Do You Want Celtic And Rangers In The New EPL's If The Plan Is accepted?

[Rev Stickleback]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

No what I am suggesting is that the only remotely valuable games to overseas viewers are old firm ones. This is compared to the premier league with valuable games each week. It's the combined value of the games which drives the demand for the product and thus the price it sells for.

And I'm suggesting beyond ex-pats worldwide (and Japanese fans tuning in to watch a Japanese player) nobody cares about the OF. They don't care if it's Celtic v Rangers or Celtic v Dunfermline. Both have no more appeal than Benfica v Sporting Lisbon would here...effectively none.

It's not the lack of decent opposition that turns the worldwide public off the OF, it's simply that they are irrelevant on the world stage.

Currently there are separate SPL and Premier League rights with a combined competition there wouldn't be.

but worldwide, only one of the two is important. Nobody would give a toss about losing the SPL rights. They aren't remotely lucrative.

No I don't make it sound like that, what would happen is that there would be more valuable games meaning the value of holding those rights would be increased. This would then mean that the amount a broadcaster would be willing to pay to secure said rights would increase, especially in the face of competition for the rights.

by what margin (rough guess) would you estimate subscriptions in the UK would rise if the OF joined?

How about worldwide viewing figures?

I can't see it being more than 5% at most in the UK. You may get more Scottish subscribers, but few in England would be salivating about OF fixtures to the extent that it'd be a deal-breaker in subscribing or not.

The reason why Al Jazeera doesn't give a shit (your words) about the Old Firm now is because their value is limited by the league they participate in. Their value would increase as part of Premier League block.

It would, but that doesn't mean the value of the 20 clubs as a whole would be more valuable compared to the 20 now. It would be a massive boost to the OF, but not necessarily the premier league.

After all, the premier league didn't suddenly become noticeably more valuable to overseas viewers because Chelsea and Man City pushed to be top clubs.

1. Instead of Manchester United vs Wigan and Rangers vs Motherwell, you'd now get two Manchester United vs Rangers games a season. Instead of Liverpool vs Stoke and Celtic vs St Johnstone, you'd get two Celtic vs Liverpool games a season etc etc etc

You'd also only get two Rangers/Celtic games, rather than four, and those games would typically be much less important than now, as they'd be less likely to be crucial to the title race.

Yes, Manchester United v Celtic will be a bigger draw than Manchester United v Reading. I just don't see subscription numbers of overseas viewing figures rising significantly as a result.

2. The reduction in Old Firm games would make each old firm game that more valuable.

And I'm sure SKY would do a great job of selling it as an unmissable couple of games, but I doubt the viewing figures would double as a result. Rather than being "the" derby, as it is in Scotland, it'd just be another big derby in the premier league.

Celtic and Rangers aren't a massive draw in England (currently) because they play in the Scottish League, what's so hard about that to understand? It's a separate league with no connection.

I understand that. I just don't get the idea that they'd be a massive draw even if they were in England. They'd be big clubs, sure, but not the giants they view themselves as now.

Take the stars away from Barca and Real and how big a draw are they? Come to think of it how big a draw are they now?

Worldwide, they are huge.

Anyway you didn't post the actual figure from the Old firm game, which was 850,000 (50,000 less than the Premier League game). The figure clearly shows when the game is "attractive" enough people will watch in large enough numbers even if a game is played 4 times a season, of inferior standard and in a league "nobody" cares about. Imagine if it was played twice a season, at a high standard and in a league people do care about...

That assumes people aren't watching because they think it's not of a high enough standard, or aren't interested in the SPL.

How about the idea that the OF derby isn't really that exceptional country-wide, just as the north london derby isn't.

The fact you get the conclusion you got from the figures you have shown (or not shown) shows you don't understand them. You seem to think that they're relatively low because Rangers and Celtic aren't a draw when it is the competition (in this case) more than the paticipants which creates the interest. The conclusion you should've come to is that to many neutrals League 1 or the Johnstones Paint Trophy games are more interesting than the SPL or Scottish Cup (probably as much down to the fact that these competitions aren't competitive as anything else). That means that give Rangers, Celtic, Hearts etc access to competitions which we care about and interest in their games would go up in England, that fact that you can't even acknowledge that speaks volumes.

