Motherwell v Rangers.

[Only a Game]

I reckon our teams of 98 or 86 would be good enough to win this league today, not sure about the 06 team because it's potential was never fully realised with the crazy sacking of Burley.

 

Very true.

 

The Celtic teams of 86 and 98 were infinetly better than the current one and we were damn close to winning it both years.

 

The 05/06 team were more than a quarter of the way through the season and were peeshing it. Its an eternal arguement as to whether we'd have won it or not. It was certainly there to be won that season as well !!

[Charlie-Brown]

Not easy by any means (as I said) but certainly not the impossible task it was just a few short years ago.

 

It's certainly possible OaG however it will always be VERY DIFFICULT for any team to beat the Old Firm to the SPL title in Scotland as that means you have to beat BOTH OF teams and that has historically proven to be difficult / rare.

 

However the possibility of beating one of them in any given season is much higher (ie finishing 2nd) and that would mean the 'possibility' of some champions league football IF you could get past the deadly 3rd qualifying round (hard given our co-efficient) but as importantly even if we / someone else finshed 2nd then we would materially harm which Old Firm team beaten to 2nd place as they would guaranteed be down ?5M - ?10M lost Champions league income and some of their player contracts are predicated on that.

[King of the North]

Very true.

 

The Celtic teams of 86 and 98 were infinetly better than the current one and we were damn close to winning it both years.

 

The 05/06 team were more than a quarter of the way through the season and were peeshing it. Its an eternal arguement as to whether we'd have won it or not. It was certainly there to be won that season as well !!

 

All speculation - but imo we would have won it that season. And there has not been a better squad in the SPL since then. Seriously - we could have been looking at ourt third title on the bounce. It all goes back to that horrific saturday morning in oct 2005...

[shaun.lawson]

There's a slightly encouraging side to all this.

 

As we speak Rangers and Celtic have both dropped 25 points this season. It used to be that one or the other of them skated the title, had it wrapped up by February at the latest, and didnt drop more than 10-15 points.

 

I think, if Hearts, or any other team for that matter could hang on to their coat-tails until March or therabouts, and they were both involved in Europe until then, there would be a really good chance to nip in and win the title.

 

Easier said than done of course, especially the state we are in just now, but I think its still there for the winning if a non OF club really got its act together.

 

Unhappily, I don't agree. Yes, they've each dropped 25 points - but that still means the title's going to be won with 89! And under the current setup, I will be astonished if Hearts ever accrue more than 76 (ie. two per game) in any given season. Even after winning our first eight games on the spin in 05/6, we still only ended up with 74; and picked up 67 points from 36 games (comfortably less than 2 pts/game) in 97/8, the most glorious season of my young Hearts supporting life.

 

The bottom line is, even if the OF don't have the money to make major signings, the rest of us still have far less. As such, Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen and Dundee United are in the same position as Spurs, Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Lazio, Boavista and others: winning the domestic title is no longer within our compass, and as long as the CL is around, the situation is likely to get worse.

[shaun.lawson]

All speculation - but imo we would have won it that season. And there has not been a better squad in the SPL since then. Seriously - we could have been looking at ourt third title on the bounce. It all goes back to that horrific saturday morning in oct 2005...

 

Except that without Vlad, we'd never have made the signings that catapulted us into contention - and Vlad's plan was never to allow such spending to continue. With him at the helm, a serious title challenge was never, ever a possibility: and those first ten games of 05/6 merely an illusion of what life could've been like under a different sugardaddy.

 

Oh, and we had a class first eleven - but in squad terms, were way, way too thin, as Burley was very well aware. In terms of quantity, Celtic were comfortably ahead of us, as I'm certain would have ultimately told had GB been allowed to remain.

[Charlie-Brown]

Unhappily, I don't agree. Yes, they've each dropped 25 points - but that still means the title's going to be won with 89! And under the current setup, I will be astonished if Hearts ever accrue more than 76 (ie. two per game) in any given season. Even after winning our first eight games on the spin in 05/6, we still only ended up with 74; and picked up 67 points from 36 games (comfortably less than 2 pts/game) in 97/8, the most glorious season of my young Hearts supporting life.

