube for the evidence you require.

Not really. It has been shown that when Celtic only played one tie in Europe, their turnover is around £3 or £4m less than Rangers who took all the CL moolah. In reversed circumstances (except Rnagers played several UEFA CUP ties), Rangers turnover was £30m less than Celtic's.

Despite their greatest ever year in Europe (financially), Rangers turnover was a whopping £12m less than Celtc's last season. This season I'm willing to guess that their income will be at least £30m less than Celtic's.

Celtic are a much bigger club than Rangers.

The size of a club is not measured merely by finance. That's not to say finance does not dictate other measures of "size", such as amount of domestic honours won, but it's not the overriding factor in determing how "big" a club is.

it's a Scottish problem, not a Rangers problem - yet Rangers, and many supporters, have attempted to tackle the problem, largely unaided.

I don't think there are any criteria which would suggest Rangers are Scotland's biggest club any more. Celtic dominate on the park, have a bigger stadium, more money coming in, spend more on wages and do better in Europe.



It's just unfortunate for you that the dregs of Scottish society gravitate towards Rangers FC.

I gave you a hint in my last post. Rangers are by far the most domestically successful team in Scotland. By which I mean they've won the most domestic football honours in Scotland, not that David Murray is particularly adept at cooking or cleaning.

Oh, I quite agree. I think they are helped by their more militant scumbag fans being too poor to actually go to the games, so the standard of fan inside the stadium is much higher. That's why the party songs don't get sung at games, apart from the odd few at away matches.

Historically speaking Queens Park were a big club. They aren't any more.

Celtic are Scotland's number 1 club at present. There can be no doubt about that, on the field and off it.

All that can change this is huge investment into Rangers, which in the current financial climate looks very unlikely.

Celtic may be Scotland's current "number 1 club" (what with being the champions n'all) but I'm referring to how big a club is in general,

The size of a club is not measured merely by finance. That's not to say finance does not dictate other measures of "size", such as amount of domestic honours won, but it's not the overriding factor in determing how "big" a club is.

So am I.

Chelsea are a bigger club than Liverpool at present, although they lack Liverpool's history. Arsenal are likewise bigger than Liverpool though again with a less storied past.

The difference with Chelsea v Liverpool of course is that Chelsea are arbitrarily boosted by Abramovich's billions,otherwise they would not be. Celtic don't have a sugar daddy, just amuch more successful business plan and income streams. That's why Celtic's domination is absolute and will continue unless Rangers find an Abramovich Mark II.

Celtic do seem to hold a financial lead over Rangers at the moment and, assuming ceteris paribus, this could very well continue.
But, bearing all this in mind, we still have no idea whether Celtic will dominate Scottish football for the near future and it's of limited relevance to what I'm suggesting anyway.

Celtic's (relative) financial security at this particular period of time is not an indicator of Celtic being a "bigger" club than Rangers in a general sense. Likewise, for Celtic's current success on the pitch.

Fair enough, Feanaro . (as I note above) I still disagree with the assertion that Celtic are a "bigger" club than Rangers.

By the same token, there is no guarantee the "Big 4" in England will continue to dominate the CL positions, and indeed the "Big 2" will fight out the title between them, however it is a pretty likely scenario.

Nothing Rangers can do can bridge the financial gap.



Well, yes, it is. They have a bigger ground, and much more fans every fortnight watching them, even igoring their domestic and European success. They are a bigger club at present.



I think you will find little support for this view outwith the Rangers fanbase.

They're still considerably less successful than Rangers, in a domestic sense. When determinig the size of a club in general, you can't "cut off" large amounts of its history.

Well, you can really.

Ask Nottingham Forest or Leeds fans. The fact Forest ruled Europe for a time is irrelevant when looking at their current status, which is that of a struggling Championship club.

I'm not saying Rangers aren't still a big club, but they are not as big a club as Celtic.

Of course you can, and it was R.C.

Perhaps you will now exaplin the relevance of the question?

Ok, the only reason I asked that question is because I wanted to gain some understanding as to why you favour one side of the old firm so heavily . I now understand why you do so much Bear baiting.

Well, you can really.

Ask Nottingham Forest or Leeds fans. The fact Forest ruled Europe for a time is irrelevant when looking at their current status, which is that of a struggling Championship club.

