Jump to content

The Celtic All Seasons thread


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

To what end?

People who'd watch anyway might put their chair a bit nearer the telly?

 

The benefits are clearly simply incalculable.

Just because the aren’t directly calculable doesn’t mean there are no benefits. Having higher profile players, higher talented players and managers means more exposure. More exposure generally means more cash for sponsorship tv deals etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gannonball said:

Just because the aren’t directly calculable doesn’t mean there are no benefits. Having higher profile players, higher talented players and managers means more exposure. More exposure generally means more cash for sponsorship tv deals etc.

Oh ffs.

These things are so intangible.  Any real cash advantage would be miniscule.  The reality is that the presence of such players in our country, just makes the clubs they play for, more attractive to people throughout it.  That's the very last thing that would benefit our game.

I'd be behind the idea of generating a bigger overall pot, if it got distributed fairly.   However, it doesn't and it was even worse back then. 

The idea that it benefited our game is just something people say.  When challenged, however, as we're seeing, they struggle.

Having Larsson and Laudrup play in Scotland was great for Celtic and Rangers.  It was actively bad for the Scottish game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Oh ffs.

These things are so intangible.  Any real cash advantage would be miniscule.  The reality is that the presence of such players in our country, just makes the clubs they play for, more attractive to people throughout it.  That's the very last thing that would benefit our game.

I'd be behind the idea of generating a bigger overall pot, if it got distributed fairly.   However, it doesn't and it was even worse back then. 

The idea that it benefited our game is just something people say.  When challenged, however, as we're seeing, they struggle.

Having Larsson and Laudrup play in Scotland was great for Celtic and Rangers.  It was actively bad for the Scottish game.

Starting to think football isn’t the sport for you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Oh ffs.

These things are so intangible.  Any real cash advantage would be miniscule.  The reality is that the presence of such players in our country, just makes the clubs they play for, more attractive to people throughout it.  That's the very last thing that would benefit our game.

I'd be behind the idea of generating a bigger overall pot, if it got distributed fairly.   However, it doesn't and it was even worse back then. 

The idea that it benefited our game is just something people say.  When challenged, however, as we're seeing, they struggle.

Having Larsson and Laudrup play in Scotland was great for Celtic and Rangers.  It was actively bad for the Scottish game.

I’m not saying it was a massive benefit as a whole but there are benefits. And tbh I’m not sure why you are so bothered about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gannonball said:

I’m not saying it was a massive benefit as a whole but there are benefits. And tbh I’m not sure why you are so bothered about it. 

Benefits you've not really been able to identify?

I'm bothered because I'm  a Scot who lives in Scotland and likes football.  Sorry if it's confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

Benefits you've not really been able to identify?

I'm bothered because I'm  a Scot who lives in Scotland and likes football.  Sorry if it's confusing.

I literally said them and you wrote it off as miniscule whilst having a bit of a rant over something that is pretty trivial and I can’t be arsed arguing about it tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, gannonball said:

I literally said them and you wrote it off as miniscule whilst having a bit of a rant over something that is pretty trivial and I can’t be arsed arguing about it tbh.

What, this bit: "More exposure generally means more cash for sponsorship tv deals etc." ?

Yes, I'd probably give up too, if I were in your shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/07/2022 at 22:10, gannonball said:

I literally said them and you wrote it off as miniscule whilst having a bit of a rant over something that is pretty trivial and I can’t be arsed arguing about it tbh.

See this is the different perspectives. 

It isn’t trivial to those of us who consume football in this country and don’t follow one of two teams. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

See this is the different perspectives. 

It isn’t trivial to those of us who consume football in this country and don’t follow one of two teams. 

 

Gannonball is alright, but he genuinely doesn't get it.  An awful lot of OF fans are the same.

I often get asked on here why it matters to me, because I support a side that wouldn't be likely to challenge anyway, even in a much more egalitarian landscape. 

The idea that we don't all necessarily view such questions entirely through the prism of what would benefit our own clubs directly, genuinely escapes a lot of them, because it's the only way they can see football at all.

