Quote from: lordmcgrath5 on July 25, 2011, 01:03:08 PMNo, they probably wouldn't. But they'd immediately have an increase in revenues of 30 million plus per season given the differences in TV money north and south of the border. So, like Rangers, they would almost inevitably gradually narrow the gap after a few seasons. At the moment, the only way either of them can make any serious money is via a prolonged run in the Champions League.and when they struggled, and they would with their current team, they would get crowds like small heath...personally, i believe that without winning every week like they do against teams that have the likes of david weir, shaun maloney, and a load of failed championship players being better than the rest, that the fans simply wouldnt turn up, and that negates the "they would make more money so would complete" side of the discussion... lots of english clubs have good fan numbers and premier league money, but they dont compete at the top (newcastle being one)...its very easy to say that they would make more money in the premier league and close the gap, however, its just as easy to say what i have just said...both points could be argued, however, its impossible to prove either way...as it is, celtic and rangers have poor quality players, and would struggle in the championship...
No, they probably wouldn't. But they'd immediately have an increase in revenues of 30 million plus per season given the differences in TV money north and south of the border. So, like Rangers, they would almost inevitably gradually narrow the gap after a few seasons. At the moment, the only way either of them can make any serious money is via a prolonged run in the Champions League.
Quote from: pablopicasso_10 on July 30, 2011, 10:55:04 AMQuote from: lordmcgrath5 on July 25, 2011, 01:03:08 PMNo, they probably wouldn't. But they'd immediately have an increase in revenues of 30 million plus per season given the differences in TV money north and south of the border. So, like Rangers, they would almost inevitably gradually narrow the gap after a few seasons. At the moment, the only way either of them can make any serious money is via a prolonged run in the Champions League.and when they struggled, and they would with their current team, they would get crowds like small heath...personally, i believe that without winning every week like they do against teams that have the likes of david weir, shaun maloney, and a load of failed championship players being better than the rest, that the fans simply wouldnt turn up, and that negates the "they would make more money so would complete" side of the discussion... lots of english clubs have good fan numbers and premier league money, but they dont compete at the top (newcastle being one)...its very easy to say that they would make more money in the premier league and close the gap, however, its just as easy to say what i have just said...both points could be argued, however, its impossible to prove either way...as it is, celtic and rangers have poor quality players, and would struggle in the championship...Absolutely no chance. Rangers and Celtic have got support the likes of Villa, Everton, Spurs and co can only dream of.
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.
Author
Topic: Celtic are better than Villa... (Read 15851 times)
