Wee Jock Poo Pong McPlop football thread

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, Jonny Vegas said:

historically Rangers & Celtic are much bigger clubs.

How are they? Every single club in existence has history, none is bigger than the other. I mean, you could say money elevates the bigot brothers over the rest of Scotland as their wage bill is higher than the rest of the clubs combined. 
 

As you say, describing a club as bigger than another is subjective, but “History” is no criteria to base it on. 

[The Gaffer]

2 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

How are they? Every single club in existence has history, none is bigger than the other.

That's not true though, is it? Surely some clubs have a history that elevates them above recent cash injections still. 

I'm not one to go shouting "Oil slut!" at busses (because the only busses around here go to GAA games and I'd be arrested) and I know it's all a bit saccharine, but football's meant to be saccharine. 

Being a Man City means you're rinsing the stat lists and Gillette ads, but being big means I'm seeing your sticker on the arse end of an armitage shanks no matter where I go on holidays. 

They'll get there obviously, but not quite yet. The branding's reaching, you can see that. Pep shows up for matches now dressed like my weed dealer. 

[Keith Houchen]

1 minute ago, Gay as FOOK said:

That's not true though, is it? Surely some clubs have a history that elevates them above recent cash injections still. 

It is true. History starts at the clubs formation and has nothing to do with success. Rochdale (I think) went 100 years without winning a trophy but they still had 100 years of history before they won something. That history is equally as valid as a club who have won shitloads in 100 years. One has more success and trophies but they don’t have more history. 

[The Gaffer]

1 minute ago, Keith Houchen said:

It is true. History starts at the clubs formation and has nothing to do with success. Rochdale (I think) went 100 years without winning a trophy but they still had 100 years of history before they won something. That history is equally as valid as a club who have won shitloads in 100 years. One has more success and trophies but they don’t have more history. 

Sweet Genesis 1:1 on it. Some histories are generally accepted as being worth talking about and spreading more than others though. Like it or lump it that's how the memetics of it break down, in an arena that very much draws from those kind of reservoirs when it comes to media coverage and parlance. 

I suspect you know that, though, and know exactly what I mean when I say that Celtic may be bigger than Man City. In much the same fashion that World War II was much bigger than my nan. 

I'd have learned about her in history class otherwise. 

[Keith Houchen]

1 minute ago, Gay as FOOK said:

Some histories are generally accepted as being worth talking about and spreading more than others though.

And a Rochdale fan will talk about their history and be more interested in it than another clubs. 

 

2 minutes ago, Gay as FOOK said:

I suspect you know that, though, and know exactly what I mean when I say that Celtic may be bigger than Man City. In much the same fashion that World War II was much bigger than my nan. 

I'd have learned about her in history class otherwise.

You’re comparing two different things. We are talking about the same things, football clubs. It’s always something a fan of a big club trots out to Lord it over smaller clubs, “History”, and it’s bollocks because, as I say, every club has it. 
 

Clubs have bigger attendances, bigger stadia, bigger trophy hauls, bigger fanbases, bigger bank balances, but what they don’t have is a bigger history because it’s something every club has. 

[The Gaffer]

Fair dues, I know what you're getting at when it comes to actual history. And as a previously confessed saccharine dude, it is itself a rather flowers of romance position. 

I'll throw it back to Jonny, who pre-empted the thread you picked up on. 

2 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

Bigger is a subjective term when it comes to football clubs.

[Jonny Vegas]

7 hours ago, Keith Houchen said:

And a Rochdale fan will talk about their history and be more interested in it than another clubs. 

 

You’re comparing two different things. We are talking about the same things, football clubs. It’s always something a fan of a big club trots out to Lord it over smaller clubs, “History”, and it’s bollocks because, as I say, every club has it. 
 

Clubs have bigger attendances, bigger stadia, bigger trophy hauls, bigger fanbases, bigger bank balances, but what they don’t have is a bigger history because it’s something every club has. 

You're focusing on the dictionary definition of history whereas in football "history" is a commonly used and accepted term to encapsulate size of the club, stadia, fanbase, success, key moments. 

By your own definition Wayne Rooney who has a bigger trophy haul, fanbase and bank balance has the same footballing history as me because every player has history.

Rangers & Celtic haven't always dwarfed the other teams in the country financially, that's something that since the mid 80s really took off as money took an increasing control in the game.