Certainly, English people are naturally going to be more interested in English competitions than Scottish ones.

Certainly, if a Scottish team played in English competitions, they'd get more viewers than they would playing Scottish competitions.

Rather less certain is that interest in those English competitions would increasely by a marked amount because the OF were playing in them.

Sure, Swindon v Rangers in the FA Cup would create more interest than Swindon v Wigan, but that doesn't mean (novelty value aside) it'd be more interesting that Swindon v Newcastle of Swindon v Spurs.

[gmacruyff]

Its amazing how many English muppets, dont realise that Queens Park(the team,whos home ground is Hampden) have been in 2 English FA cup finals(1884-85).!A better FA cup record than Norwich.!

[Isaac Newell]

Arsenal v Wigan 60,000
Arsenal v Celtic 60,000

Gain to Arsenal zero.

------------------------------------------

Celtic starting in League 2.

Zero attraction for top players, potential difficulties in getting promotion, large groups of fans swamping small stadia, increase in price of policing.

Gain to Celtic zero, gain to League 2, minimal

------------------------------------------

Chance of above happening

Zero

[gmacruyff]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

Arsenal v Wigan 60,000
Arsenal v Celtic 60,000

Gain to Arsenal zero.

------------------------------------------

Celtic starting in League 2.

Zero attraction for top players, potential difficulties in getting promotion, large groups of fans swamping small stadia, increase in price of policing.

Gain to Celtic zero, gain to League 2, minimal

------------------------------------------
Your showing your numptiness in abundance.!

The extra income,for clubs in England,will come from;-

1.Extra TV contracts,at higher prices!
2.More revenue from advertising.!

the additional income for English teams,comes from selling all away fans tickets which Rangers and Celtic fans would snap up easily(probably a max of about 7000 e,g,at Wigan,Arsenal,Man city etc).

Zero attraction for players-What players will be paid a small fortune to take Rangers or Celtic to the top(similar to what happened at Blackburn 1994-1995).!Theyll be queing up in there droves.!
Chance of above happening

Zero

Ballocks!

I reckon if Celtic and Rangers played in the premiership,the extra income,would allow them to expand there stadiums and easily fill it with crowds of about 80,000 and 70,000. respectively!.
Still, if you prefer watching pub teams like Wigan(15000) and Reading(25000) live!,all over the world.!

[gmacruyff]

Ive made a mistake above.!Can somebody edit the response in grey! .Cheers.!

[Isaac Newell]

Both the Wigan and Reading squads are better than the Celtic and Rangers squads.

Crowds at Celtic and Rangers will also fall when they start paying Premiership prices.

[Isaac Newell]

Originally Posted by gmacruyff

Its amazing how many English muppets, dont realise that Queens Park(the team,whos home ground is Hampden) have been in 2 English FA cup finals(1884-85).!A better FA cup record than Norwich.!

Another reason we have nothing to gain from having you in our league

[gmacruyff]

Originally Posted by Isaac Newell

Both the Wigan and Reading squads are better than the Celtic and Rangers squads.

Crowds at Celtic and Rangers will also fall when they start paying Premiership prices.

Of course Wigan and Swansea(teams that were in the second division not long ago) have better squads!.The reason-MONEY.MONEY,MONEY
The best players go wherever the money is,where it be England,Russia,USA etc

If the "Wheeltappers and Shunters pub team"played in the English premiership,they would still have better players than Rangers or Celtic just now!.

Premiership prices!-thats decided by each individual club.

[Hendycfc]

Originally Posted by Jonny Gee

and smashed the place up.

- Reason 22 why Rangers and Celtic should be kept away from the English leagues.

