Boof Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Apparently it'll be good for Scottish football if Rangers win the UEFA cup. I've yet to hear a decent explanation as to why this is claimed. Did it do wonders for Portuguese football when Porto won it in 2003? Or any other country that has had a team winning the thing? I'm really puzzled as to where this notion has come from - as far as I can see, the only people to benefit will be Rangers FC and their fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambojambo Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 That would be the same "Scottish Football" that thse **** bags would jettison in a nano second if England beckoned!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts_crazy Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 That would be the same "Scottish Football" that thse **** bags would jettison in a nano second if England beckoned!!!! I live for that day. Rangers and Celtic are a cancer on Scottish football and anyone that tells you otherwise is a sycophantic old firm apologist weegie bawsack, so there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeraNT Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Apparently it'll be good for Scottish football if Rangers win the UEFA cup. I've yet to hear a decent explanation as to why this is claimed. Did it do wonders for Portuguese football when Porto won it in 2003? Or any other country that has had a team winning the thing? I'm really puzzled as to where this notion has come from - as far as I can see, the only people to benefit will be Rangers FC and their fans. yeah - you are right. probably best to withdraw all scottish teams from european competitions, cos what's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 yeah - you are right. probably best to withdraw all scottish teams from european competitions, cos what's the point. That's not what he posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bindy Badgy Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Anyone care to have a guess at how much money the Huns made from their European campaign? I would of thought that its more than our team against Falkirk cost. How is them raking in shed loads of additional cash which widens the gap between us and them good for Scottish football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Anyone care to have a guess at how much money the Huns made from their European campaign? I would of thought that its more than our team against Falkirk cost. How is them raking in shed loads of additional cash which widens the gap between us and them good for Scottish football? IIRC Celtic would have made around 18M had they won it, not sure what they ended up with though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del1812 Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Would about the placings, are we miles away from a 3rd champions league spot? I heard we're getting an extra UEFA cup place in the next couple of years, is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 No! Good for Glasgow Rangers FC who apparently want nothing to do with Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The following quote was taken from that well known bigot and head of the Rangers supporters association David Edgar! At the time, I thought it was a great result for Scottish football, but after witnessing Scottish Football's reaction to it, I'm tempted to say that it was for us and just us. There's no doubt that Rangers' achievement in reaching this Final hasn't been met with the same fervour as greeted Celtic's run. In the end, that's just sad. I wouldn't expect Celtic fans to wish us well - I was delighted when they got humped in Seville - but the reaction from supposedly 'neutral' organisations has been disappointing. Speaking of which, the attitude of Greater Manchester Police has been pathetic. Rangers fans have behaved magnificently on our travels this season and deserve to be treated with the respect others enjoy. As for their laughable insistence that fans without tickets should stay at home, I'd simply like to say that I'd prefer it if our law enforcement visited Planet Earth more often. There will be 100,000 Bears there - deal with it. And roll on next Wednesday - I simply cannot wait! David Edgar And they wonder why we hate them !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malinga the Swinga Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 The following quote was taken from that well known bigot and head of the Rangers supporters association David Edgar! At the time, I thought it was a great result for Scottish football, but after witnessing Scottish Football's reaction to it, I'm tempted to say that it was for us and just us. There's no doubt that Rangers' achievement in reaching this Final hasn't been met with the same fervour as greeted Celtic's run. In the end, that's just sad. I wouldn't expect Celtic fans to wish us well - I was delighted when they got humped in Seville - but the reaction from supposedly 'neutral' organisations has been disappointing. Speaking of which, the attitude of Greater Manchester Police has been pathetic. Rangers fans have behaved magnificently on our travels this season and deserve to be treated with the respect others enjoy. As for their laughable insistence that fans without tickets should stay at home, I'd simply like to say that I'd prefer it if our law enforcement visited Planet Earth more often. There will be 100,000 Bears there - deal with it. And roll on next Wednesday - I simply cannot wait! David Edgar And they wonder why we hate them !!! No wonder there are no plans for any fan zone. Who would want that bunch of knuckle dragging throwbacks parading on their streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 "neutral organisations" Says it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Claws Posted May 7, 2008 Share Posted May 7, 2008 Not sure that it is good for Scottish football. Rangers have played horrible football to get to the final so it is not the best advert for the Scottish game. It widens the gap between them and the rest of the teams in the league financially which can only lead to yet more control from them and Celtic. They get wordwide coverage of their bigotory and union jack nonsense which harms our game and our countries image. Only good thing that can come of it is the potential for an extra european place at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted May 7, 2008 Author Share Posted May 7, 2008 I still don't see how it can be good for Scottish football if some crappy team makes it into Europe then suffers a couple of pathetic results. Surely all that's doing is raising the coefficient of the team and country of said crappy Scottish team's opposition. I think I'm right in stating the sheep won the grand total of ONE game in Europe this season - that can't be doing much for our coefficient...can it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flimsy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Would about the placings, are we miles away from a 3rd champions league spot? I heard we're getting an extra UEFA cup place in the next couple of years, is that true? Scotland will finish in 10th place in this year's rankings which will mean Scotland will have 5 European places in 2009/10 season (2 CL, 3 UEFA). This is mainly due to the revamp of European competitions including the scrapping of the Intertoto Cup. If Scotland rise to 9th in the rankings, which is unrealistic next season but realistic after that if recent performance is maintained, Scotland will get 6 European places (2 CL, 4 UEFA). Scotland would have to rise to 6th in the rankings to get an extra CL place. The problem Scotland may have is the more European places we get the worse our co-efficient will be as apart from Hearts in 2004/05 every non Old-Firm team has brought the co-efficient down, even Aberdeen this season who massively exceeded expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyBalboa Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 That would be the same "Scottish Football" that thse **** bags would jettison in a nano second if England beckoned!!!! Thats a peach of a point there mate. FTOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyBalboa Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Scotland will finish in 10th place in this year's rankings which will mean Scotland will have 5 European places in 2009/10 season (2 CL, 3 UEFA). This is mainly due to the revamp of European competitions including the scrapping of the Intertoto Cup. If Scotland rise to 9th in the rankings, which is unrealistic next season but realistic after that if recent performance is maintained, Scotland will get 6 European places (2 CL, 4 UEFA). Scotland would have to rise to 6th in the rankings to get an extra CL place. The problem Scotland may have is the more European places we get the worse our co-efficient will be as apart from Hearts in 2004/05 every non Old-Firm team has brought the co-efficient down, even Aberdeen this season who massively exceeded expectations. thats all good and well but Rangers supporters sayig it's good for Scottish football is bull****. They dont give two ******s about Scottish football and the co-efficienct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 There will be 100,000 Bears there - deal with it I can see fun and games in Manc city centre that night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Couldnt care about the coefficient. Matters not a jot to me. If you want to be in Europe, you have to merit it. If that means you have to finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd then thats what you have to do. Letting half the league in to Europe significantly takes away from the incentive to finish top 3. Why strive to fight for 3rd place when you will get the same reward by finishing 6th??? I'd be quite happy if we had a sole CL spot and 2 UEFA spots, that for me would make everyone even more hungry to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheepie Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The problem Scotland may have is the more European places we get the worse our co-efficient will be as apart from Hearts in 2004/05 every non Old-Firm team has brought the co-efficient down, even Aberdeen this season who massively exceeded expectations.[/QUOTE] I generally agree with what you are saying but beg to differ on this point. Check the link..... http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/trank2008.html Aberdeen (125) earned 9.38 points this season while Hearts (103) earned 6.57 in the season you quote hence I suggest we actaully added to the coefficeint rather than harmed it. Any net loss in coeffieceint would be due to the drop off of points from previous years (Celtics Seville run?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 100,000 bears in Manchester. Does that also mean a 100,000 hunters with rifles too? