Rangers win the league

redspider

WhiteWashMan wrote:

who gives a crap?
rangers ended the league with more points and more goals.
that makes them the winners.
honestly, what is it with you people?
there is no way in hell you can make me say that rangers winning by a single goal difference 2 years ago is a basis to have a final play off.
sorry, and whats this about hibs not trying?

This is the point. In many different sports, teams can be close, and various methods are used to differentiate between them. eg: penalties in the FA Cup final, and in times past, drawing lots. When it comes down to goal difference that is so small over 38 games, the teams are close. When it comes down to +/- 3 points, the teams are close. My suggestion to the powers that be and to those that give a crap, not for this year just gone, not necessarily for Celtic Rangers only, but for the sport in general, for soccer whether in England, Ireland, Spain, Uefa or South America or wherever, is that leagues should be deicided IF CLOSE, on a play-off.

Other sports do it as a) it is fairer, and is less based on whether a hailstone hit a linesman in the eye in March or whether one team beat <pick a team> 6-0 and the other team beat <pick a team> 5-0, and b) it is more interesting for the fans.

Uefa have moved a step in this direction by treating head to heads as more important than goal difference for example in European championship qualifiers, to get rid of the 12-1 Spain Malta type of result. (Spain needed to win by 11 goals!).

Leagues when there is a huge difference should not have a play-off, for example Chelsea in England this year. Setting the right level is difficult, butg winning the league by 1-goal margin is just the same as tossing a coin.

I think play-offs in close leagues would be an improvement on the sport. If you dont think so, well thats your opinion. Carry on not giving a crap.


In terms of whether Hibs were trying or not, I wasnt aware of the details of their situation and whether a 1-0 defeat was good for them or not. I went on my observations of the match on TV and it was clear that they were not trying to score a goal when 1-0 down. Just like the infamous game between Germany and Austria.

Redspider

redspider

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Unless there are some very suspect officials I would say that such 'random effects' are pretty much evened out over the course of a season.

What if the team that was 3 points ahead in your scenario had been hard done by and should have been 5 points ahead? Surely a play-off isn't going to be fair on them.

No, the random effects are not evened out over a mere 38 games. They are over 1000-games and over many years. Its a bit like taking an opinion poll for an election. 38 voters is just not enough, you need a good 1000 sample to get a proper statistical measurement.

The should-have argument doesnt apply, in that it is possible that Team A had more bad luck than Team B and so the gap should have been a lot more than 3 points. If they did have such bad luck though, they should not be afraid to play a head-to-head play-off.

There are other difficulties as well, such as if there are 3 teams, etc. In that case maybe two play-off games are needed.

Redspider

astrofool

does that mean the likes of norwich and crystal palace should have a play off to see who goes down? it was only by one point..

Or what if its close between 2nd and 3rd, should the winner of that play the first placed team?

There is a reason why a league will often have a different winner to a cup competition, and in fact most people would say you have to be luckier to win a cup than a league.

What if a hailstone hits a linesman in the eye in a play off? What if the play off is close? Replay again until one team is a clear winner by 3 or 4 goals?

redspider

astrofool wrote:

does that mean the likes of norwich and crystal palace should have a play off to see who goes down? it was only by one point..
Or what if its close between 2nd and 3rd, should the winner of that play the first placed team? There is a reason why a league will often have a different winner to a cup competition, and in fact most people would say you have to be luckier to win a cup than a league. What if a hailstone hits a linesman in the eye in a play off? What if the play off is close? Replay again until one team is a clear winner by 3 or 4 goals?

I agree that you cant take luck out of it completely or prevent a play-off from being close o indeed going to penalties.

In terms of the relegation battle, yes why not, if teams are seperated by just a few points, have a play-off. Its already done for promotion (ie: play-offs) although they use a different criteria. I think they should base it on closeness rather than position.

Yes, leagues usually have different winners than cups, as in many 1-legged cups there is much more luck and variation, with the draw, who you draw (if there is no seeding) and whether you are at home or not. For example, the FA Cup, the FAI Cup, etc. Some cups counteract that randomness with playing two-legs, with seeding, and even with group stages, such as the CL and the World Cup finals.