Blaming Celtic fans because of Rangers fans isn't fair. When is the last time Celtic fans caused mass violence? Celtic fans are usually on the recieving end of attacks during Old Firms.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback

And I'm suggesting beyond ex-pats worldwide (and Japanese fans tuning in to watch a Japanese player) nobody cares about the OF. They don't care if it's Celtic v Rangers or Celtic v Dunfermline. Both have no more appeal than Benfica v Sporting Lisbon would here...effectively none.

The point is whatever rights they sell are sold for a reason and almost all of that reason would be the Old Firm games.

It's not the lack of decent opposition that turns the worldwide public off the OF, it's simply that they are irrelevant on the world stage.

I never said they are irrelevant because of lack of decent competition, in fact I never said they were irrelevant. I said:

"No what I am suggesting is that the only remotely valuable games to overseas viewers are old firm ones. This is compared to the premier league with valuable games each week. It's the combined value of the games which drives the demand for the product and thus the price it sells for."

Rangers and Celtic playing against bigger clubs would increase the revenue they can generate domestically and increase their competitiveness continentally as they'd be able to sign better players. That would make them and thus their games of more interest internationally. By how much, that depends...

but worldwide, only one of the two is important. Nobody would give a toss about losing the SPL rights. They aren't remotely lucrative.

You clearly knew I was talking about domestic rights here, but of course you wouldn't be able to argue against it if you couldn't move the goalposts.

by what margin (rough guess) would you estimate subscriptions in the UK would rise if the OF joined?

That isn't the point, read on.

How about worldwide viewing figures?

What has that got to do with the domestic rights?

I can't see it being more than 5% at most in the UK. You may get more Scottish subscribers, but few in England would be salivating about OF fixtures to the extent that it'd be a deal-breaker in subscribing or not.

It's not about whether suscribers to Sky Sports would increase it's about whether they would decrease if they lost the main premier League packages to a rival company. ESPN have stated they want to increase the number of packs so the value of them will go up. If ESPN could get one of the top packages they'd increase their own subscriber base. The more valuable the potential games in a pack the more each company would be willing to bid for it. Sky want to keep ESPN and potentially Al Jazeera and anyone else out but to do so they'd have spend more to retain the rights they currently have, what they'd be willing to spend is also dictated by the value of the games.

Sky have kept the rights fees low because of lack of competiton.

It would, but that doesn't mean the value of the 20 clubs as a whole would be more valuable compared to the 20 now. It would be a massive boost to the OF, but not necessarily the premier league.

Of course it would mean the value of the 20 clubs as a collective would increase with regards to the revenue they can extract from their TV rights. I can't believe you don't understand this.

However because the Premier League are not allowed to sell their rights to one supplier (because of EU competition Law), BskyB weren't forced to divest Sky sports and the Premier League doesn't sell all of its games domestically, even with Rangers and Celtic the rights won't be able to maximise their value. But they'd still be worth more than they get now as long as there is enough competition for them.

After all, the premier league didn't suddenly become noticeably more valuable to overseas viewers because Chelsea and Man City pushed to be top clubs.

1. We're not talking about overseas viewers.

2. Chelsea and Manchester City were already participants, nothing changed.

You'd also only get two Rangers/Celtic games, rather than four, and those games would typically be much less important than now, as they'd be less likely to be crucial to the title race.

Important to who?

To Rangers and Celtic fans maybe or maybe not. Is the Scottish title worth more than Premier League survival or a Top four finish? Then again if importance of these games was diminished that would be more than made up by the games they would exchange them for and the fact there are less of them.

To us in England and elsewhere they now become games of increased importance because they would take place in competitions which we value.

Yes, Manchester United v Celtic will be a bigger draw than Manchester United v Reading. I just don't see subscription numbers of overseas viewing figures rising significantly as a result.

Once again it has nothing to do with overseas and everything to do with domestic.

It's about retaining as much as increasing!! As I said in earlier post competition will force down Sky's profit margins.