 

The bottom line is, even if the OF don't have the money to make major signings, the rest of us still have far less. As such, Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen and Dundee United are in the same position as Spurs, Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Lazio, Boavista and others: winning the domestic title is no longer within our compass, and as long as the CL is around, the situation is likely to get worse.

 

No Shaun it's not impossible but we'd have to have an exceptional season in conjunction to them having a much poorer season (a rare combination) probably likely once a decade or 15 years - however any team that can make the breakthrough can start to hurt at least one of the others (ie the one that is denied any champions league money) and it is also much easier to SPLIT the Old Firm than beat both of them. ie 2nd is much more realistic and achievable than 1st.....denying an OF team Champs League money on a fairly regular basis could drag them much closer back to the pack?

[King of the North]

Except that without Vlad, we'd never have made the signings that catapulted us into contention - and Vlad's plan was never to allow such spending to continue. With him at the helm, a serious title challenge was never, ever a possibility: and those first ten games of 05/6 merely an illusion of what life could've been like under a different sugardaddy.

 

Oh, and we had a class first eleven - but in squad terms, were way, way too thin, as Burley was very well aware. In terms of quantity, Celtic were comfortably ahead of us, as I'm certain would have ultimately told had GB been allowed to remain.

 

That is probably very true. Was an unbelievable few weeks though... was nice to be unbeatable.

[shaun.lawson]

Very true.

 

The Celtic teams of 86 and 98 were infinetly better than the current one and we were damn close to winning it both years.

 

The 05/06 team were more than a quarter of the way through the season and were peeshing it. Its an eternal arguement as to whether we'd have won it or not. It was certainly there to be won that season as well !!

 

Pishing it? After 10 games, following a defeat of Rangers, brilliant draw at Parkhead, and winning our first eight matches on the bounce, we were still only three points clear! We were operating at absolute full pelt with a desperately thin squad; Celtic had struggled badly, but could only get better. Had Burley stayed, I'm sure we'd have finished a more challenging 2nd - but actually winning the title would've been a bridge too far.

[shaun.lawson]

That is probably very true. Was an unbelievable few weeks though... was nice to be unbeatable.

 

Oh, absolutely. Now, it feels like another age: will we ever see a team as good as that again?

[The Old Tolbooth]

Very true.

 

The Celtic teams of 86 and 98 were infinetly better than the current one and we were damn close to winning it both years.

 

The 05/06 team were more than a quarter of the way through the season and were peeshing it. Its an eternal arguement as to whether we'd have won it or not. It was certainly there to be won that season as well !!

 

I wouldn't say we were peeshing it, but we certainly had an outstanding chance, however I like to tell myself that we would have lost out in the end anyway, because if I think of what could have been I just get depressed.

[King of the North]

Oh, absolutely. Now, it feels like another age: will we ever see a team as good as that again?

 

Not under the current regime; and unless there is a more benevolent and less bonkers Russian millionaire out there waiting to move to Gorgie, probably not ever. Christ that's depressing...

[shaun.lawson]

No Shaun it's not impossible but we'd have to have an exceptional season in conjunction to them having a much poorer season (a rare combination) probably likely once a decade or 15 years - however any team that can make the breakthrough can start to hurt at least one of the others (ie the one that is denied any champions league money) and it is also much easier to SPLIT the Old Firm than beat both of them. ie 2nd is much more realistic and achievable than 1st.....denying an OF team Champs League money on a fairly regular basis could drag them much closer back to the pack?

 

But it presupposes we'd be able to hang onto the freakishly gifted players who'd enabled us to finish 2nd: but they'd be off to either the OF or, much more likely, the EPL. Challenging the uglies over a sustained period demands an outlay no non-OF club are capable of spending - and only if they're split consistently could things really change. And sadly, I don't think anyone could do it in more than one one-off year - which in the great scheme of things, will make little difference. Take a look around Europe: in every league, the rich just get richer, and the gap to the rest grows and grows.