My point is that luck does not balance out over 38 games. Hence play-offs are fairer when teams are close. The current situation where a team can win a league by a point or goal difference can lead to some excitement, such as Celtic and Rangers over the weekend, but when the gap is large, leagues in many cases can be like watching paint dry. For example, the finish to the EPL this year was far from exciting.

(added): I think with play-offs, it would make it even more exciting.

Redspider

WhiteWashMan

redspider wrote:

, butg winning the league by 1-goal margin is just the same as tossing a coin.

no..
it just isnt. no matter how many times you toss a coin, the goal margin will still be 1. it wont change by tossing a coin. all you are saying is that the losers should get a second chance.


one team did better than another. end of story.

as for people supporting celtic in ireland because of the irish connections, rubbish. most of them wouldnt be able to name half the celtic squad.
its just a p1ss poor reason to hate someone else.

eirebhoy

WhiteWashMan wrote:

as for people supporting celtic in ireland because of the irish connections, rubbish. most of them wouldnt be able to name half the celtic squad.

exactly.

redspider

eirebhoy wrote:

Nobody other than Real Madrid or Barca will realistically win the la Liga next season. I can't see anyone other than Chelsea, Man U or Arsenal winning the premiership next season. Very few league's are wide open.

I agree with your key point eirebhoy, that many leagues are indeed not wide open. For example, the English League had the de-facto Man-U - Arsenal duopoloy since Blackburn won it, was that 1995? That took a wad of money then as did the recent Abramovich criminal money for Chelsea this year. So, all things being equal, there is a strong tendency in the modern game for the teams in power and with wealth to stay in power, on top and winning competitions.

In Scotland: Its Celtic and Rangers
In England: its now Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea (with Liverpool and Newcastle
bubbling under)
In Italy: its Milan, Juventus, Inter, Roma
In Spain: its Real, Barca (a few bubblers)
In Netherlands: its PSV, Ajax, Feyenoord
In Greece: Olympiakos, Panathanaikos
In Ireland: Shelbourne (before that Pats)
etc, etc

Some years you get teams that do extraordinarlily well, punching above their weight and finishing high up the league. They can turn that success from one year into a potential challenge the next season. Success begats money, which begats success, but unless it can be maintained, the success can be a blip. For example, Leeds and perhaps Newcastle.

If you look at the league tables say in England in the 1950's, the top-3
each season were:

spurs, man u, blackpool
man u, spurs, arsenal
arsenal, preston, wolves
wolves, wba, huddersfield
chelsea, wolves, portsmouth
man u, blackpool, wolves
man u, spurs, preston
wolves, preston, spurs
wolves, man u, arsenal
burnley, wolves, spurs

Teams that did well, continued to do well, but there are blips such as Chelsea. As the money differences between the clubs is larger nowadays than in the 1950's, and other era's, breaking into the top and staying there is becoming more and more difficult.

For example, Man U had difficulties doing so in the 1980's, but once they did in the 1990's they maintained it and got huge monetary rewards. As you point out, with the help of money, a club can break through, such as Chelsea did this year. And Man U had more money than most to do so likewise in the 1990's.

But my view is that there are no guarantees in any of the leagues in any season. I think La Liga may be more open than others, and I think you would have to say that on recent evidence it is more open than the SPL. It may not be as open as say the Bundesliga though. Analysing the top-3 or 4 positions
from both leagues over the last 10 years will show you the dominance.


In terms of whether I support Celtic, well, you could say that I follow them from a distance. I'm a Liverpool supporter and due to TV get a chance to see soem Celtic games too.

But I always try and judge teams on a fair basis. I'm not anti-Rangers per se, although clearly I would go to Parkhead and not Ibrox, but I wouldnt not go to Ibrox either. I understand the cultures that both Celtic supporters and Rangers supporters come from and I enjoy the "big firm" games. Football in Scotland is more than just football, its cultural identity.

Redspider

redspider

WhiteWashMan wrote:

no.. it just isnt. no matter how many times you toss a coin, the goal margin will still be 1. it wont change by tossing a coin. all you are saying is that the losers should get a second chance. one team did better than another. end of story.

