Squad for Mexico and Peru

[andyD]

5 minutes ago, ONeils4oyarder said:

I've been hearing this co-efficient bullshit for years and years...an enhanced co-efficient is of no real use to any team other than Celtic (or Rangers if they ever get their act together).

How is having 2 teams other than celtic getting into european competition not helpful to anyone but celtic?

I'm in no way a cetlic fan, but it's blindingly obvious to me that celtic have been the only people flying the flag for us in europe over the last few years. Them getting to the groups (and hopefully doing more than just lose and draw) is important to keep the opportunities for success and revenue there for other sides.

another thing it does is maintain the profile of scottish football. gone are the days of celtic making it to the last 16 and rangers making the europa league final. we need everything we can get to make sure the league is seen and noticed. it makes it easier to attract league sponsors and even for clubs to bring in players.

so i'm struggling to see how anyone can say celtic don't matter to scottish football and it's no benefit to the national side. we rely on the league to produce players. celtic making the groups helps the league. if you can't see that, then i'm just going to suspect you've got a wee bit of an agenda going on.

[ONeils4oyarder]

Qualifying for the Europa League, isnt particularly lucrative to the smaller teams...its a jolly and thats about it. 

[vanderark14]

1 minute ago, andyD said:

How is having 2 teams other than celtic getting into european competition not helpful to anyone but celtic?

I'm in no way a cetlic fan, but it's blindingly obvious to me that celtic have been the only people flying the flag for us in europe over the last few years. Them getting to the groups (and hopefully doing more than just lose and draw) is important to keep the opportunities for success and revenue there for other sides.

another thing it does is maintain the profile of scottish football. gone are the days of celtic making it to the last 16 and rangers making the europa league final. we need everything we can get to make sure the league is seen and noticed. it makes it easier to attract league sponsors and even for clubs to bring in players.

so i'm struggling to see how anyone can say celtic don't matter to scottish football and it's no benefit to the national side. we rely on the league to produce players. celtic making the groups helps the league. if you can't see that, then i'm just going to suspect you've got a wee bit of an agenda going on.

celtic making the groups does not help the league, it gives them more money and strangles competition. This isn't unique to Scotland but to say it helps our league is simply not true.

When smaller nations make the group stage, does it make you notice the league? does it make you watch that league? I am guessing not. 

[Squirrelhumper]

Seemingly there's been a call off already and SOD has been called up....

[Toepoke]

16 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Seemingly there's been a call off already and SOD has been called up....

[Squirrelhumper]

When I say seemingly, he has been.

Delighted for him.

[andyD]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

celtic making the groups does not help the league, it gives them more money and strangles competition. This isn't unique to Scotland but to say it helps our league is simply not true.

When smaller nations make the group stage, does it make you notice the league? does it make you watch that league? I am guessing not. 

Not sure if you're doing it on purpose.. but hey..

When a smaller nation makes the group stage, you and i might not care. but the leagues sponsors will. and the governing body of the country will as they'll be in a stronger position to negotiate with those sponsors. that brings more money into the league and so every club in that league benefits.

Celtic making the groups affects the coefficient. that coefficient gives 2 other teams a shot at Europe and probably a few games worth of extra tv money at worst.

yes, Celtic make more, but you need to have the proper perspective. Celtic's turnover (afaik) is approaching 100m. Dundee's is 4m. If Celtic get an extra couple of million it really makes very little difference given how far ahead they are already. Meanwhile any extra money that comes into Dundee is a big boost. Given that Celtic aren't the only producers of young Scottish players in the country, extra money going to the smaller clubs helps them to foster young talent. Better facilities, better coaches, even just more youngster on the books and getting the opportunity. That's the value.

I hate to say it, but if you're yearning for a competitive league, you've come to the wrong place. The Scottish league hasn't been competitive for a very long time, and 80% of the teams have been getting by on scraps for all of that.

Looking up the top end of the league, Aberdeen have a turnover of 15m, Rangers are nearer 30. Hearts about 10, Hibs around 7. Killie are around 5.

Taking Aberdeen.. you can see the difference that's been made by finishing 2nd. They've almost doubled their turnover in the last 6 years, strangely coinciding with them finishing 2nd for 4 years and 3rd for another.

So the TV money clearly helps the smaller clubs. Europe helps those that get it, and for them to carry on getting it, Celtic need to keep carrying the country on that particular stage. That's just the reality, whether we like it or not.