[Only a Game]

Unhappily, I don't agree. Yes, they've each dropped 25 points - but that still means the title's going to be won with 89! And under the current setup, I will be astonished if Hearts ever accrue more than 76 (ie. two per game) in any given season. Even after winning our first eight games on the spin in 05/6, we still only ended up with 74; and picked up 67 points from 36 games (comfortably less than 2 pts/game) in 97/8, the most glorious season of my young Hearts supporting life.

 

The bottom line is, even if the OF don't have the money to make major signings, the rest of us still have far less. As such, Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen and Dundee United are in the same position as Spurs, Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Lazio, Boavista and others: winning the domestic title is no longer within our compass, and as long as the CL is around, the situation is likely to get worse.

 

Maybe I am just taking a simple view of it.

 

I agree that one of the keys is games against the Old Firm themselves. We'd have to at least split the points with them and probably take more from them than they took from us. To me that means beating them twice at Tynecastle AND picking up at least a point from one of the two away games against each of them. Thats hard, we've never done it before that I am aware of and its bloody hard, but not impossible.

 

The rest is down to winning your home games, beating the bottom six home and away and avoiding more than a couple of freak results. Again, thats bloody hard, but its not impossible.

 

What I agree IS impossible is for a club outwith the Old Firm to have a period, even a relatively short one, of domination, winning a few titles on the trot cannot possibly be achieved in my opinion (their financial reliance and set up just couldnt cope with it and it wouldnt be allowed to happen unless we could match their finanical resources.) but I'm getting kinda old and frankly, one title would do for me.

 

Its a bit of a pointless discussion right now because we are nowhere near being in a position to contemplate a serious challenge and I doubt thats going to change anytime soon.

[Charlie-Brown]

Oh, absolutely. Now, it feels like another age: will we ever see a team as good as that again?

 

Of course we will everything goes in cycles...........let's go round again.

[shaun.lawson]

Not under the current regime; and unless there is a more benevolent and less bonkers Russian millionaire out there waiting to move to Gorgie, probably not ever. Christ that's depressing...

 

Sure. But, as long as it's under an owner who actually wants the best for the club and prioritises us winning games above all else, I have no problem whatsoever with us learning to live within our means at last. Frankly, it defies belief that we still haven't fully learnt this lesson after over two decades of boom and bust: a cycle which led to us almost selling our home.

 

And moreover, as I've written before, I strongly believe a European Super League will come into being sooner rather than later. The group stages of the CL are just too predictable, and the biggest leagues in Europe dominated by a select few. This is bound to impact on TV audiences eventually - indeed, I actually believe SKY will end up as a driving force behind a Super League. At which point, the OF depart to join this competition; and the rest of us are left in a new, genuinely competitive title race, with the carrot of prolonged success and expansion of the club leading, maybe, to a place in, say, Super League Division Two eventually.

[Jamboy81]

I cant believe Hearts are cropping up in a discussion about league titles.... laughable. Hearts are total pish and will to well to challenge for a top 6 place next season. Only my opinion off course

[shaun.lawson]

Maybe I am just taking a simple view of it.

 

I agree that one of the keys is games against the Old Firm themselves. We'd have to at least split the points with them and probably take more from them than they took from us. To me that means beating them twice at Tynecastle AND picking up at least a point from one of the two away games against each of them. Thats hard, we've never done it before that I am aware of and its bloody hard, but not impossible.

 

The rest is down to winning your home games, beating the bottom six home and away and avoiding more than a couple of freak results. Again, thats bloody hard, but its not impossible.

 

What I agree IS impossible is for a club outwith the Old Firm to have a period, even a relatively short one, of domination, winning a few titles on the trot cannot possibly be achieved in my opinion (their financial reliance and set up just couldnt cope with it and it wouldnt be allowed to happen unless we could match their finanical resources.) but I'm getting kinda old and frankly, one title would do for me.

 

Its a bit of a pointless discussion right now because we are nowhere near being in a position to contemplate a serious challenge and I doubt thats going to change anytime soon.

 

On your last point, I absolutely concur. But while I want to agree with what you've written above, I simply can't. Put it this way: if it's "bloody hard, but not impossible", why have the same four clubs finished in the EPL's top four for four of the last five years? And can you honestly envisage anyone other than that elite winning the EPL ever again?