Obviously you are failing to understand just how much a matter of luck it is to have a goal difference that is just 1 above another team after 38 games. It doesnt mean that you are a better team. You do realise that Uefa are moving against the goal difference system because teams can just roll over on occasion and do not do so consistently. Do try to understand this point: if the only difference between one team and another is that one team wins a match 5-0 and the other wins a match 6-0, among 38 matches, then you are saying the team that wins 6-0 are better? I agree thaht there is a marginal difference, but its very very very^N marginal and in no way measures accurately football capability. Uefa realise this and most people in football realise this and they are changing the rules to reflect that such as in the CL and the World Cup.

Redspider

Pal

redspider wrote:

Abramovich criminal money for Chelsea this year.

Care to explain ?

SCULLY

Pal wrote:

Care to explain ?

Please don't get him started on that!!

redspider

SCULLY wrote:

Please don't get him started on that!!

;-)

I wont rant and rave.

This answer should be put in a FAQ somewhere.

Q: Where did Abramovich get his wealth from and was it totally legal?

A: Essentially, Russian state assets were "sold" very cheaply to ten or so Russians that are now known as the Oligarch's. They have links to the KGB and provided "services" to Yeltsin during the coup and after. Their background and source of original wealth is very very dodgy. You will notice that no English politicians are seen anywhere near him.

Here are some links:

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=39275
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1212245,00.html
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0307/newssu.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-56-1409.jsp
http://www.outofrange.net/blogarchive/archives/001254.html

Some detailed searching on google will probably turn up a lot more. If you discuss him with any Russian you will soon realise how unpopular he is and why - ie: they will say he is a thief.

Dont be surprised if Abramovich gets arrested someday or involved in an unfortunate plane/helicopter "accident". It may take a new Russian Premier to do it though as for now Putin is on his side and "perhaps" is being bribed.

You judge.

Dont forget to tell all Chelsea fans.

Redspider

WhiteWashMan

redspider wrote:

Obviously you are failing to understand just how much a matter of luck it is to have a goal difference that is just 1 above another team after 38 games. It doesnt mean that you are a better team. You do realise that Uefa are moving against the goal difference system because teams can just roll over on occasion and do not do so consistently. Do try to understand this point: if the only difference between one team and another is that one team wins a match 5-0 and the other wins a match 6-0, among 38 matches, then you are saying the team that wins 6-0 are better? I agree thaht there is a marginal difference, but its very very very^N marginal and in no way measures accurately football capability. Uefa realise this and most people in football realise this and they are changing the rules to reflect that such as in the CL and the World Cup.

Redspider

exactly, the team who won 6-0 should get the league because they did better.

what is there to not understand? it doesnt matter what the margin is, or whether it was through luck, they still did better over an entire season.

i really dont see how you can even suggest that a team that did worse, was better?

PHB

Yeh, but WWM, surely a much better system would be something like the matches played between the two clubs? As in the Spanish system?
A one goal difference between beating a last place team either 5-0 or 6-0 might reflect a teams efforts to an extent, but it is to an extent much more down to luck, while the two games played between these two teams is a much more accurate reflection of who the better team was

Blackjack

nlgbbbblth wrote:

plenty people in the northern part of this country support Rangers.
Do you not consider them Irish?
26+6=1 etc

Most of those supporters would be insulted if you called them Irish. This has been dragged up before, let's not pretend it hasn't.
The whole "I love Rangers because they're not Celtic" argument is as shallow as the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument. It's time people copped on.

WhiteWashMan

PHB wrote:

Yeh, but WWM, surely a much better system would be something like the matches played between the two clubs? As in the Spanish system?
A one goal difference between beating a last place team either 5-0 or 6-0 might reflect a teams efforts to an extent, but it is to an extent much more down to luck, while the two games played between these two teams is a much more accurate reflection of who the better team was

really?
ive seen liverpool get to the finals of the premier club competition in europe, and they certainly arent the best club around.

but they won, so the deserve to be there.

so no, i think you have 38 games to win a league. if you cant do it, even by a single goal, then why should you get other chances to win?

i mean, if you are the best club, surely the 38 games are enough?

how had is that to get?

i really dont get the luck thing either?
casn you explain in really simple english, so that i can understand how beating a team 6-0 instead of 5-0 is down to luck.
im really really curious about that one...
:rolleyes:

typical losing attitude to be honest.