And I'm sure SKY would do a great job of selling it as an unmissable couple of games, but I doubt the viewing figures would double as a result. Rather than being "the" derby, as it is in Scotland, it'd just be another big derby in the premier league.

Of course it would double, are you mad? When a bog standard prem game between West Brom and Everton can get 900k 50k more than 1 of 4 SPL Old Firm derbies then 1 of 2 Premier League Old Firm derbies can pull out a lot more.

I understand that. I just don't get the idea that they'd be a massive draw even if they were in England. They'd be big clubs, sure, but not the giants they view themselves as now.

I never said they'd be a massive draw. Then again the vitriol and hate many on here and elsewhere show towards them would suggest they might just be that, just because of what they stand for. I know people who hate the Swansea just because they are Welsh.

Worldwide, they are huge.

I'm talking about here in UK

And even so iirc they too still make the bulk of their revenue from Spain and once again take away their stars and how big would they be globally? They wouldn't be able to compete at the level they do without the ability to sell their own rights and keep the revenue. And it's competing at that level which makes them the draw that they are outside of Spain (their home regions even).

That assumes people aren't watching because they think it's not of a high enough standard, or aren't interested in the SPL.

It's obvious that is the reason, what other reason have you got for why people aren't watching?

How about the idea that the OF derby isn't really that exceptional country-wide, just as the north london derby isn't.

Yes and the North London derby gets decent viewership (1.85m in Oct and 1.61m in Feb) why? Because of the competition(s) the games take place in and the stakes the games are for. The bulk of this countries (UK) football fans care about them

Certainly, English people are naturally going to be more interested in English competitions than Scottish ones.

At least you admit it now

Certainly, if a Scottish team played in English competitions, they'd get more viewers than they would playing Scottish competitions.

So what you arguing for then?

Rather less certain is that interest in those English competitions would increasely by a marked amount because the OF were playing in them.

It would increase enough to justify their inclusion that is the point, all problems involving the Champions League being resolved.

Sure, Swindon v Rangers in the FA Cup would create more interest than Swindon v Wigan, but that doesn't mean (novelty value aside) it'd be more interesting that Swindon v Newcastle of Swindon v Spurs.

You've done it again, a slight move of the goal posts has changed the nature of the point. We're not talking about the FA Cup we're talking about the League. If Swindon were in the Premier League then they'd be able to play Rangers, Newcastle and Spurs in the same season, it wouldn't be an either or between these clubs. The point is Rangers or small club, Celtic or small club.

Why do you deliberately miss the point and/or move the goal posts. You do it all the time, seemingly every time I debate you it's really annoying, can't you at least try to debate properly?

[JimB]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

Pot meet kettle

Not at all.

Unlike The Boy David (or you, for that matter), I didn't wade into this discussion indiscriminately firing off ad hominem attacks. As a moderator, The Boy David has a responsibility to set a proper standard. Instead, entirely unprovoked, he behaved in a manner more befitting a troll than a moderator.

On what basis do you make these assessments?

On the basis that Rangers and Celtic would account for only two home games per season. On the basis that 12 of 20 Premier League clubs already operate at 94% or more of capacity - 9 of them operating at more than 97.5% of capacity. On the basis that two of the others already operate at only a tad under 90% of capacity. On the basis that only 2 of 20 Premier League clubs operate at less than 79% of capacity and that one of those - Blackburn, the team with the lowest % (72%) - have been relegated. On the basis, therefore, that there really isn't much spare capacity for Rangers and Celtic to fill (albeit that games against the two would likely be charged at the highest price category). On the basis that gate receipts account for as little as one tenth (and, at most, one third) of overall income.

But Wigan would gain direct access to the Scottish market they may (however unlikely) pick up some fans. Or more likely the big clubs might. You may see an increase in Arsenal fans in Aberdeen or Liverpool fans in Dundee etc

Given that coverage of the Premier League is already widespread in Scotland, I seriously doubt that any slight upturn in viewing figures or involved fans would make any significant difference to Premier League finances.

Teams in a position to lose a Premier League place won't have a say in the reckoning, stop pretending that they will.

