Old Firm set to sell out SPL and join Premier League.

So what do you think about the old firm joining the league? Also your thoughts on this plastic "2-tier" Premier League that they're trying to revive after getting told to GTFO the first time they proposed it?

Lad of rubbish. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

If they leave the SPL, the league as a league is finished. Where is the money going to come from for the rest of the league? Interest is going to ground-rocket and the rest will simply fall away. The Old Firm generate the interest in that league. As much as the other don't want to admit it, without the TVrevenue generated by that interest, they'll simply disappear. They are the rock upon which the entire SPL has been built upon.

Plus, why the hell does the EPL want them? We don;t need them. Why change? Just so they can get a little richer?

I hate the idea, to give clubs a place in the top flight that they haven't earnt is disgraceful, what's even worse is the Irish franchise mentioned.

The idea for the two tier Premier league however is far, far worse. If all the smaller clubs could hope for was to become champions of the third tier I can't see many people remaining interested in it, I think it would be the end of them. If something was done to prevent clubs like Bolton (and most of the rest of the premiership clubs as well) getting into such stupid amounts of debt then there'd be no need for ths even to be discussed. I believe it needs 14 of the 20 clubs to vote for it so hopefully it won't happen. I can't see the big clubs voting for it as they'd lose money.

It's not broke...

Yet, the last time full details were available in 2008 17 out of the 20 clubs returned a loss and 11 were insolvent.


It may not look so bad for the top half of the table but what about the other side of the coin? If relegation arrives then the financial consequences are substantial. Parachute payments help to an extent but if promotion isn't achieved again the following season then another relegation is sometimes quickly on the cards as huge cutbacks are required just to stay afloat.

Clubs overspend, sometimes massively, to stave off this threat. Gartside seems to think that a Premier league II could create more income for the clubs outwith the top 6 or 7 and hold off the threat of looking over the edge of a cliff into financial disaster.


p.s. I'm not sold on whether Celtic should be trying to join the EPL. I still have a feeling that it may all implode sooner rather than later and I'd hate to see us turn up for the party just as the coppers kick the door in and turn off the music.

The reason why the Premier League was created was because top division clubs didn't want to support the lower division clubs. Now with this 2-tier league, the top Premier Division will support the 2nd division?

Gartside wants to pull up the drawbridge and end all promotion/relegation.
This means teams will no longer have any incentive to perform because they can never be relegated. This idea wont sell to fans or teams. It would just be a crap Americanised league .It wouldnt be long before Gartside realised Bolton had no chance in the new format ,so he would want some mickey mouse playoff where a team could get lucky on one day and win it all.

Nobody wants the dirty old firm either. The laughable suggestion that they can parachute straight into the premiership at the expense of teams that have played in the English league for over 100 years. Then you factor in the type of supporters who follow celtic...Why let an anti-english team into England?? f'cking laughable.

Premier League tells Old Firm to go ******** themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/8353937.stm

Honestly from Capitalistic standpoint, it's a win/win and it's kind of a shame it didn't go through. Both clubs have legions of people who support them with at the very least, LARGE STADIUMS. Would anyones best interest be served if you had a choice of having team in your league with a 50,000 capacity (who can sell it out) or 20,000 cap and you went with Pompey???

But I am also kind of glad they said to f off.

Not that I have anything against Celtic or Rangers, I honestly do not. But I felt The SPL has always grossly represented my most blatent beef with soccer: The lack of parity. There is a reason why gas stations open up right across the street from eachother, and there are reasons why the NFL goes through great lengths to make sure revenue is being distributed equally. Competition breeds Innovation which leads to Great Interest. There is nothing New for the casual supporter in the SPL, and the firm leaving raises this question?

What does that say about their domestic successes', if both are willing, in theory, TO BURN the scores of trophies that both teams won. I mean well over 100 years of history, effectively being voided by the two biggest clubs by leaving the league that they have so dominated.... and effectively ruined by doing so.