Pal

redspider wrote:

;-)

I wont rant and rave.

This answer should be put in a FAQ somewhere.

Q: Where did Abramovich get his wealth from and was it totally legal?

A: Essentially, Russian state assets were "sold" very cheaply to ten or so Russians that are now known as the Oligarch's. They have links to the KGB and provided "services" to Yeltsin during the coup and after. Their background and source of original wealth is very very dodgy. You will notice that no English politicians are seen anywhere near him.

Here are some links:

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=39275
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1212245,00.html
http://www.northstarcompass.org/nsc0307/newssu.htm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-56-1409.jsp
http://www.outofrange.net/blogarchive/archives/001254.html

Some detailed searching on google will probably turn up a lot more. If you discuss him with any Russian you will soon realise how unpopular he is and why - ie: they will say he is a thief.

Dont be surprised if Abramovich gets arrested someday or involved in an unfortunate plane/helicopter "accident". It may take a new Russian Premier to do it though as for now Putin is on his side and "perhaps" is being bribed.

You judge.

Dont forget to tell all Chelsea fans.

Redspider

You must be reading something between the lines. There's nothing to substantiate your claim there.

redspider

Pal wrote:

You must be reading something between the lines. There's nothing to substantiate your claim there.

There is a lot to read, but here is one excerpt of how Abramovich gained so much wealth, from the corrupt Yeltsin and his government:


+++

By 1995, the majority of Russians were worse off under capitalism then they had been during communism, and the party began to bounce back. Yeltsin would have to fight a persuasive and high-profile pro-democracy campaign if he was to win the presidential election of 1996. He was desperately in need of funds, and turned to men such as Abramovich and Berezovsky, whom he invited to participate in the so-called "loans for shares" scheme in return for financial backing. Yeltsin decreed that the government would auction its tranche of shares in state enterprises in return for loans to shore up the fragile economy. Once Yeltsin had been re-elected and the country stabilised, the loans would be repaid and the state would reclaim its assets.

In the oil town of Surgut, 250 miles south of Noyabrsk, on the day the government auctioned its stake in Surgutneftegas, the airport was closed, the roads blocked by police, and only one bid was received - from Vladimir Bogdanov, the resident general director of Surgutneftegas. He became a multimillionaire overnight, and today is worth an estimated £1bn and remains the company's president.

The following month, in November 1995, Vladimir Potanin, an influential banker, snapped up Norilsk Nickel, Russia's largest nickel company, for £78m less than the government's asking price. Within months, he had become first deputy prime minister, and today, although he no longer holds political office, he is, according to Forbes magazine, worth getting on for $2bn.

Next up was Yukos, Russia's third largest oil company, which was sold for £173m (a fraction of its real value) to sole-bidder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a member of parliament in the Russian duma. Not only had 32-year-old Khodorkovsky helped draft the "loans for shares" legislation, but his Menatep bank (which had become wealthy by trading vouchers) also policed the auction. Today, Khodorkovsky is the richest man in Russia, worth an estimated £8.4bn, his portfolio encompassing 40 former Soviet enterprises. But the true scale of Khodorkovsky's bargain-basement purchase of Yukos became clear only in October 2003 when, following his arrest, Russian prosecutors froze 44% of the company's assets, revealing that they were worth more than £7bn.