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del1812 Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Scotland will finish in 10th place in this year's rankings which will mean Scotland will have 5 European places in 2009/10 season (2 CL, 3 UEFA). This is mainly due to the revamp of European competitions including the scrapping of the Intertoto Cup. If Scotland rise to 9th in the rankings, which is unrealistic next season but realistic after that if recent performance is maintained, Scotland will get 6 European places (2 CL, 4 UEFA). Scotland would have to rise to 6th in the rankings to get an extra CL place. The problem Scotland may have is the more European places we get the worse our co-efficient will be as apart from Hearts in 2004/05 every non Old-Firm team has brought the co-efficient down, even Aberdeen this season who massively exceeded expectations. Interesting, so little to no chance of a 3rd champions league spot. Well my mind's made up. Mon the Zenit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The problem Scotland may have is the more European places we get the worse our co-efficient will be as apart from Hearts in 2004/05 every non Old-Firm team has brought the co-efficient down' date=' even Aberdeen this season who massively exceeded expectations.[/[/b']QUOTE] I generally agree with what you are saying but beg to differ on this point. Check the link..... http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/trank2008.html Aberdeen (125) earned 9.38 points this season while Hearts (103) earned 6.57 in the season you quote hence I suggest we actaully added to the coefficeint rather than harmed it. Any net loss in coeffieceint would be due to the drop off of points from previous years (Celtics Seville run?) Actually 3.38 of those 9.38 points come from Aberdeens share of the Scottish coefficient. The actual number of points earned directly was a, still respectable, 6. Our ill fated excursion into the Champions League the previous season only gained 1 point. The Totals for non old firm teams for previous Years are 03/04 Hearts 5 04/05 Hearts 5 05/06 Hibs 1 06/07 Hearts 1 07/08 Aberdeen 6 Note I've only included teams who got at least something. You should also note that the Scottish coefficient is based on an average of the points which for this season is Rangers 20 (so far) Celtic 10 Aberdeen 6 Dunfermline 0 Total =36 Average= 9(so far) So if Aberdeen hadn't been given a place then the average would have been 10(so far) Meaning that mathematically speaking Aberdeen did harm the coefficient although not by much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dipped Flake Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The problem Scotland may have is the more European places we get the worse our co-efficient will be as apart from Hearts in 2004/05 every non Old-Firm team has brought the co-efficient down' date=' even Aberdeen this season who massively exceeded expectations.[/[/b']QUOTE] I generally agree with what you are saying but beg to differ on this point. Check the link..... http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/trank2008.html Aberdeen (125) earned 9.38 points this season while Hearts (103) earned 6.57 in the season you quote hence I suggest we actaully added to the coefficeint rather than harmed it. Any net loss in coeffieceint would be due to the drop off of points from previous years (Celtics Seville run?) Aberdeen actually 'earned' 6 points this season so added 1.5 points to Scotlands coefficient. Hearts earned 5 points 2004-2005 so you are still correct that aberdeen added more than us... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flimsy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Actually 3.38 of those 9.38 points come from Aberdeens share of the Scottish coefficient. The actual number of points earned directly was a' date=' still respectable, 6. Our ill fated excursion into the Champions League the previous season only gained 1 point. The Totals for non old firm teams for previous Years are 03/04 Hearts 5 04/05 Hearts 5 05/06 Hibs 1 06/07 Hearts 1 07/08 Aberdeen 6 Note I've only included teams who got at least something. You should also note that the Scottish coefficient is based on an average of the points which for this season is Rangers 20 (so far) Celtic 10 Aberdeen 6 Dunfermline 0 Total =36 Average= 9(so far) So if Aberdeen hadn't been given a place then the average would have been 10(so far) Meaning that mathematically speaking Aberdeen did harm the coefficient although not by much.[/quote'] In 2007/08 the points gained are Rangers 23.5 (so far) Celtic 11 Aberdeen 6 Dunfermline Athletic 0.5 but your general point stands. In 2004/05 the points gained were Celtic 7 Rangers 6.5 Hearts 5 Dunfermline Athletic 0.5 Average 4.75 Without Hearts points the average would have been 4.67 so we helped a teeny bit, but this is an isolated example over the last decade or so. Gordon Smith wasn't really wrong when he said that only the Old Firm have helped towards the co-efficient, like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The only explanation as to why it is good for Scottish football is this... It's the laptop loyal that is writing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyBalboa Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 The only explanation as to why it is good for Scottish football is this... It's the laptop loyal that is writing it. The only way I could think is most of us have Rangers supporting friends or family and I would rather they be happy than random Russians but I hate the biggoted arses so 'mon the Russians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallschunkychicken Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 There will be 100,000 Bears there - deal with it. David Edgar[/b] I would love it if Greater Manchester Police do 'deal with it'. With a flawless demonstration of zero tolerance policing. The kind meted out to Hearts fans on their sojourns through to Glasgow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I would love it if Greater Manchester Police do 'deal with it'. With a flawless demonstration of zero tolerance policing. The kind meted out to Hearts fans on their sojourns through to Glasgow. Personally I would prefer the Manchester police to implement a Spanish type approach. Round them all up in the city centre and march them to the stadium (via Moss Side) to the musical symphony of batons whistling through the air, tazers buzzing, pepper spray hissing and Bears howling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Jambo Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I wonder if Rangers getting to the UEFA final might be good for Hearts in a roundabout way? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision re. the Hvns' fixture congestion, Rangers are in the final despite the SFA/SPL. Romanov has to see that ie he can't blame the GFA or biased Scottish refs. Rangers are in the final because they have a decent management team that runs the footballing side of things in a way that we can now only dream of. If Romanov looks at the way Rangers have achieved their success this year (a possible quadruple) and compares it to the way 'he' has 'achieved' our 'success', surely he has to realise that his way might not be the best way? I'm not holding my breath, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123kid Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Scottish football is ****ed. Any "good work" teams have done this season will be undone by a 1st div team playinf in Europe (qualifiers) next season, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 In 2007/08 the points gained are Rangers 23.5 (so far) Celtic 11 Aberdeen 6 Dunfermline Athletic 0.5 but your general point stands. In 2004/05 the points gained were Celtic 7 Rangers 6.5 Hearts 5 Dunfermline Athletic 0.5 Average 4.75 Without Hearts points the average would have been 4.67 so we helped a teeny bit' date=' but this is an isolated example over the last decade or so. Gordon Smith wasn't really wrong when he said that only the Old Firm have helped towards the co-efficient, like it or not.[/quote'] Sorry for the inacuracy I was working from the figures in the Bertie Kassies Team Coefficient list which isn't bang up to date (It doesn't feature Dunfermline for instance). If you ignore Rangers and Celtics Results back of an envelope calculations suggest a coefficient of about 9 (5+5+1+1+6=18 Points)/2 Teams per year We'd be down around 30th on the list near the likes of Finland and Latvia who get one place in the early Champions League Qualifiers and another 2 UEFA cup places. So The Old Firms presence mean the rest of us are fighting for the remaining 2 places as opposed to 3. The boost to the coefficient by having these miniature giants in the league is more than offset by the fact that they take the benefits from it. They're going to have to pick up their European performances a bit further before they can claim to not be holding the rest of us back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 No wonder there are no plans for any fan zone. Who would want that bunch of knuckle dragging throwbacks parading on their streets. Just the 2 fanzones confirmed so far until tomorrow when a third will be announced:oopsoops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flimsy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Sorry for the inacuracy I was working from the figures in the Bertie Kassies Team Coefficient list which isn't bang up to date (It doesn't feature Dunfermline for instance). If you ignore Rangers and Celtics Results back of an envelope calculations suggest a coefficient of about 9 (5+5+1+1+6=18 Points)/2 Teams per year We'd be down around 30th on the list near the likes of Finland and Latvia who get one place in the early Champions League Qualifiers and another 2 UEFA cup places. So The Old Firms presence mean the rest of us are fighting for the remaining 2 places as opposed to 3. The boost to the coefficient by having these miniature giants in the league is more than offset by the fact that they take the benefits from it. They're going to have to pick up their European performances a bit further before they can claim to not be holding the rest of us back. Bert's Team Rankings are up to date. The reason the likes of Dunfermline Athletic aren't on it is that results in qualifying rounds are not included in the team co-efficient, however, they do contribute towards the country co-efficient. This is why the likes of Kaunas, who will have gathered a lot of points from qualifying rounds, are not ranked. From 2009/10 Scotland will have 5 European places but even the 51st ranked country will have 4 European places. You have made a very good point that Scotland would be ranked considerably lower without the Old Firm but there would be more Euro places to play for, a great argument for an Old Firmless league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Sidious Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Rangers have always put whats good for Scotland before everything else..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/923069.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Apparently it'll be good for Scottish football if Rangers win the UEFA cup. I've yet to hear a decent explanation as to why this is claimed. Did it do wonders for Portuguese football when Porto won it in 2003? Or any other country that has had a team winning the thing? I'm really puzzled as to where this notion has come from - as far as I can see, the only people to benefit will be Rangers FC and their fans. It will boost Scotland's world ranking. Performances of club sides in European tournaments count towards that. England will be zooming back into the top ten in the world as a result of their Champions League success. A win for Rangers in Manchester would help to keep Scotland hanging on to their shirt-tails - just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flimsy Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 It will boost Scotland's world ranking. Performances of club sides in European tournaments count towards that. England will be zooming back into the top ten in the world as a result of their Champions League success. A win for Rangers in Manchester would help to keep Scotland hanging on to their shirt-tails - just. Club side performances make absolutely no difference to national team rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Apparently it'll be good for Scottish football if Rangers win the UEFA cup. I've yet to hear a decent explanation as to why this is claimed. It's because of the coefficient. I trust this clarifies matters to your satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 I wonder if Rangers getting to the UEFA final might be good for Hearts in a roundabout way? Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision re. the Hvns' fixture congestion, Rangers are in the final despite the SFA/SPL. Romanov has to see that ie he can't blame the GFA or biased Scottish refs. Rangers are in the final because they have a decent management team that runs the footballing side of things in a way that we can now only dream of. If Romanov looks at the way Rangers have achieved their success this year (a possible quadruple) and compares it to the way 'he' has 'achieved' our 'success', surely he has to realise that his way might not be the best way? I'm not holding my breath, though. Thats what a sane man would do... Its funny. When Celtic did it I really wanted them to win the final, theirs seems like a much more honest cup run, and they certainly never spouted any "good for Scottish football" pesh. But this Rangers team are just disgusting, in almost every way. Barry "no bookings" Ferguson, Nacho "deflection" Novo, ... Kirk Broadfoot will play in a European final ffs! Anyway, as I understand it the coefficient is affected by results, and since this magnificent run consists of 2 wins, 5 draws and 1 defeat and winning the final will count for as much as winning one leg in the first knockout round, they haven't really done much for us and I hope they get stuffed! How can they possibly say that the widening of the gap within Scottish football is good for it? Whats more embarassing - having the most predictable league in Europe or making Rangers play 4 league games in a week, AFTER the UEFA final which everyone is supposedly so worried about their preparation? In the current top 20 leagues in Europe, going by the coefficients, its clear to see where the embarrassment lies. England: 3 different champions in the last 5 seasons. Spain: 3 different champions in the last 5 seasons, and 4 in the last 9. Italy: 5 different champions in the last 9 seasons. France: 8 different champions in the last 17 seasons. Holland: 3 different champions in the last 10 seasons. Germany: 5 different champions in the last 11 seasons. Turkey: 3 different champions in the last 6 seasons. Russia: 4 different champions in the last 7 seasons. Portugal: 4 different champions in the last 8 seasons. Romania: 4 different champions in the last 6 seasons. Belgium: 4 different champions in the last 7 seasons. Czech Rep: 3 different winners in the last 5 seasons. Switzerland: 10 different champions in the last 24 seasons. Bulgaria: 3 different champions in the last 5 seasons, and 5 in the last 12. Norway: 3 different champions in the last 3 seasons. Denmark: 4 different champions in the last 10 seasons. Austria: 5 different champions in the last 7 seasons. Closer to home are: Ukraine with 3 in 15 years, with only 2 in the last 14. Greece also with 3 in the last 15 years and only 2 in the last 14. And then there's us, where you have to go back 24 seasons to find our third different champion, and 44 to find our fifth. Oh and we have the two most successful teams of all time, with 93 league championships between them, leaving just 19 for the rest of us. And yet somehow their success is deemed to be good for Scottish football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 When Celtic did it I really wanted them to win the final.....and they certainly never spouted any "good for Scottish football" pesh. Funny that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Thats what a sane man would do... Its funny. When Celtic did it I really wanted them to win the final, theirs seems like a much more honest cup run, and they certainly never spouted any "good for Scottish football" pesh. But this Rangers team are just disgusting, in almost every way. Barry "no bookings" Ferguson, Nacho "deflection" Novo, ... Kirk Broadfoot will play in a European final ffs! Anyway, as I understand it the coefficient is affected by results, and since this magnificent run consists of 2 wins, 5 draws and 1 defeat and winning the final will count for as much as winning one leg in the first knockout round, they haven't really done much for us and I hope they get stuffed! How can they possibly say that the widening of the gap within Scottish football is good for it? Whats more embarassing - having the most predictable league in Europe or making Rangers play 4 league games in a week, AFTER the UEFA final which everyone is supposedly so worried about their preparation? In the current top 20 leagues in Europe, going by the coefficients, its clear to see where the embarrassment lies. England: 3 different champions in the last 5 seasons. Spain: 3 different champions in the last 5 seasons, and 4 in the last 9. Italy: 5 different champions in the last 9 seasons. France: 8 different champions in the last 17 seasons. Holland: 3 different champions in the last 10 seasons. Germany: 5 different champions in the last 11 seasons. Turkey: 3 different champions in the last 6 seasons. Russia: 4 different champions in the last 7 seasons. Portugal: 4 different