[Charlie-Brown]

But it presupposes we'd be able to hang onto the freakishly gifted players who'd enabled us to finish 2nd: but they'd be off to either the OF or, much more likely, the EPL. Challenging the uglies over a sustained period demands an outlay no non-OF club are capable of spending - and only if they're split consistently could things really change. And sadly, I don't think anyone could do it in more than one one-off year - which in the great scheme of things, will make little difference. Take a look around Europe: in every league, the rich just get richer, and the gap to the rest grows and grows.

 

 

Yes it would be very very difficult and most non Old Firm teams WOULD pay the price of success ie struggle to retain players who could move either to england or be tempted by OF offers (even if that is only to weaken the competitor) - It would take strong management both at club and team level as well as an excellent youth development and player recruitment strategy over a 5-10 year period......Dundee Utd AND Aberdeen achieved this in the period 1978-1988 and I agree football and the commercial differences are massively different now -even player contracts are different but.....

 

The new firm were excellent at developing their own players and they also signed very good players without competing head on with either of the Old Firm for signing targets or wages offered....they looked for value where the Old Firm didn't look.

 

These principles are not time specific however even the brief New Firm period required sustained EXCELLANCE at those clubs but they did manage to drag the Old Firm nearer to the pack becuase they denied the Old Firm their traditional 'winning' years.........

 

But yes it is a MASSIVE challenge

[Only a Game]

Pishing it? After 10 games, following a defeat of Rangers, brilliant draw at Parkhead, and winning our first eight matches on the bounce, we were still only three points clear! We were operating at absolute full pelt with a desperately thin squad; Celtic had struggled badly, but could only get better. Had Burley stayed, I'm sure we'd have finished a more challenging 2nd - but actually winning the title would've been a bridge too far.

 

Okay, without getting into pointless arguement territory,( because none of us really know what would have happened) there was a point when we were six points ahead, that what I meant by pishing it. I agree we had a threadbare squad but we were near unplayable at Tynecastle and I always think back that if we had kept Burley and kept in contention until New year (Actually we were still in contention but the writing was on the wall by then) we'd have got into January and opened another box of instant Burley goodies to take us to the title.

[King of the North]

this might be because I am drunk, in a ' I love you guys' kind of way...

 

but it's heartening to see proper debate on this forum (which imo has been sadly lacking recently) between three such decent, intelligent posters.

 

Shaun, OAG and NMH - respect.

 

I'm off for an alka seltzer...

[smartgair]

ANYONE WHO WANTS SMELLYTIC to win anything was obviously not at dens park that unforgettable day st.midden lay down to the pile of c-ap.

[Charlie-Brown]

Sure. But, as long as it's under an owner who actually wants the best for the club and prioritises us winning games above all else, I have no problem whatsoever with us learning to live within our means at last. Frankly, it defies belief that we still haven't fully learnt this lesson after over two decades of boom and bust: a cycle which led to us almost selling our home.

 

And moreover, as I've written before, I strongly believe a European Super League will come into being sooner rather than later. The group stages of the CL are just too predictable, and the biggest leagues in Europe dominated by a select few. This is bound to impact on TV audiences eventually - indeed, I actually believe SKY will end up as a driving force behind a Super League. At which point, the OF depart to join this competition; and the rest of us are left in a new, genuinely competitive title race, with the carrot of prolonged success and expansion of the club leading, maybe, to a place in, say, Super League Division Two eventually.

 

Your you make a very good post here BUT I disagree with the direction of european football - maybe the big clubs in lesser leagues (ie NOT England / Spain / Germany / Italy) are being left behind BUT unless the big clubs in the biggest countries have appetitie for a breakway then I don't see it happening any time soon - Man Utd would still get bigger crowds against City & Leeds than most CL teams except last 16 onwards - same with Chelsea & Arsenal would get more against Spurs & West Ham than Seville or Lyon etc. I just don't see the demand for it.

[Only a Game]

On your last point, I absolutely concur. But while I want to agree with what you've written above, I simply can't. Put it this way: if it's "bloody hard, but not impossible", why have the same four clubs finished in the EPL's top four for four of the last five years? And can you honestly envisage anyone other than that elite winning the EPL ever again?