Any team is in a position to lose a place in the Premier League. It wasn't so very long ago, after all, that Newcastle were considered to be one of the Premier League elite. Leeds likewise. Besides, you miss the point. The degree of influence that smaller clubs could bring to bear on this matter is irrelevant to the point I was making - which was merely to counter the preposterous suggestion that all would be rosy if Celtic and Rangers joined the PL and that everybody would be better off.

Your highlighting of the positional differences in revenue only goes to show that you're blinkered in your thinking as you're making the assumption that things which at the moment make their co-opting unlikely will always exist in the same guise. For example if UEFA increase the number of CL places to 6 for the top nation then the game done changed.

Even in your scenario, the point still stands. If UEFA were to give the Premier League two more CL places, and if Rangers and Celtic took two of the six, then there would still be two English clubs missing out because of Rangers' and Celtic's inclusion in the PL.

The Premier League's "responsibility" is maximising value for its members (who change year upon year) and if Rangers/Celtic can flourish as part of the Premier League then so can the Premier League and the remaining members off the back of their inclusion.

Just a pity about those denied a PL place or potential CL qualification, eh? Never mind about them.

The point is Rangers and Celtic have all but maximised the SPL and now they are effectively going backwards as other leagues continue to grow at a much faster pace. That's the reason why them leaving the SPL is more pressing than Manchester United trying to bolt for La Liga or even a European Super League.

Yes, of course. But that's not a good reason for Celtic and Rangers to abandon their national league and move to a national league with which they have no previous association.

Unfair to who? Those clubs who are bestowed with the riches the Premier League has to offer or the opportunity to gain them just through the luck of geography (or in this case a historical aberration)? How would allowing access to those not blessed with that luck be unfair?

What is unfair is that clubs that come from smaller countries are forced to participate in leagues representing those smaller countries (via artificial barriers) when we no full well it is the league which a club participates in which has a massive bearing on its revenue generation. This is especially poignant considering these clubs are supposed to be businesses and thus restricting clubs to these leagues is restraint on trade.

However if you want to force Rangers and Celtic to stay in Scotland and not make it unfair you need to find a way to reduce the revenue and talent gap which the larger population and greater array of attractive matchups allows the larger leagues to create. But how you going to do that? You can't reverse the Bosman ruling and the larger leagues aren't going to share revenue with the smaller ones. Therefore the only fair thing to do is to allow (or even force) the smaller leagues to merge together and/or into larger leagues.

Note: These same barriers exist with the arbitrarily restricted access to Champions League football or even Premier League football from the lower leagues. It's a problem.

No Rangers and Celtic don't belong anywhere no matter if they "grew into big clubs" there. The facts are that whilst they are independent businesses/clubs they should be free to play where and with who they want. Just like Cardiff and Swansea were when they joined the Southern League (and no JimB there were no "English Leagues" back then). The fact that they aren't free when football is supposed to be business is the problem.

Note: Rangers haven't always played in what you call Scottish football. If you'd consult history you'd see that they reached the semi finals of the FA Cup as "recently" as 1887.

We must share everything. We own nothing. If anyone is bigger or better or stronger or cleverer than someone else, then that is unfair and they must be handicapped and the others must be helped.

.........an idealistic, utopian, even communist view of the world. No borders, no countries. Imagine all the people sharing all the world. John? Is that you?

[JimB]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

You misunderstand again. The competition (be that the Premier League or the SPL) is the participants as a collective and what that collective represents. The SPL as a competition is not attractive because the collective weight of the participants, the substandard quality of play and the fact that all represents is "Championship of Scotland".

Rangers and Celtic would enhance the Premier League as a competition because they themselves would enhanced as participants, it is a feedback loop. This in turn would make the Premier League a more valuable TV product as there would be more valuable game. The fact that you cannot see this is puzzling, although I have my suspicions that it's really that you don't want to see it.