champions in the last 8 seasons. Romania: 4 different champions in the last 6 seasons. Belgium: 4 different champions in the last 7 seasons. Czech Rep: 3 different winners in the last 5 seasons. Switzerland: 10 different champions in the last 24 seasons. Bulgaria: 3 different champions in the last 5 seasons, and 5 in the last 12. Norway: 3 different champions in the last 3 seasons. Denmark: 4 different champions in the last 10 seasons. Austria: 5 different champions in the last 7 seasons. Closer to home are: Ukraine with 3 in 15 years, with only 2 in the last 14. Greece also with 3 in the last 15 years and only 2 in the last 14. And then there's us, where you have to go back 24 seasons to find our third different champion, and 44 to find our fifth. Oh and we have the two most successful teams of all time, with 93 league championships between them, leaving just 19 for the rest of us. And yet somehow their success is deemed to be good for Scottish football You miss the basic point of the "GOOD FOR SCOTTISH FOOTBALL" quote. Rankgers and Celtic are unfortunately seen as Scottish football. So the quote though dumb is based on the history of the game in this country and therefore the truth. The rest of us are seen as second class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 It's because of the coefficient. I trust this clarifies matters to your satisfaction. Indeed although the difference one more game would make isn't huge taking the average for the season from 10.25 to 10.75. That would have no effect on the current standings but it might well make the difference of one place at some point over the next 5 seasons Over the last 3 years the totals are 8th Portugal: 21.511 9th: Scotland: 21.250 10th: Netherlands: 20.797 So a Rangers win would move Scotland from slightly behind to slightly ahead in the race to be ranked eighth in two years time. Even a draw would make it as close to level as is conceivable. For the Hun-hating fan of a different Scottish Team the ideal result might be Rangers to Lose on Penalties as that would mean that the Scottish Coefficient would still rise by 0.25 (Thanks to one more draw) but you wouldn't have to put up with them actually winning the damn thing. Certainly if you feel duty bound to cheer on Rangers "purely for the sake of the coefficient" you will be free of that duty as soon as the game moves into extra time. Personally I'll adopt the same stance I did for the Bhigots in Seville. If they win I'll applaud their achievement but I'll laugh heartily at them if the make a mess of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share Posted May 8, 2008 It's because of the coefficient. I trust this clarifies matters to your satisfaction. Bloody hell!!! Chick Young DOES post on here!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Coefficient schmoefficient. Having teams like Motherwell in Europe will only serve to drop it right back down again. The only way we can hope to compete in Europe is by having a competitive domestic league in the first place. Why is everyone so keen for European success for Scottish clubs when our domestic competition is chronic? The SPL is Scottish football's bread and butter and its an absolute disgrace. Sort that out and give the fans of all clubs something to get excited about before trying to force us to get excited by the OF in Europe. My team 1st, other teams 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh ah grantona Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 surley a scottish team winning something is good in europe (yes they may spout there english crap but at the end of the day they represnt scotland if they like it or not) lets face it next season our qualifiers are rangers+celtic champs league mwell+qos uefa and hibs intertattie so we will have another joke season in europe and i am having a go at us to. We need hibs to get to uefa mwell to do something cos queens are out. if all scots clubs do well in europe maybe teamslike us aberdeen hibs dundee utd and well can scrap for 2/3 uefa places in cup and league and a fall back of tattie cup for me im right behind rangers. Do you know the last 3 years a first div club has represented scotland in europe maybe more than 3 this is a joke and shows how much of a joke scottish top flight clubs are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted May 8, 2008 Share Posted May 8, 2008 Sorry for the inacuracy I was working from the figures in the Bertie Kassies Team Coefficient list which isn't bang up to date (It doesn't feature Dunfermline for instance). If you ignore Rangers and Celtics Results back of an envelope calculations suggest a coefficient of about 9 (5+5+1+1+6=18 Points)/2 Teams per year We'd be down around 30th on the list near the likes of Finland and Latvia who get one place in the early Champions League Qualifiers and another 2 UEFA cup places. So The Old Firms presence mean the rest of us are fighting for the remaining 2 places as opposed to 3. The boost to the coefficient by having these miniature giants in the league is more than offset by the fact that they take the benefits from it. They're going to have to pick up their European performances a bit further before they can claim to not be holding the rest of us back. Actually as Flimsy points out Qualifying games count to the National coefficient so the averages for the rest of Scotland are 2003/04: 3.50 (Hearts 5,Dundee FC 2) 2004/05: 2.75 (Hearts 5,Dunfermline Athletic 0.5) 2005/06: 1.00 (Dundee United 1,Hibernian 1) 2006/07: 1.50 (Hearts 2.5,Gretna FC 0.5) 2007/08: 3.25 (Aberdeen 6,Dunfermline Athletic 0.5) Giving a total Coefficient of 12 rather than 9 which would put us just behind Poland who are 25th on 12.041. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.