Do You Support Scottish Sides in Europe?

[wastecoatwilly]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Of course it does.

Of course it doesn't.

 

Why are you stating the bleeding obvious as if it's remotely insightful or relevant?

Why not tackle the things I do say, as opposed to those I don't?  I feel like Andrew Neill.

I have diluted your debate that much there is no taste to it anymore.
With or without the money there is always been dominant clubs within leagues across the globe.
As I've said before Real Madrid won the first 5 European cups and they've won the last 4 out of 6 nothing has changed.

[FairWeatherFan]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Once more, you're quite wrong.

If we go back 100 seasons as you suggest, we'll find that the longest run during that period without a non-OF side winning the League prior to our current run of 34 seasons, is of13 seasons.

We also find that there is no precedent for the top 2 being identical for all but 1 of 16 successive seasons that we had just before Rangers went bust.

 

So there we have it:

We have a historic and unhealthy dominance of two clubs in our game - absolutely true.

That dominance has also been more pronounced since the dawn of the CL era - also absolutely true.

The last year that a non-OF team won the title Aberdeen had an average attendance of 16,152 and the highest average in Scotland was Rangers with 20,963. They were also the last team to win the title without a shirt sponsor.

OF getting 30,000+ ticket sales, sponsorships and the rise of pay TV from the 90s has had a greater impact than CL money.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I have diluted your debate that much there is no taste to it anymore.
With or without the money there is always been dominant clubs within leagues across the globe.
As I've said before Real Madrid won the first 5 European cups and they've won the last 4 out of 6 nothing has changed.

As demonstrably established, a great deal has changed to further entrench imbalances that historically existed.  Changes in media coverage, transport, consumer behaviour and stadia have all contributed to this.  Another factor concerns the way that European club competitions have changed.

If you want to continue suggesting otherwise, be my guest.  It's very amusing.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The last year that a non-OF team won the title Aberdeen had an average attendance of 16,152 and the highest average in Scotland was Rangers with 20,963. They were also the last team to win the title without a shirt sponsor.

OF getting 30,000+ ticket sales, sponsorships and the rise of pay TV from the 90s has had a greater impact than CL money.

 

Once more, is anyone putting the changes down to a single factor?

That would be supremely idiotic.

[cyderspaceman]

I want to see all Scottish clubs do well in Europe. Even the H word. However, like many others on here, I reserve the right to have a laugh at certain failures.

[FairWeatherFan]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That dominance has also been more pronounced since the dawn of the CL era - also absolutely true.

 

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

Once more, is anyone putting the changes down to a single factor?

That would be supremely idiotic.

You're saying the dominance became more pronounced since the dawn of the CL era. Celtic never played in the CL until 1999 by which point i'd say the OF had already jumped ahead of everyone else with Murray's overdraft and the Parkhead rebuild. 

[wastecoatwilly]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

As demonstrably established, a great deal has changed to further entrench imbalances that historically existed.  Changes in media coverage, transport, consumer behaviour and stadia have all contributed to this.  Another factor concerns the way that European club competitions have changed.

If you want to continue suggesting otherwise, be my guest.  It's very amusing.

 

Yes the infrastructure has changed in football but the same clubs are still winning like they did 60 70 80 years ago.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

 

You're saying the dominance became more pronounced since the dawn of the CL era. Celtic never played in the CL until 1999 by which point i'd say the OF had already jumped ahead of everyone else with Murray's overdraft and the Parkhead rebuild. 

Seriously, what were the chances of us finding another one?

Please stop telling me stuff I know in a bid to challenge stuff I'm not saying.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Monkey Tennis

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Yes the infrastructure has changed in football but the same clubs are still winning like they did 60 70 80 years ago.

They're winning by bigger margins more frequently.

That is undeniably the case in Scotland.  Your denials don't alter this.

[eez-eh]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I have diluted your debate that much there is no taste to it anymore.
With or without the money there is always been dominant clubs within leagues across the globe.
As I've said before Real Madrid won the first 5 European cups and they've won the last 4 out of 6 nothing has changed.

I really don’t want to get drawn down into this bore-you-to-tears debate, but I’d just like to highlight that someone (you) is essentially trying to claim that Franco’s Madrid didn’t have vast resources in comparison to their rivals. f**k me.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Yes the infrastructure has changed in football but the same clubs are still winning like they did 60 70 80 years ago.

80 years ago Clyde won the Scottish Cup

70 + years ago Clyde won it twice

70 + years ago Falkirk won it

60 + years ago Dunfermline won it twice

70 years ago East Fife won the League Cup 3 times in 7 seasons

70 years ago Motherwell won the League Cup

70 years ago Dundee won the League Cup twice

Between 60 and 70 years ago Hearts won the League Cup 4 times

70 years ago Hibs won the League title 3 times in 4 years

65 years ago Aberdeen won the league title

Between 65 and 50 years ago Hearts won the league title twice (and finished runners up 4 times)

57 years ago Dundee won the league title

54 years ago Kilmarnock won the league title (and were runners up 4 times in the preceding 5 seasons)

With the exception of Aberdeen(league) and Dundee (league cup), none of those sides has won that compettion since their last victory.