Obviously the outdated animosity between the England and Scotland would prevent this, but what if instead of just taking Celtic and Rangers, the Scottish Leagues were merged into the English League? I say this out of concern for the general perilous financial state of the Scottish Leagues.

And perhaps the increased competition would raise the quality of Scottish football. Right now they the domestic clubs are stagnant as is the Scottish National Team.

I find it interesting that the Old Firm keep bringing this up, yet something like a Great Britain Olympic football team has the Scottish up in arms.

If a GB team would threaten the existence of the individual home nations teams, what do they think implanting Scottish teams into the English league (thus effectively creating a British league) would do?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that's quite a generalisation there isn't it? Anti-English...? Is that how we're looked upon by most English people?

A tad hypocritical then when it comes to testimonial matches and benefit games that one of the first teams most want to play against is Celtic.

And for being an anti-English team it would seem strange for us to be involved in Liverpool's first game after such a traumatic event as the Hillsborough disaster which was played at Celtic Park on the 30th April.

Still, as I said earlier, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We have some idiots in our support for sure. I'd suggest anyone who tells you their club doesn't is telling fibs.

But Gartside's proposals were firmly kicked into touch so hopefully that's an end to it all.

That makes no difference. Cardiff and Swansea play in the English league, yet their country Wales retains its independence as a national team and has its own FA.

English Premier League winners since it was established:


1992–93 Manchester United
1993–94 Manchester United
1994–95 Blackburn Rovers
1995–96 Manchester United
1996–97 Manchester United
1997–98 Arsenal
1998–99 Manchester United
1999–2000 Manchester United
2000–01 Manchester United
2001–02 Arsenal
2002–03 Manchester United
2003–04 Arsenal
2004–05 Chelsea
2005–06 Chelsea
2006–07 Manchester United
2007–08 Manchester United
2008–09 Manchester United



I'd say the English league represents the "lack of parity" you're on about as much as the SPL.

While the combo of Sky TV money and Champions League purses have created a culture of "have" and "have-nots", I feel that the imaginary break between the premiership and old division 1 exaggerates the view of single-team dominance. Man Utd after all, hadn't won the title for 26 years before 1993. The extended list of champs points more to teams having dominant eras.

1971 - Arsenal
72 - Derby County
73 - Liverpool
74 - Leeds Utd
75 - Derby County
76 - Liverpool
77 - Liverpool
78 - Nottingham Forest
79 - Liverpool
80 - Liverpool
81 - Aston Villa
82 - Liverpool
83 - Liverpool
84 - Liverpool
85 - Everton
86 - Liverpool
87 - Everton
88 - Liverpool
89 - Arsenal
90 - Liverpool
91 - Arsenal
92 - Leeds Utd

Interestingly, if you look at the teams that have won the NBA and MLB in it's history, the % is comparable to those who have won English football titles. The parity issue is also interesting when you look at how many NBA finals have featured the Celtics and/or the Lakers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nba_champions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_champions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_champions

This was more of a "grandfathering" type issue. Those teams already existed before the formation of the League of Wales, which itself was formed for the specific reason we're discussing: Certain parties within the Welsh FA were concerned that the was a genuine threat to the Home Nations from with FIFA.

They were concerned that the lack of a pro league could undermine their status.

Here's the list for the SPL champions in the last quarter century:

Celtic
Rangers

Now this issues has been closed Celtic and Rangers should look towards improving their own league. The best thing that could happen to the SPL is for a Motherwell/Aberdeen etc jump into the top 2 and break the cycle.

I think it could happen soon as the Old Firm no longer have the financial muscle they used too. Hence their desire to join the money bags Premier League.

instead of trying to break away from the SPL why don't they try to spread the wealth around. I think that would improve the league better than leaving it to die a slow death.

Look at it this way then: the English league has 20 teams, and only four teams have won it since it was established.

The SPL has 12 teams (and 8 or 9 years ago it only had 10) and two teams have won it since it was established.