And then, in December 1995, four oil exploration, drilling, refining and distribution companies in Noyabrsk and Omsk came up for auction, in a deal that would see them combined into a holding company to be named Sibneft. A confidential financial analysis by a leading Russian brokerage firm, seen by Weekend, along with a deposition made by a state parliamentarian last October to the Russian prosecutor general, allege that the Sibneft "loans for shares" auction was rigged. Yeltsin authorised Neftyanaya Finansovaya Kompanya (NFK), a company closely linked to Kremlin insider Boris Berezovsky, to manage the auction of 51% of Sibneft. But despite the winning highest bid having come from Uneximbank, which offered approximately £230m for 51% of Sibneft, Russian critics were amazed to see Finansovaya Neftyanaya Kompanya (FNK), a barely disguised relation of NFK, the company that had managed the sale, winning the Sibneft shares with a lower bid of £117m for assets valued at £337m. A legal action against FNK was launched and then abandoned, after Uneximbank inexplicably withdrew its complaint.

FNK was then revealed to have been another Berezovsky affiliate company that was also connected to his new partner, a 29-year-old oil trader called Roman Abramovich. Sibneft spokesman Mann says: "FNK won an auction to purchase 51% of Sibneft. The other 49% was privatised during a series of competitive auctions beginning in January 1996."

Yeltsin won the presidential election, financed by a private war chest of £140m in donations made by the new oligarchs. Two years later, FNK was allowed to keep its 51% share in Sibneft after the government announced it would not be repaying its loans. Abramovich and Berezovsky now owned a controlling share in an oil company whose reserves of more than four billion barrels were equivalent to those of Texaco, Chevron and Mobil.

+++

You will also read in this Guardian article that he started as an Oil trader, buying dirt cheap Russian Oil and selling it in the west at market rates for huge profits. The Guardian chose their words carefully. This was illegal trading and is known as smuggling. He was a gun-toting Oil smuggler and was a part of organised Russian crime, and made millions from it. Then via a corrupt Yelstin was able to multiply those millions into billions. Pure Corruption.


What I cant fathom is:
a) how few people know or care about Abramovich's source of wealth, especially Chelsea supporters
b) how slowly knowledge of this is spreading

Every time I mention Abramovich's ill-gotten money here on boards.ie, there are always people that question it yet seem to have done little research of their own nor have they spoken with any Russian people. I have, and they all think and know that he is a crook.

I realise that it is detailed, complex and murky, but Abramovich's irrational spending on Chelsea, at a huge financial loss by the way, is affecting Football in England and in Europe, so it cant be ignored. His affect is likely to increase, and its all based on criminality.

Redspider

Headshot

Blackjack wrote:

Most of those supporters would be insulted if you called them Irish. This has been dragged up before, let's not pretend it hasn't.
The whole "I love Rangers because they're not Celtic" argument is as shallow as the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument. It's time people copped on.

i agree

egan007

Blackjack wrote:

Most of those supporters would be insulted if you called them Irish. This has been dragged up before, let's not pretend it hasn't.
The whole "I love Rangers because they're not Celtic" argument is as shallow as the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument. It's time people copped on.

HorseSh1t people in the north (ALL) are irish and they see them self as irish - it's just the some of them see themselves as British also. Just ask someone from the north who considers themselves irish and they will say yes - of course they may follow on to tell you where ther allegiances lie. Ask where they are from and they will say Ireland. The very same as a Welsh or Scottish person will say.

Copped on to what???
1000's the Celtic faithful in Ireland use the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument....
Obviously there are genuine celtic fans but there are lots of Idiots in celtic jerseys too

Keano_sli

redspider wrote:

There is a lot to read, but here is one excerpt of how Abramovich gained so much wealth, from the corrupt Yeltsin and his government:


+++

By 1995, the majority of Russians were worse off under capitalism then they had been during communism, and the party began to bounce back. Yeltsin would have to fight a persuasive and high-profile pro-democracy campaign if he was to win the presidential election of 1996. He was desperately in need of funds, and turned to men such as Abramovich and Berezovsky, whom he invited to participate in the so-called "loans for shares" scheme in return for financial backing. Yeltsin decreed that the government would auction its tranche of shares in state enterprises in return for loans to shore up the fragile economy. Once Yeltsin had been re-elected and the country stabilised, the loans would be repaid and the state would reclaim its assets.

In the oil town of Surgut, 250 miles south of Noyabrsk, on the day the government auctioned its stake in Surgutneftegas, the airport was closed, the roads blocked by police, and only one bid was received - from Vladimir Bogdanov, the resident general director of Surgutneftegas. He became a multimillionaire overnight, and today is worth an estimated £1bn and remains the company's president.