They now have the two biggest budgets in the country because they're the two biggest clubs in the country and their budgets compared to the other clubs are relative to their size compared to the other clubs.

I'm a Southampton fan, we are a much bigger club historically than for example Carlise and Celtic and Rangers are much bigger clubs historically than Southampton.

The only reasons players would leave Celtic or Rangers for Southampton is for money or to play in a higher profile league (with chances to then get a move to a bigger club and earn even more money).

 

[Keith Houchen]

1 hour ago, Jonny Vegas said:

You're focusing on the dictionary definition of history whereas in football "history" is a commonly used and accepted term to encapsulate size of the club, stadia, fanbase, success, key moments. 

The word “Literally” is commonly used in the wrong context also. 

 

2 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

By your own definition Wayne Rooney who has a bigger trophy haul, fanbase and bank balance has the same footballing history as me because every player has history.

He doesn’t have the same history as you because you are different people. Again, his history is undoubtedly more interesting because of his successes but it doesn’t mean it’s a “Bigger” history. 
 

A teams success is part of their history. A teams failures are equally part of that history. 

2 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

We are a much bigger club historically than for example Carlise and Celtic and Rangers are much bigger clubs historically than Southampton.

Indeed, but what makes them a bigger club isn’t the length of time they’ve existed. It’s trophies, fanbase, stadia etc. If they didn’t have all that success they wouldn’t have a “Smaller” history, they’d have a different one. 

[Mr_Danger]

I think in theory Rangers and Celtic currently exist at a level between Championship and Premier League. They have built teams in recent years that have had platforms for future best players in the world (Big Virg) and league one players (Leigh Griffiths) to thrive. Half the team are Premier League standard but they get away with padding them out with shit players because the rest of the league is so shite.

Throw in the money and advertising and maybe they buy well and compete or maybe they go the way of Leeds, Forrest, West Ham, Sheff Wed etc. Loads of ‘big’ clubs have failed to make the grade but very few have been able to compete.

[MrK]

On 5/20/2022 at 7:31 PM, Jonny Vegas said:

Give either of them 5 years of PL money and they'd be major players.

 

On 5/20/2022 at 7:51 PM, Jonny Vegas said:

The only reason players would sign for about 14 of the PL teams ahead of Celtic/Rangers is more money/higher profile.

Surely the above would be the same for Cowdenbeath or Albion Rovers also?

 

It always astounds me how much Rangers and Celtic fans complain about the disparity in finances with the Premier league yet celebrate winning the Jock league like it’s some achievement. 

The below video explains it much better than I can.

 

[David]

On 5/20/2022 at 5:57 PM, Tommy! said:

I don't follow football, but a mate tells me the Scottish top flight wouldn't trouble the top 2 divisions over the boarder. Is that fair or is he winding me up?

Outside of the Old Firm? It's very likely true. 

For example, Hearts finished third this season. According to Capology they have a weekly payroll of around £55,000 per week. That's for every player on their books.

Barnsley, who finished rock bottom of the Championship this season have a weekly payroll of just under £90,000 per week. Hearts spend less on wages than the likes of Charlton, Ipswich Town, Oxford, and Rotherham. 

Go even further down the Scottish top flight table and you have the mighty Motherwell, who finished 5th this season. Total expenditure per week for all players on their books? £35,000. That's around £1,300 per week on average per player. Motherwell get an average of 5,000 fans per game. 

But, it's to be expected. Comparing Scottish and English football is like comparing the English league with other nations of a similar size, such as Slovakia or Norway. 

The Old Firm are an anomaly really. Their massive popularity is founded upon sectarian divides, bigotry, and history. 

The argument of how successful they'd be in England is all subjective. They'd more than likely be more popular than most clubs outside the big names down south, which is why it'll never happen. The likes of Watford, West Ham, Brighton etc are never going to vote to bring in two potentially huge clubs who could steal their top flight status from them.

Rangers and Celtic have a massive worldwide following, with Celtic being the bigger of the two I think. Their appeal to anyone who has a slight hint of Irish Catholic ancestry is huge, especially in the States.

Then you need to ask the question of where would the oil-rich sportwashing nations want to set up shop? Had a Rangers or Celtic, with the potential mentioned above, been available in the English league, they'd maybe have been a more attractive proposition than Manchester City or Newcastle. 

As I said, all subjective, and very unlikely to ever happen. 