 

 

 

 

[Victor von Doom]

I find European club football strange in the Scottish context.

I used to want all Scottish sides to win - even "That Lot." There was no real difference between the average working-class Rangers fan and the average working-class Celtic fan a generation or two ago. Born a wee way down the road, I'd have been one of them. Most IRA and UVF guys in Belfast would be honest enough to recognise that situation in a cultural & political sense, never mind a football one. There's a lot more self-deluding bullscheidt on the part of what are generally far more affluent fans on both sides of the divide these days - and I will say that "That Lot" are more guilty of delusion. I conced we're more guilty of irrational anger (and toe-curling statements) than they are though and, in the context of "Modern Scotland" I can see why far more people hate us. 

Back in the day though, Scottish clubs had a chance of meaningful progress in Europe. It meant something tangible. Now, there is little chance of genuinely competeing for a trophy, which is depressing when you consider how recent the finals in Manchester and Seville were.

So, I really don't give a damn whether Scottish clubs progress. Even us. Other than as a Jolly Boys' Outing for the richer fans, UEFA competitions are fairly meaningless for Scottish cubs. Vienna and Espana were apparently quite nice last season, but I never considered going. Simply not interested - and as for two schleps to Russia and three to Yugoslavia... No thanks.

I know a Spoonburner who went to all three European games last season. He spunked nigh-on £2,000 on the three trips: £800+ Faeroes, £500+ for a three-day jaunt to the arse-end of Greece and about £400 to Norway. If enough UEFA prizemoney  gets banked via a European run, then I can see it's worthwhile, but otherwise I scarcely see the point of competing. If you're drawn against a genuinely huge club, fair enough - it's something to look forward to as a one-off experience -  but the days when the likes of Raith could draw Bayern are long gone. Paris or Prague or a beach by the Mediterranean are also fair enough for an excursion, but the early rounds often produce fixtures against clubs founded by a local mafioso in 2009, in one-horse towns, with crap transport links and little accommodation, in a province of the USSR or Yugoslavia (or the UK!) from which all the decent players have long buggered-off abroad and where the formerly mighty Dinamos, Spartas, Slavias and CSKAs struggle to compete with the new "ambitious" clubs and play in crumbling stadiums in front of 2,000 fans. 

I just think the whole set-up in virtually meaningless now. How far would a Sheep, Spoonburner, Arab, Jambos, Killie or other fan want to get in Europe to trade the experience for a cup final at Hampden? Anyhow, kick-off time in Paisley. Must dash.       

[wastecoatwilly]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

They're winning by bigger margins more frequently.

That is undeniably the case in Scotland.  Your denials don't alter this.

I find it laughable in the last ten years and with the demise of rangers we have seen more clubs winning trophies.
Yet now you are debating against that and using European money as an excuse.

[Jacksgranda]

38 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I find it laughable in the last ten years and with the demise of rangers we have seen more clubs winning trophies.
Yet now you are debating against that and using European money as an excuse.

Not in the last 3 years we haven't. Maybe we could see what transpires if Celtic demised and it took 4 years for their clone to get to the big time...

[wastecoatwilly]

14 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Not in the last 3 years we haven't.

One season with CL dosh out of 3 are you trying to prove my point?

[Jacksgranda]

Celtic only got European money one season out of the last three?

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I find it laughable in the last ten years and with the demise of rangers we have seen more clubs winning trophies.
Yet now you are debating against that and using European money as an excuse.

A clear illustration of what I'm talking about.  

The demise of Rangers was wonderful for Scottish football.  Not only did it put that bloated club out of the picture, but without their pals alongside them, Celtic diminished too and we had that unparalleled sharing of trophies, although the big one stayed put.  

Since a version of Rangers got to the top flight, that sharing of trophies has ended as Celtic got an act together and flexed their financial muscle.  European success will serve to further cement that duopoly that strangles our game.

Wishing either club well in Europe is utterly senseless for a diddy fan.

[RandomGuy.]

8 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

 

Since a version of Rangers got to the top flight, that sharing of trophies has ended as Celtic got an act together and flexed their financial muscle. 

Aye. Since Rangers returned to the top flight Celtics wage spend has rocketed.

Celtic also make ~£40m in broadcast income from the CL, the SPFL deal is £19m split between 42 sides.

[Jacksgranda]

Celtic obviously want the money more...

[Monkey Tennis]

14 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Aye. Since Rangers returned to the top flight Celtics wage spend has rocketed.

Celtic also make ~£40m in broadcast income from the CL, the SPFL deal is £19m split between 42 sides.

Indeed.  

Even that meagre £19m of course is not divided evenly.  Celtic will have received much more of that than anybody else too.