The following month, in November 1995, Vladimir Potanin, an influential banker, snapped up Norilsk Nickel, Russia's largest nickel company, for £78m less than the government's asking price. Within months, he had become first deputy prime minister, and today, although he no longer holds political office, he is, according to Forbes magazine, worth getting on for $2bn.

Next up was Yukos, Russia's third largest oil company, which was sold for £173m (a fraction of its real value) to sole-bidder Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a member of parliament in the Russian duma. Not only had 32-year-old Khodorkovsky helped draft the "loans for shares" legislation, but his Menatep bank (which had become wealthy by trading vouchers) also policed the auction. Today, Khodorkovsky is the richest man in Russia, worth an estimated £8.4bn, his portfolio encompassing 40 former Soviet enterprises. But the true scale of Khodorkovsky's bargain-basement purchase of Yukos became clear only in October 2003 when, following his arrest, Russian prosecutors froze 44% of the company's assets, revealing that they were worth more than £7bn.

And then, in December 1995, four oil exploration, drilling, refining and distribution companies in Noyabrsk and Omsk came up for auction, in a deal that would see them combined into a holding company to be named Sibneft. A confidential financial analysis by a leading Russian brokerage firm, seen by Weekend, along with a deposition made by a state parliamentarian last October to the Russian prosecutor general, allege that the Sibneft "loans for shares" auction was rigged. Yeltsin authorised Neftyanaya Finansovaya Kompanya (NFK), a company closely linked to Kremlin insider Boris Berezovsky, to manage the auction of 51% of Sibneft. But despite the winning highest bid having come from Uneximbank, which offered approximately £230m for 51% of Sibneft, Russian critics were amazed to see Finansovaya Neftyanaya Kompanya (FNK), a barely disguised relation of NFK, the company that had managed the sale, winning the Sibneft shares with a lower bid of £117m for assets valued at £337m. A legal action against FNK was launched and then abandoned, after Uneximbank inexplicably withdrew its complaint.

FNK was then revealed to have been another Berezovsky affiliate company that was also connected to his new partner, a 29-year-old oil trader called Roman Abramovich. Sibneft spokesman Mann says: "FNK won an auction to purchase 51% of Sibneft. The other 49% was privatised during a series of competitive auctions beginning in January 1996."

Yeltsin won the presidential election, financed by a private war chest of £140m in donations made by the new oligarchs. Two years later, FNK was allowed to keep its 51% share in Sibneft after the government announced it would not be repaying its loans. Abramovich and Berezovsky now owned a controlling share in an oil company whose reserves of more than four billion barrels were equivalent to those of Texaco, Chevron and Mobil.

+++

You will also read in this Guardian article that he started as an Oil trader, buying dirt cheap Russian Oil and selling it in the west at market rates for huge profits. The Guardian chose their words carefully. This was illegal trading and is known as smuggling. He was a gun-toting Oil smuggler and was a part of organised Russian crime, and made millions from it. Then via a corrupt Yelstin was able to multiply those millions into billions. Pure Corruption.


What I cant fathom is:
a) how few people know or care about Abramovich's source of wealth, especially Chelsea supporters
b) how slowly knowledge of this is spreading

Every time I mention Abramovich's ill-gotten money here on boards.ie, there are always people that question it yet seem to have done little research of their own nor have they spoken with any Russian people. I have, and they all think and know that he is a crook.

I realise that it is detailed, complex and murky, but Abramovich's irrational spending on Chelsea, at a huge financial loss by the way, is affecting Football in England and in Europe, so it cant be ignored. His affect is likely to increase, and its all based on criminality.

Redspider

What you say about Abramovich is true and of course very worrying, but I wouldn't bother trying to convince people of rights and wrongs of his wealth, Chelsea fans for one will not give 2 F**ks and if I "a United fan" brought it up then people would harp on about United and their money etc.. and who are we to talk about it, and as a Liverpool you should remember the Thai prime minister was going to buy into your club and he has a dodgy record himself.

meepmeep

[QUOTE=Blackjack[/QUOTE]
The whole "I love Rangers because they're not Celtic" argument is as shallow as the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument. It's time people copped on. [/QUOTE]

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

i agree

No you don't. You support Celtic because you're Irish (according to you), so how can you agree with what he said?