In addition, the only reason Chelsea won it a couple of times was due to Abramovich bankrolling them. I'm certain that if they didn't have a benefactor, they wouldn't have won it, so that would leave three teams that have won it, once of which was a total one-off (Blackburn).

The difference in competitiveness is not as great as you'd think when you put it into context.

I'm totally against this approach of only referring to titles won since the last rebranding of the league.

Scotland has pretty much always been dominated by one of the Old Firm. Man Utd have been dominant since 1993 - and while Liverpool choke routinely they are still in contention and Man Utd also have faced genuine contention from Arsenal, Leeds, Chelsea (including pre-Abramovich), Blackburn (so they only won it once...but they were in contention for at least three years), Newcastle, Aston Villa and Norwich City.

The last team outside the Old Firm to win it was Aberdeen under Alex Ferguson in the '80s. The biggest concern with the SPL is that outside the Old Firm, no other team has actually made a solid push for the title in around twenty years.

The Premiership has four teams in contention and people are already considering it an issue. To say the lack of parity in England is the same as Scotland is misguided and untrue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_football_champions

To say there are four teams competing in the English league is a bit of a misnomer. Liverpool haven't won the league in, how long? If a team goes years and years without winning the league then it's difficult to consider them contenders.

Obviously there have been more teams throughout the years winning the competition in England, that's probably because they have more teams, and more money, hence making it less likely to be monopolised.

Put in the context of the size of the countries, and the revenue of the leagues, two teams dominating a 12-team league isn't really that different from 4 teams (at a push) dominating a twenty-team league.

And I know there have been more clubs winning the English league before it was re-branded, all I'm saying is that based upon recent history, it's been almost, if not equally predictable and mind-numbing as the SPL. If it wasn't for SKY bankrolling it, few would give a shit.

Liverpool obviously haven't won it in ages, but (as much as it pains me to say it) they have been in genuine contention for much of that time. Last season they were the main contenders to Man Utd and pushed us close. In the early and mid-nineties, both Blackburn and Newcastle were in realistic contention. After that, United traded blows with Arsenal until the billionaires arrived. Chelsea and Leeds competed in the top 4 prior to that and in the first year of the Premiership it was Aston Villa and Norwich that were chasing Man Utd.

In truth the "big 4" in the Premiership is approximately a five to six year old scenario and with Villa and Spurs emerging (not to mention Citeh's money), Arsenal slipping and Rafa struggling to seal the deal, it's very possible that a new cycle of teams in the top four or five could be established in the next couple of years.

Then of course, there is the prospect of United eventually losing Fergie and the Galzer's debt that means our current rank isn't exactly guaranteed for eternity.

This is very different to the Scottish scenario where the idea of teams emerging and the end of an Old Firm dominant cycle are not considered particularly realistic or imminent.

Would it be as competitive if there was as big a gap between Utd and Chelsea and the rest, as there is between Rangers and Celtic and the other Scottish clubs?

If Hibs/Hearts/Aberdeen were on a level playing field financially with the OF it be easier to compare. But they're not. They're certainly getting closer, what with the OF's decline in revenue and financial problems (especially Rangers).

It's difficult to compare the two leagues' competitiveness due to the disparity in size/revenue.

Not sure I understand what you're saying: the gap between Utd and Chelsea and the rest is smaller than in Scotland, so if it were the same it would be less competitive...?

I don't think it's difficult to compare competitiveness, at least at domestic level. There are differences in revenue yes, but it's all relative. The fact is, there's something of an established top 4 in England right now, but it's happened in the short term (United & Arsenal are the only constant and the Gunners are at a cross roads right now) and nobody can be certain which teams will be qualifying for the Champs league and pushing for the title ten years from now.

I honestly don't think the same can be said for the SPL unless Rangers go into Administration. At best, some of the New Firm might have caught up by then.

Can't they? I'm sure it will be much the same top four monopoly, with an occasional challenge from Man City.