[Squirrelhumper]

Ours was £5.1m last year but that was boosted by £1m in transfer fees.

Usually floats around £4m give or take a few hundred grand.

 

[vanderark14]

3 minutes ago, andyD said:

Not sure if you're doing it on purpose.. but hey..

When a smaller nation makes the group stage, you and i might not care. but the leagues sponsors will. and the governing body of the country will as they'll be in a stronger position to negotiate with those sponsors. that brings more money into the league and so every club in that league benefits.

Celtic making the groups affects the coefficient. that coefficient gives 2 other teams a shot at Europe and probably a few games worth of extra tv money at worst.

yes, Celtic make more, but you need to have the proper perspective. Celtic's turnover (afaik) is approaching 100m. Dundee's is 4m. If Celtic get an extra couple of million it really makes very little difference given how far ahead they are already. Meanwhile any extra money that comes into Dundee is a big boost. Given that Celtic aren't the only producers of young Scottish players in the country, extra money going to the smaller clubs helps them to foster young talent. Better facilities, better coaches, even just more youngster on the books and getting the opportunity. That's the value.

I hate to say it, but if you're yearning for a competitive league, you've come to the wrong place. The Scottish league hasn't been competitive for a very long time, and 80% of the teams have been getting by on scraps for all of that.

Looking up the top end of the league, Aberdeen have a turnover of 15m, Rangers are nearer 30. Hearts about 10, Hibs around 7. Killie are around 5.

Taking Aberdeen.. you can see the difference that's been made by finishing 2nd. They've almost doubled their turnover in the last 6 years, strangely coinciding with them finishing 2nd for 4 years and 3rd for another.

So the TV money clearly helps the smaller clubs. Europe helps those that get it, and for them to carry on getting it, Celtic need to keep carrying the country on that particular stage. That's just the reality, whether we like it or not.

Oh well, we've not had a competitive league for a long time, we might as well shut up and forget it. 

I have plenty perspective, thanks. Celtics turnover is that high because they get the CL cash, without it they can't attract the calibre of player they have therefore the gap shortens. 

You may think sponsorship and tv deals is the most important but some of us don't , does it actually help us produce better players? no it doesn't. Lets look at the evidence......since money became the biggest factor in football we've been to 0 tournaments and barely produced a half decent player. Meanwhile teams with worse domestic competitions have been to the latter stages of tournaments with some doing spectacularly well..............Wales, N.ireland, Rep of Ire, Iceland etc. You will have to explain to me where this value is? 

As for our clubs fostering young talent, most are forced to play their own because they do not have the money to buy players. It has nothing to do with sponsors or CL money. 

 

[Squirrelhumper]

O'Donnell in. Douglas out 

I'm sure Douglas missus is heavily pregnant. 

[andyD]

4 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Lets look at the evidence......
1) since money became the biggest factor in football we've been to 0 tournaments
2) barely produced a half decent player.
3) teams with worse domestic competitions have been to the latter stages of tournaments

4) You will have to explain to me where this value is? 

5) As for our clubs fostering young talent, most are forced to play their own because they do not have the money to buy players.

1) Correlation, not causation. Had a lot to do with Craig Brown persisting with a squad into retirement, rather then bringing in younger players. So we essentially had to push the reset button and start from scratch. Couple that with some particularly poor appointments and you have your answer.
2) You're just being stupid there, so i wont even bother.
3) So your question is why did they make it and we didn't? We've had a succession of poor managers. All picking the same core of players, all saying we're not good enough, all trying to win 1-0 with a squad that's much better going forward than defending. I've no particular faith the McLeish is any better. By latter stages, I assume you mean Wales and Ireland. Both had good managers and a superstar player that made the difference for them. How do you get just one good player? that'd be luck. How do you build a squad of decent players that a good manager can use? investment. Unfortunately for us our two 'superstar' players (tho not on the level of Bale or Sigurdsson) play left back. That's part of the reason I want us to push Robertson on to left wing, so that he's more involved in a position he can make a real difference in games.
4) I have. Clearly enough for a child to understand. I'm persisting with you, assuming in good faith that you're not just one of the tinfoil hat brigade, someone who's just set on refusing to admit that anything Celtic does is beneficial to anyone in any way. Again, I'm not a Cetlic fan, but it's clear as day to me
5) Except that's a bit of a myth isn't it. Your Dundees and your Kilmarnocks, sure. There's a big incentive to develop local talent, as it's cheaper in the short term and could net you a decent fee if you unearth a gem. But there's other teams in the league. We'll exclude Rangers as they once again seem to be trying to buy success (only 1 Scottish player played more than 25 games for them this season). Hearts are the obvious one.. 4th highest turnover, yet constantly playing teenagers. That's not because they can't afford  adult players. It's a philosophy, investing in the future, good for Hearts and good for Scotland. I assume it generates a reasonable amount of good will and might win them fans along the way too. Aberdeen. 3rd highest turnover, barely spent anything in the summer, despite making a healthy profit the season before and the sale of Hayes landing them another 1.5mil. If they wanted to spend there is money there to do so.  Hibs only just came out of the Championship, but paid money for Marciano and Slivka, not to mention a handful of notable free transfers that probably cost them a decent amount in incentives as well.