Make up your mind. :rolleyes:

SCULLY

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

i agree

Interesting :

You agree that 'The whole "I love Rangers because they're not Celtic" argument is as shallow as the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument. It's time people copped on.'

(btw I also agree that the being Irish is not a reason to follow a foreign team.)

yet on a prior post state 'i taught i never see the day,that irish people supporting Rangers '

Seems a a bit of a contradiction to me that now being Irish is a factor in somebody following (or not as the case may be) a foreign team in the same league.

Headshot

SCULLY wrote:

Interesting :

You agree that 'The whole "I love Rangers because they're not Celtic" argument is as shallow as the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument. It's time people copped on.'

(btw I also agree that the being Irish is not a reason to follow a foreign team.)

yet on a prior post state 'i taught i never see the day,that irish people supporting Rangers '

Seems a a bit of a contradiction to me that now being Irish is a factor in somebody following (or not as the case may be) a foreign team in the same league.

im not really trying to contradic myself but i rather not support a foreign team if they dont have any irish players

Headshot

SCULLY wrote:

Interesting :

yet on a prior post state 'i taught i never see the day,that irish people supporting Rangers '

i was just suprised

since alot of people here on boards support rangers how come every big sports shop only have celtic shirts [just wondering]iv ever been in
seem to have only celtic shirts [in the republic]

SCULLY

I don't know how many Ranger shirts sold in the Republic (though try walking down OConnell Street wearing one and you might just find out why there seems to be so few).


The contradiction I was refeering to was the fact that you asert that being Irish is not a reason to support a particular team in a foreign league but should be a precluding factor in supporting another team in that same league.

As for following a foreign team with Irish players - of course it's good that the team you support has irish players(ie Duff at Chelsea), but if there were none would you stop supporting the team - doesn't make sense to me.

eirebhoy

WhiteWashMan wrote:

really?
ive seen liverpool get to the finals of the premier club competition in europe, and they certainly arent the best club around.

but they won, so the deserve to be there.

so no, i think you have 38 games to win a league. if you cant do it, even by a single goal, then why should you get other chances to win?

i mean, if you are the best club, surely the 38 games are enough?

how had is that to get?

i really dont get the luck thing either?
casn you explain in really simple english, so that i can understand how beating a team 6-0 instead of 5-0 is down to luck.
im really really curious about that one...
:rolleyes:

typical losing attitude to be honest.

You're not another one that thinks wrong decisions by referee's even themselves out over the course of a season? No need to say any more.

zAbbo

I'm Irish, and i hate Celtic supporters

I live in a town which is full of people wearing Celtic jerseys, some of them i doubt would be proper fans.

I asked one bloke why he supported Celtic, he said they were founded by Irish, and run by Irish. Fair enough, Similar i guess to people following Boston Celtics in the 80's (Larry Bird etc., very succesfull team)

But i think the real reason this part time fans support celtic is because of their religion.

After all, only 'black hoers' support Rangers

nlgbbbblth

bazH wrote:

But i think the real reason this part time fans support celtic is because of their religion.

After all, only 'black hoers' support Rangers

I know Protestants that have supported Celtic for years.
I don't know any Catholics that support Rangers

I also know people who hate Protestants and see supporting Celtic as a vindication of this. They are oblivious to the club's non-sectarian signing policy.

I also know a guy who burned his Larsson shirt when he found out Larsson was a Protestant. :rolleyes:

Headshot

nlgbbbblth wrote:

I also know a guy who burned his Larsson shirt when he found out Larsson was a Protestant. :rolleyes:

wow,now thats over doing it

Blackjack

egan007 wrote:

HorseSh1t people in the north (ALL) are irish and they see them self as irish - it's just the some of them see themselves as British also. Just ask someone from the north who considers themselves irish and they will say yes - of course they may follow on to tell you where ther allegiances lie. Ask where they are from and they will say Ireland. The very same as a Welsh or Scottish person will say.