I'm not saying Rangers aren't still a big club, but they are not as big a club as Celtic.

Historically speaking Queens Park were a big club. They aren't any more.

Celtic are Scotland's number 1 club at present. There can be no doubt about that, on the field and off it.

All that can change this is huge investment into Rangers, which in the current financial climate looks very unlikely.

Off it, care to prove how they are the biggest club in Scotland off the field? What have they done which makes them this?

(outwith our run to the semi-final of the Champions League, where we were cheated by a Marseille side who had paid the ref to throw that game and the final and which were prosecuted, and the trophy going to AC Milan, without us getting to play them for it

Marseille were not stripped of their 92/93 CL win. They were stripped of their French title that season, demoted a division and banned from defending the European Cup after it had emerged that they had fixed a league game against Valenciennes.

Where do you get it that the trophy went to AC Milan and that they were prosecuted for getting the referee to throw a group game against your lot (note: not a semi-final) and did likewise in the final?

I'm just gonna chuck this in.

In the above, Glasnost is 100% correct.

However, what is interesting is that IIRC that season Valenciennes were relegated from Ligue 1 that season. They have never actually recovered fully.

I'm just gonna chuck this in.

In the above, Glasnost is 100% correct.

However, what is interesting is that IIRC that season Valenciennes were relegated from Ligue 1 that season. They have never actually recovered fully.

Celtic are absolutely streets ahead of Rangers in terms of finances...

When Celtic never qualified for the Champions League 3 seasons ago, their turnover was £4m less than Rangers (who had all that lovely CL money to themselves).

Fast forward one year and this time it was Rangers who didn't qualify for the Champions League, but had an otherwise decent campaign in the Uefa Cup. Their turnover was £33m less than Celtic's £75m (who now had all that lovely CL money to themselves).

Rangers most successful year in Europe for many years has seen them take in a record (for them) £64.5m compared to Celtic's £73m.

It should also be noted that for such a record figure, Rangers debt increased by marginally over £5m to £21.6m, whereas despite a drop in turnover of around £2m, Celtic's debt decreased by almost £1.5m.

This season Celtic will once again receive all the CL market pool money whilst Rangers will have no money coming in from Europe. Ok, they had a home tie against Kaunas, so that aint strictly true, but you get the jist of it.

I'd be very surprised if the Old Firm's financial results in 2009 don't show Celtic having a turnover of at least £30m more than Rangers.

Streets ahead.

Off it, care to prove how they are the biggest club in Scotland off the field? What have they done which makes them this?

See above.

See above.

so chelski pull in more money from football than liverpool did but doesnt mean they are bigger off the field

imo liverpool are 2nd biggest english club behind man utd OFF the field in terms of history, club name etc

just earning more money doesnt mean you are a bigger club off the field.

and as for on the field, celtic are top by 3 points while we have a home game in hand to try and win by 3 to go top (might be wrong about goals scored)

plus we also have a home game advantage over celtic, and have also thumped them on their own turf this year so currently theres nothing splitting the old firm on field imo

just earning more money doesnt mean you are a bigger club off the field.

1. It was a game marseille would have won easily.

2. There is no record of marseille bribing anyone in the Champions league. However rumours surround their game against CSKA Moscow which they won 6-0.

Also if Rangers had won in the velodrome, they would have been in the final. So to me that is pretty much a semi-final. A game in which the winner is in the final, is a semi to all intensive purposes.

Also if Rangers had won in the velodrome, they would have been in the final. So to me that is pretty much a semi-final. A game in which the winner is in the final, is a semi to all intensive purposes.

Because you want it to have been a semi-final does not make it so. The above quote is, for all intents and purposes, bollox.

i don't doubt for a minute that Rangers would have won jad he played!!

Hately was sent off against Brugges and was suspended for the game at the Velodrome...i don't doubt for a minute that Rangers would have won jad he played!! That sending off is still to this day 1 of the softest i have ever seen!!

2. There were 'rumours' about Liverpools recent 8-0 win in the CL but there was also no proof. Therefore, the result stands and we have to believe the game was fair.

Anyway, it's a shame 'WeAreThePeople' is too cowardly to respond