 

I'm talking about winning it on a one off basis. For that I accept that a lot of factors have to fall into place at once, and over the course of a season. Those factors are A. Having a squad of decent enough quality to be assured of beating the "rest" on all but freak occasions B. Both of the Old Firm teams being average or below by their own standards and C. Getting lucky with things like suspensions injuries and refereeing decisions.

 

Those things IMO and yours are impossible to sustain over a period of years, but its not that outrageous to think it might happen on a one off basis.

[Only a Game]

this might be because I am drunk, in a ' I love you guys' kind of way...

 

but it's heartening to see proper debate on this forum (which imo has been sadly lacking recently) between three such decent, intelligent posters.

 

Shaun, OAG and NMH - respect.

 

I'm off for an alka seltzer...

 

Youre a very nice young man...........Sleep well !!

[Charlie-Brown]

Even the champions league has it's once or twice a decade clubs that shouldn't win it ie not from England / Spain / Italy / Germany.....Marseille / Ajax / Porto are 3 examples of such clubs - look at any other league then there is always the possibility of a shock outsider nabbing the title in any decade......it's hard but do-able even if a lot of difficulties and prejudices have to be overcome.

[Only a Game]

Your you make a very good post here BUT I disagree with the direction of european football - maybe the big clubs in lesser leagues (ie NOT England / Spain / Germany / Italy) are being left behind BUT unless the big clubs in the biggest countries have appetitie for a breakway then I don't see it happening any time soon - Man Utd would still get bigger crowds against City & Leeds than most CL teams except last 16 onwards - same with Chelsea & Arsenal would get more against Spurs & West Ham than Seville or Lyon etc. I just don't see the demand for it.

 

Dont know much about Spanish, Italian or German domestic football but I'd agree with you on the EPL. Their is proven long term interest in the EPL and undoubtedly long term money for as long as Sky are involved in it. The EPL is also an extreme case of domination by 4 megaclubs who are global corporations, not just clubs. Elsewhere in the big leagues in Europe in the last 20 years theres been a fair variety of winners and serious challengers and you still get a surprise winner now and again.

 

The actual interest in the Champions league, or an extension theroef is, I believe, shorter term and less financially lucrative.

 

As a neutral but interested paying subscriber I'd far rather watch West Ham vs Liverpool on a Sunday afternoon than Bayer Leverksuen vs Chelsea. Subscribers across Europe clearly feel the same because more of them watch their own domestic live football AND the EPL than watch the Champions League. No one is going to vote to lose their domestic football infrastructure

 

You can get a ticket for just about any Champions league group game held in the UK including Old Trafford by simply calling them up and booking one. You'll find getting a ticket for Man Utd vs Reading damn near impossible unless your willing to pay through the nose for it. Thats a good pointer as to where the real long term interest lies IMO.

[Jamboy81]

I'm talking about winning it on a one off basis. For that I accept that a lot of factors have to fall into place at once, and over the course of a season. Those factors are A. Having a squad of decent enough quality to be assured of beating the "rest" on all but freak occasions B. Both of the Old Firm teams being average or below by their own standards and C. Getting lucky with things like suspensions injuries and refereeing decisions.

 

Those things IMO and yours are impossible to sustain over a period of years, but its not that outrageous to think it might happen on a one off basis.

 

The problem Hearts have is for some reason Romanov doesn't want Hearts to be successful. Hearts had the perfect model for success for a small club challenging 2 big clubs 3 years ago ala Villarreal. The setup under Burley was pretty much perfect and adequete to mount a serious challenge, until Romanov deliberately sabotaged the teams chances and the opportunity was gone.

 

In short, there's a better chance of a league title without Vlad compared to with him.

 

It's like taking your driving test with an examiner who's just going to fail you anyway.

[rab_2006]

No, I'm sure there are lots of Rangers fans who want to spend their time on a Hearts board pretending to be Hearts fans.

Grow up FFS.

 

Grow up?? I'm perfectly grown up thank you, if you had spent any time on this forum you would realise what I was alluding to, but never mind some things just go over peoples heads.