Copped on to what???
1000's the Celtic faithful in Ireland use the "I love Celtic because they're Irish" argument....
Obviously there are genuine celtic fans but there are lots of Idiots in celtic jerseys too

Somehow I doubt if you were to ask Ian Paisley if he considered himself Irish he might not agree with what you're saying.
Copped on as stopped making a political issue of it, copped on and stopped supporting a team based on the Religion.

WhiteWashMan

eirebhoy wrote:

You're not another one that thinks wrong decisions by referee's even themselves out over the course of a season? No need to say any more.

no, im not. but i believe wrong decisions effect the outcome of a game, not a season.

although, having said that, spurs are not in europe because the linesman at old trafford didnt see a perfectly good goal.

but i'll just have to accept that, and im certainly not going to whine about boro being in europe instead of us.

in fact, you could go one further and give the example of liverpool not being in the CL next season, because they didnt reach the qualifying point in the league.
harsh, but thats the rules.

by the way, why did you ask me a question and then assume an answer to base some sort of sneer on?
i thought better of you, but it would appear that no matter how much you try, you just cant keep a true celtic fan's attitude towards rangers down

WhiteWashMan

nlgbbbblth wrote:

I know Protestants that have supported Celtic for years.
I don't know any Catholics that support Rangers

I also know people who hate Protestants and see supporting Celtic as a vindication of this. They are oblivious to the club's non-sectarian signing policy.

I also know a guy who burned his Larsson shirt when he found out Larsson was a Protestant. :rolleyes:

i know catholics that support rangers.

i wonder why so many irish people support celtid really though. i mean, its not becuase they are good at football, so there really must be some other reason.

WhiteWashMan

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

i was just suprised

since alot of people here on boards support rangers how come every big sports shop only have celtic shirts [just wondering]iv ever been in
seem to have only celtic shirts [in the republic]

an excellent way to make an opinion. based on your observations of football shirts.
excellent.

eirebhoy

WhiteWashMan wrote:

by the way, why did you ask me a question and then assume an answer to base some sort of sneer on?
i thought better of you, but it would appear that no matter how much you try, you just cant keep a true celtic fan's attitude towards rangers down

Well basically I think its obvious that wrong decisions don't even themselves out over the course of a season. Maybe more went against Rangers, maybe more went against Celtic. We don't know which is why I think it is unfair that Rangers won it by a single goal. I agree with your main point though, if the system is down to goal difference, the team with a better goal difference deserves the league. Anyway, its 2 years ago now, i'll let it go

astrofool

Had celtic won on goal difference would your attitude be the same?

WhiteWashMan

astrofool wrote:

Had celtic won on goal difference would your attitude be the same?

if youre asking me, then my answer would still be the same.
the team at the top of the league, based on the rules, wins.

eyerer

"you just cant keep a true celtic fan's attitude towards rangers down"

you must come from a world different than i, where rangers fans are these really lovely bunch of people that are harrassed by filthy sectarian celtic fans....

where i come from, rangers fans ask you what team you support and if you dont support rangers they try to break your legs and such
then again, it is different up north...

whats the song rangers fans sing '...up to our necks in fenian blood....'
im wasting my time even saying this though, obviously to you rangers and their fans are just swell

im not saying celtic fans are perfect..

astrofool

I think what everyone with an ounce of intelligence is saying, is that both are as bad as each other, and as such, basing your support on some religious notion is ridiculous.

jonny68

Anyway back on topic :rolleyes: last Sunday has gotta rank as one of the darkest days of my life,done everything possible to try get to the game but couldnt make it in the end but fcuk me what a terrible way to lose it,with 10 mins to go in the pub i actually had champagne ordered i really couldnt envisage that happening..Bloody Football eh,it can be make you ecstatic beyond belief and gutted beyond belief..i got absolutely plastered drunk that day and nite..was a nightmare day..what can i say..no excuses,we lost,they won,all i can hope for now is we win the cup this Saturday as a fitting tribute to Martin O Neill and the legions of Tims who are still in shock over last Sunday