[Jonny Vegas]

14 hours ago, MrK said:

 

Surely the above would be the same for Cowdenbeath or Albion Rovers also?

 

It always astounds me how much Rangers and Celtic fans complain about the disparity in finances with the Premier league yet celebrate winning the Jock league like it’s some achievement. 

The below video explains it much better than I can.

 

What a load of ignorant nonsense, highlighted by calling it "the Jock league".

I'm an english, Southampton fan who's lived in Glasgow for 16 years and this sort of self entitled arrogance and ignorance is what they think every english person is like and why the majority of Scottish people fucking hate us.

Cowdenbeath and Albion Rovers have absolutely miniscule fanbases. It would take decades and huge amounts of money and success to turn them into a club the level of say Notts County let alone PL contenders.

You talk about Scottish clubs complaining about the disparity in finances with Premier League clubs. Rangers reached a european final and made nearly a third of the money by doing so that Southampton made for finishing 15th in the Premier League. 

SPL winners I believe get £3.25m. 

I've already lengthily explained why winning the SPL even for Celtic & Rangers, playing 38 cup finals in one season is a hugely underestimated and overlooked achievement by the "lol scottish football is shit" brigade.

English football is littered with huge clubs in League 2, 1 and the Championship who are much bigger clubs with way bigger budgets than others who go on to win the leagues or get promoted and people accept and understand that's part of football. 

 

[Keith Houchen]

14 minutes ago, Jonny Vegas said:

What a load of ignorant nonsense, highlighted by calling it "the Jock league".

 

Yeah that ain’t on, everyone knows SPL stands for Sunday Park League. Or is it Sunday Pub League I can never remember. 
 

I know it wasn’t always legit and above board but doesn’t the respective plights of Hearts and Gretna show it takes more than being bankrolled to win the league?  Per capita, games in Scotland are amongst the highest attended in Europe but that old firm / Sevco gulf is too big to close. 

[stumobir]

The SPL being dominated by two teams is far from unique in Europe, in fact it’s pretty much the norm in most leagues (with the odd outlier every 10 to 15 years). It also wasn’t long ago that Celtic and Rangers were taking English scalps in Europe, before the blood money started pouring in. 
The how would Celtic and Rangers fare in the Barclays conversation is about as tired as Messi/Ronaldo. And to be honest I would fucking hate it if it was to happen. I work with a lot of guys from Hull (not Rick, sadly) and the number of them who support either Utd or Liverpool is mortifying. It was the same when I was at Uni in Southampton although they were mostly Arsenal fans. Fuck having those fair weather, never seen inside the stadium, cunts trying to have bantz when we played. 
I’ve spent the last few seasons following a  lower league Scottish team my mate plays for, watching them take 2,500 fans 150miles from their small seaside town to the last away game of the season on a Friday night and the atmosphere they created was an absolute joy. I’ll take those Wee Jock McPlop games over your #anditslive contrived shite any day of the week.

(I know that’s Champions League but I’m too lazy to find another pic that makes the same point)

Edited May 27, 2022 by stumobir

[MrK]

3 hours ago, Jonny Vegas said:

What a load of ignorant nonsense, highlighted by calling it "the Jock league".

I'm an english, Southampton fan who's lived in Glasgow for 16 years and this sort of self entitled arrogance and ignorance is what they think every english person is like and why the majority of Scottish people fucking hate us.

Cowdenbeath and Albion Rovers have absolutely miniscule fanbases. It would take decades and huge amounts of money and success to turn them into a club the level of say Notts County let alone PL contenders.

You talk about Scottish clubs complaining about the disparity in finances with Premier League clubs. Rangers reached a european final and made nearly a third of the money by doing so that Southampton made for finishing 15th in the Premier League. 

SPL winners I believe get £3.25m. 

I've already lengthily explained why winning the SPL even for Celtic & Rangers, playing 38 cup finals in one season is a hugely underestimated and overlooked achievement by the "lol scottish football is shit" brigade.

English football is littered with huge clubs in League 2, 1 and the Championship who are much bigger clubs with way bigger budgets than others who go on to win the leagues or get promoted and people accept and understand that's part of football. 

 

I’m Scottish. And support Celtic. 
 

If you watched the video I imbedded, you’ll see that the average wage at Celtic is roughly 45 x that of Motherwell etc. Celtic or rangers winning the league is not a hugely underestimated and overlooked achievement.  It’s the minimum requirement.