I can carry on, and if you're halfway sensible then I think you'll get the point.. but like i said, i've a feeling you're just anti-celtic, so it's a bit pointless having a conversation.

[andyD]

1 minute ago, Squirrelhumper said:

O'Donnell in. Douglas out 

I'm sure Douglas missus is heavily pregnant. 

Weird one.. one of the two left backs drops out, calls up a 2nd (or 3rd) right back. New manager please.

[Toepoke]

Who'd have thought we'd have been struggling for a left back?  

[vanderark14]

8 minutes ago, andyD said:

1) Correlation, not causation. Had a lot to do with Craig Brown persisting with a squad into retirement, rather then bringing in younger players. So we essentially had to push the reset button and start from scratch. Couple that with some particularly poor appointments and you have your answer.
2) You're just being stupid there, so i wont even bother.
3) So your question is why did they make it and we didn't? We've had a succession of poor managers. All picking the same core of players, all saying we're not good enough, all trying to win 1-0 with a squad that's much better going forward than defending. I've no particular faith the McLeish is any better. By latter stages, I assume you mean Wales and Ireland. Both had good managers and a superstar player that made the difference for them. How do you get just one good player? that'd be luck. How do you build a squad of decent players that a good manager can use? investment. Unfortunately for us our two 'superstar' players (tho not on the level of Bale or Sigurdsson) play left back. That's part of the reason I want us to push Robertson on to left wing, so that he's more involved in a position he can make a real difference in games.
4) I have. Clearly enough for a child to understand. I'm persisting with you, assuming in good faith that you're not just one of the tinfoil hat brigade, someone who's just set on refusing to admit that anything Celtic does is beneficial to anyone in any way. Again, I'm not a Cetlic fan, but it's clear as day to me
5) Except that's a bit of a myth isn't it. Your Dundees and your Kilmarnocks, sure. There's a big incentive to develop local talent, as it's cheaper in the short term and could net you a decent fee if you unearth a gem. But there's other teams in the league. We'll exclude Rangers as they once again seem to be trying to buy success (only 1 Scottish player played more than 25 games for them this season). Hearts are the obvious one.. 4th highest turnover, yet constantly playing teenagers. That's not because they can't afford  adult players. It's a philosophy, investing in the future, good for Hearts and good for Scotland. I assume it generates a reasonable amount of good will and might win them fans along the way too. Aberdeen. 3rd highest turnover, barely spent anything in the summer, despite making a healthy profit the season before and the sale of Hayes landing them another 1.5mil. If they wanted to spend there is money there to do so.  Hibs only just came out of the Championship, but paid money for Marciano and Slivka, not to mention a handful of notable free transfers that probably cost them a decent amount in incentives as well.

I can carry on, and if you're halfway sensible then I think you'll get the point.. but like i said, i've a feeling you're just anti-celtic, so it's a bit pointless having a conversation.

No need for the insults or the condescending nonsense. I have no anti celtic agenda, we disagree that their success benefits our league, thats all. We are having a conversation or at least I thought we were. Thats me been accused of being anti rangers and anti celtic. Thanks 👍 Celtic's success does bring more money, I am not disputing this. What I am disputing is whether its beneficial in the long run or at all. I mean, how can we be happy with what we have right now - No Euros or World cups in 20 years, 7 league titles in a row, almost two trebles in a row. Thats not beneficial at all.