They don't understand that we felt like we had a greater stake in it all when it hung together better, when the relative wealth of our biggest clubs wasn't greater than that of most the other sides in the country all added together.

I'm a Scottish football fan and I'd much rather that the country I lived in had a league title whose destination I cared about each season and was interested in.  

I don't think that should baffle anyone to be honest, but it seems to absolutely stump a great many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

See this is the different perspectives. 

It isn’t trivial to those of us who consume football in this country and don’t follow one of two teams. 

 

 

51 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Gannonball is alright, but he genuinely doesn't get it.  An awful lot of OF fans are the same.

I often get asked on here why it matters to me, because I support a side that wouldn't be likely to challenge anyway, even in a much more egalitarian landscape. 

The idea that we don't all necessarily view such questions entirely through the prism of what would benefit our own clubs directly, genuinely escapes a lot of them, because it's the only way they can see football at all.

They don't understand that we felt like we had a greater stake in it all when it hung together better, when the relative wealth of our biggest clubs wasn't greater than that of most the other sides in the country all added together.

I'm a Scottish football fan and I'd much rather that the country I lived in had a league title whose destination I cared about each season and was interested in.  

I don't think that should baffle anyone to be honest, but it seems to absolutely stump a great many.

It was pretty trivial tbh as it was debating whether higher calibre players benefit the league. I think most are on here because they have a general interest in Scottish football otherwise we would be on dedicated club forums. I get MT's side as of course it will benefit the clubs who have the players more but to suggest there is no benefit at all is an opinion rather than fact as it’s how you see the benefit in terms of financial or competiveness. Even an established league like Serie A experienced an increase in sponsorship when Ronaldo was announced for Juve. 

Edited by gannonball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Gannonball is alright, but he genuinely doesn't get it.  An awful lot of OF fans are the same.

I often get asked on here why it matters to me, because I support a side that wouldn't be likely to challenge anyway, even in a much more egalitarian landscape. 

The idea that we don't all necessarily view such questions entirely through the prism of what would benefit our own clubs directly, genuinely escapes a lot of them, because it's the only way they can see football at all.

They don't understand that we felt like we had a greater stake in it all when it hung together better, when the relative wealth of our biggest clubs wasn't greater than that of most the other sides in the country all added together.

I'm a Scottish football fan and I'd much rather that the country I lived in had a league title whose destination I cared about each season and was interested in.  

I don't think that should baffle anyone to be honest, but it seems to absolutely stump a great many.

Aye he’s fine, that’s why I said it was different perspectives, nothing abusive. I think someone on here had a good point once when they said OF fans ‘just drink in a different pub’. 

9 minutes ago, gannonball said:

 

It was pretty trivial tbh as it was debating whether higher calibre players benefit the league. I think most are on here because they have a general interest in Scottish football otherwise we would be on dedicated club forums. I get MT's side as of course it will benefit the clubs who have the players more but to suggest there is no benefit at all is an opinion rather than fact as it’s how you see the benefit in terms of financial or competiveness. Even an established league like Serie A experienced an increase in sponsorship when Ronaldo was announced for Juve. 

Well yes financial benefit is factual but opinion is who’s interests does it serve and is that worthwhile or what we want for our domestic game.

The people in charge would absolutely agree that if Celtic signed cristiano ronaldo tomorrow, while the rest of the league are shopping in Poundland that it would be the best thing to happen to the league maybe ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, gannonball said:

 

It was pretty trivial tbh as it was debating whether higher calibre players benefit the league. I think most are on here because they have a general interest in Scottish football otherwise we would be on dedicated club forums. I get MT's side as of course it will benefit the clubs who have the players more but to suggest there is no benefit at all is an opinion rather than fact as it’s how you see the benefit in terms of financial or competiveness. Even an established league like Serie A experienced an increase in sponsorship when Ronaldo was announced for Juve. 

Yes, but as far as I'm concerned, a slightly improved sponsorship deal is of truly negligible benefit. 

When it's set against the fact that the already strongest sides get to field  great players, the relative effect is of course negative for everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...