I have never said anything other than that Celtic and Rangers' inclusion in the Premier League would lead to an increase in revenues. I have merely disagreed as to the extent to which you and others think revenues would grow. My view is that it wouldn't begin to compensate for the loss of Premier League places or Champions League places.

And you're absolutely spot on. I do not want to see Rangers and Celtic in English football.

[JimB]

Originally Posted by gmacruyff

Its amazing how many English muppets, dont realise that Queens Park(the team,whos home ground is Hampden) have been in 2 English FA cup finals(1884-85).!A better FA cup record than Norwich.!

It's amazing that all those persistently resorting to abuse are those advocating the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers in the Premier League.

A sure sign of how things would be if ever those two clubs were involved in English football. All the more reason for them to be kept out.

[Sir Miles Platting]

Hypothetically, if Celtic and Rangers joined the English league (Prem or Championship), their collective trophy haul of 3000 titles and 2000 cups in the Scottish league would more or less mean nothing.

With the exception of Celtic's historic EC win in '67 they'd have no plausible bragging rights to crow about when they visit English clubs.

I'm wondering how they'd feel about effectively starting all over again with a blank slate. Wouldn't they be in danger of becoming two little tiddlers in a massive great ocean, compared to what they are now---two bloated big fat motherfucking whales in a tiny fishbowl???

I don't think they would enjoy getting battered by the likes of Reading, Stoke, Wigan etc. week after week after week. It would be an endless litany of sad, booze-filled journeys back over the border to deep-fried mars bar country.

[R.K.Teck]

This ongoing Rangers admin/liquidation/newco nonsense that's going on is seeing lots of talk up north about how much we need Rangers and Celtic in the SPL and it's so important to keep them in the SPL at all costs for the good of Scottish football... but give them a sniff of playing in the Premiership and the pair of them would be off like a shot, leaving the rest of us to suffer.

I really hope they do end up in the Premiership one day, and the rest of us Scottish fans can get on with our game and play without the sheer dominance and hatred they inflict on the Scottish game. Sure the standard would be poorer, and the money wouldn't be there but it would be far better to be involved with.

[Dragoona]

Originally Posted by gmacruyff

Of course Wigan and Swansea(teams that were in the second division not long ago) have better squads!.The reason-MONEY.MONEY,MONEY
The best players go wherever the money is,where it be England,Russia,USA etc

If the "Wheeltappers and Shunters pub team"played in the English premiership,they would still have better players than Rangers or Celtic just now!.

Premiership prices!-thats decided by each individual club.

no shit sherlock

[Dragoona]

Originally Posted by JimB

It's amazing that all those persistently resorting to abuse are those advocating the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers in the Premier League.

A sure sign of how things would be if ever those two clubs were involved in English football. All the more reason for them to be kept out.

fuck the twats

[JimB]

Originally Posted by R.K.Teck

This ongoing Rangers admin/liquidation/newco nonsense that's going on is seeing lots of talk up north about how much we need Rangers and Celtic in the SPL and it's so important to keep them in the SPL at all costs for the good of Scottish football... but give them a sniff of playing in the Premiership and the pair of them would be off like a shot, leaving the rest of us to suffer.

I really hope they do end up in the Premiership one day, and the rest of us Scottish fans can get on with our game and play without the sheer dominance and hatred they inflict on the Scottish game. Sure the standard would be poorer, and the money wouldn't be there but it would be far better to be involved with.

Not so fast, fella!

We don't want your toxic waste!

[The Boy David]

Originally Posted by JimB

An unnecessarily inflammatory entrance into the thread.

Time to moderate yourself, perhaps?



Gate receipts would indeed increase. But by a tiny amount - adding perhaps as much as 0.2% to each clubs' overall turnover. Sponsorship deals, too, might see a very small increase. But merchandising sales would barely be affected at all. A Wigan fan isn't going to be more likely to buy a Wigan shirt just because they get to play one home game a season against each of Rangers and Celtic. And I can't see Rangers and Celtic away fans being too interested in buying Wigan shirts.