I see their success and money as a problem for our competition, since cash become the main weapon in football our league has been strangled of any competition, so the choice is hope celtic do well and watch them grow bigger and bigger while we all feed of scraps or we hope they do not succeed so the gap gets less. 

thankfully, this next season will see it get harder celtic for progress in the CL, they are are going to find it much harder to qualify now. Its a closed shop and the days of Celtic qualifying regularly are about to end IMO,  I hate to break it to you but Scotland are not wanted at that particular table. The CL has destroyed competition across Europe but you seem to think we should be thankful for the odd scrap here and there, no thanks.

 

[Zenloff]

5 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

celtic making the groups does not help the league, it gives them more money and strangles competition. This isn't unique to Scotland but to say it helps our league is simply not true.

When smaller nations make the group stage, does it make you notice the league? does it make you watch that league? I am guessing not. 

You don't have to look too far away to see this in action. Have a peak at TNS in Wales, and what their involvement has done for Welsh Football. It's given Harris a bit more money, which he used to buy their local rivals (Oswestry Town) and move into their home. Barry Town is another grand example of how being a small club in Europe did nothing for them or the league. Their story is as tragic as any.

 

[vanderark14]

14 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

O'Donnell in. Douglas out 

I'm sure Douglas missus is heavily pregnant. 

Great to see another Scotland based young player get a chance, especially a Right back..........we desperately need one. 

[andyD]

14 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

blah

Seems we're just talking about different things..

You're talking about wanting a competitive league (which hasn't really existed in my lifetime (aberdeen and dundee utd had a go at times) and probably never will)

and I'm talking about improving the ability of domestic clubs to develop talent for the national side.

 

[vanderark14]

8 minutes ago, andyD said:

Seems we're just talking about different things..

You're talking about wanting a competitive league (which hasn't really existed in my lifetime (aberdeen and dundee utd had a go at times) and probably never will)

and I'm talking about improving the ability of domestic clubs to develop talent for the national side.

 

and in all the years of the super duper CL cash generated by Celtic we are still lacking in developing youth.

I've proved to you that the CL does nothing for our league except strangle competition. 

[wanderer]

Ritche has pulled out and Souttar a doubt.

Imagine with Derby knocked out of Championship Play off's, we might see Anya getting recalled to replace Ritchie.

[andyD]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

and in all the years of the super duper CL cash generated by Celtic we are still lacking in developing youth.

I've proved to you that the CL does nothing for our league except strangle competition. 

No. you haven't.

There's a lag time on youth development.. and the youth right now is probably the best thing we have going for the national team. What's the average age of the squad? I'd warrant it's under 25.

[Toepoke]

25 minutes ago, wanderer said:

Ritche has pulled out

Quelle surprise!

 

[vanderark14]

26 minutes ago, andyD said:

No. you haven't.

There's a lag time on youth development.. and the youth right now is probably the best thing we have going for the national team. What's the average age of the squad? I'd warrant it's under 25.

 

26 minutes ago, andyD said:

No. you haven't.

There's a lag time on youth development.. and the youth right now is probably the best thing we have going for the national team. What's the average age of the squad? I'd warrant it's under 25.

yes I did, go back and read again. 

Whats your point? Squads have been using youth for longer than I remember now because cash has dried up. You're making a direct link with Celtics success to the development of youth players, this is no more than your opinion. At least I presented facts when showing you the negative impact of Celtics success. I'd be willing to bet that none of the clubs budget with the CL windfall in mind because its no more than a bonus. My point in all of this is that the CL cash is not required and neither is celtic's success to create a better national team and better players, there's no direct evidence to suggest otherwise.

[andyD]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

 

yes I did, go back and read again. 

Whats your point? Squads have been using youth for longer than I remember now because cash has dried up. You're making a direct link with Celtics success to the development of youth players, this is no more than your opinion. At least I presented facts when showing you the negative impact of Celtics success. I'd be willing to bet that none of the clubs budget with the CL windfall in mind because its no more than a bonus. My point in all of this is that the CL cash is not required and neither is celtic's success to create a better national team and better players, there's no direct evidence to suggest otherwise.

Can't be bothered to repeat myself, you clearly read nothing i wrote.

[tartanmartin]

Can you pair get a room?

[andyD]

2 minutes ago, tartanmartin said:

Can you pair get a room?

No bother. No more comment from me on the subject.