So, yet again, I repeat that the small gains to be made from inviting Celtic and Rangers to the Premier League table wouldn't begin to compensate for the massive potential losses from losing a Premier League or Champions League place to those two clubs. In fact, even dropping two places in the table currently loses a club in excess of £1.5 million of TV reward money.



No doubt about that. But so what? Helping Rangers and Celtic to flourish and grow is not the Premier League's responsibility.



While you're at it, why not set up a league that does away with every club but Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus and PSG? Oh, and Rangers and Celtic, of course. No relegation or promotion. A sponsor's and TV exec's wet dream. Lots of heavyweights. Guaranteed every season. Would have a massively profound impact on European football. That would be fun, wouldn't it?



It would be ludicrously unfair to allow Celtic and Rangers to play in English football, full stop.

They belong in Scottish football. That is where they have always played. That is where they grew into the big clubs that they now are. That is where they belong.

Fair enough JimB - I'll admit when I'm wrong, and the way I entered this thread was unacceptable. What I will say though is that I don't really appreciate yours and a few other posters mildly xenophobic comments about "us", and "our teams". From "our" side, I will admit that gmacruyff didn't do "us" any favours either.

But back to the discussion! Ah yes, you're basically wrong about everything else in your post

-- By removing - or should I say replacing - Wigan and Stoke (for arguments sake), gate receipts will increase substantially. Celtic Park and Ibrox hold way more people than most Premiership stadiums do. As the league earns a portion of every gate receipt, the income will increase by a fairly large margin. 60,000+ at every home game, versus 20,000ish at every home game makes a big, big difference.

As the Premier League also takes a share in all merchandise sold, it means that every Celtic and Rangers strip sold, and so on, will also bolster the league's coffers. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Celtic sell more jerseys every year than Wigan do. I'm not implying that English people will buy old firm jerseys, or that more Scottish people will buy Stoke jerseys, I'm saying that the Premier League takes a cut from every jersey sold. Trust me when I say that this amounts to a LOT of jerseys. A couple of examples; I live in Japan, regularly see Celtic tops - new ones - and much more frequently than I see Chelsea, Man City, Newcastle or Arsenal tops. Also, when I visited the Camp Nou a few years ago, in the official Barcelona megastore there were two mannequins near the front of the shop: one wearing a Barca strip, the other wearing a Celtic strip. There were a number of other club team strips there, but Celtic's strip was chosen to be put on display.

-- You have completely misinterpreted what I meant by introducing Man Utd and Liverpool into, for example, La Liga. I'm saying that it would increase the competitive nature of the league - now there would be two more possible challengers for the title. If a league is competitive, people will watch it. The more competitive it is, the more popular it becomes. Look at two examples here; the Premier League, and the Scottish Premier League. The English Premier League's international viewing figures started to increase dramatically around the same time that Chelsea started challenging for the title. This year it has become even more popular still with the addition of Man City as challengers. Adding two more contenders would only serve to increase popularity even further still.

The Scottish Premier league isn't watched worldwide because it isn't competitive. And it isn't competitive because it isn't watched. This leads to a degradation in the quality of football played, and in turn, constantly diminishing viewing figures and returns.


Anyway bigbossman seems a much more articulate and well versed fellow than I, so I'll leave this thread in his capable hands.

[Isaac Newell]

Unless Celtic and Rangers got themselves a sugar Daddy, they would remain uncompetitive in the Premier League. Whether the sectarian nature of their support would attract them to a sugar Daddy remains to be seen. I would think that an Arab prince would be unlikely to put money into any entity that has a markedly Christian connection.

The fact remains that both clubs have more to gain from the arrangement than the Premier League, in fact their sectarian nature could actually damage the brand.

In the end, Celtic and Rangers will never play in the Premiership even if it meant starting as high as League 2. They would be back in the Scottish League after a couple of seasons due to lawsuits flying around from other clubs, police postponing fixtures, threats from FIFA etc.

It's and Anglo Irish/Scotsman's dream (well some of them) but it won't come true.