[shaun.lawson]

Even the champions league has it's once or twice a decade clubs that shouldn't win it ie not from England / Spain / Italy / Germany.....Marseille / Ajax / Porto are 3 examples of such clubs - look at any other league then there is always the possibility of a shock outsider nabbing the title in any decade......it's hard but do-able even if a lot of difficulties and prejudices have to be overcome.

 

The CL's a knockout competition from the last 16 onwards, so is just about open to surprise winners (though if you look at the semi-final lineup over the last two years, less and less so, it would appear). Some lesser European leagues are still open to one-off triumphs too: Alkmaar almost won last season's Dutch title, Standard Liege - traditionally a distant 3rd - have romped to this season's Belgian championship, and little Sivasspor have achieved wonders in Turkey this year.

 

But Scotland's eternal curse is this: for reasons of historical migration, demographics, religion and politics, what should naturally be a small league is dwarfed by two behemoths who shouldn't, in a population of 5 million, normally belong in such a setup. Effectively, two Super League clubs are playing in a third tier domestic league: something which, given the rampant commercialisation of the modern game, and especially the way Bosman and the Champions League have distorted everything, makes life literally impossible for the rest of us. The need for real competition demands we at least try - but we all know what's happened when we have. Brief semi-success, followed by a horrible financial reckoning.

 

And it's Hearts' curse to be the third biggest club in such a league. On the one hand, we see ourselves as bigger and better than the rest, and natural standard bearers for a real, sustained challenge to Rantic's domination; but on the other, with gates of just 17,000, it's simply ludicrous to think we have any chance of doing it. The equivalent would involve someone like Blackburn winning the English title again: it just isn't feasible, even as a one-off.

[rab_2006]

I actually think it's closer to the mark than you may think.

 

I hate Rangers, Wednesday was a disgrace and had it been any other team other than Celtic that they had handed the title to i'd be pishing myself laughing.

 

However, It is Celtic that are benefiting and my hatred for that club knows no bounds.

 

As I said I cannot stand either side of the OF, Wednesday was a disgrace for this country, however I was at parkhead earlier this season both when we were hammered and at the last game with all the problems with the police and stewards which was equally disgraceful.

They are 2 sides of the same bad coin as far as I am concerned. The problem in all this is every year one of them wins the league, this is where the problem lies with Romanov, we were promised (and in that season nearly given) so much, now it's back to the same old repetitive crap between those two. I would love a competitive league where we had 3 or 4 teams competing for the title every season as long as one of those wasn't hibs!!

[Charlie-Brown]

The CL's a knockout competition from the last 16 onwards, so is just about open to surprise winners (though if you look at the semi-final lineup over the last two years, less and less so, it would appear). Some lesser European leagues are still open to one-off triumphs too: Alkmaar almost won last season's Dutch title, Standard Liege - traditionally a distant 3rd - have romped to this season's Belgian championship, and little Sivasspor have achieved wonders in Turkey this year.

 

But Scotland's eternal curse is this: for reasons of historical migration, demographics, religion and politics, what should naturally be a small league is dwarfed by two behemoths who shouldn't, in a population of 5 million, normally belong in such a setup. Effectively, two Super League clubs are playing in a third tier domestic league: something which, given the rampant commercialisation of the modern game, and especially the way Bosman and the Champions League have distorted everything, makes life literally impossible for the rest of us. The need for real competition demands we at least try - but we all know what's happened when we have. Brief semi-success, followed by a horrible financial reckoning.

 

And it's Hearts' curse to be the third biggest club in such a league. On the one hand, we see ourselves as bigger and better than the rest, and natural standard bearers for a real, sustained challenge to Rantic's domination; but on the other, with gates of just 17,000, it's simply ludicrous to think we have any chance of doing it. The equivalent would involve someone like Blackburn winning the English title again: it just isn't feasible, even as a one-off.

 

Rangers & Celtics massive crowds are a relatively recent phenomenon based on a) new bigger all seated stadia continious 'unbroken' success ..... however BOTH Old Firm clubs attendances can SLUMP drastically when they are not being successful.........

 

I agree that Hearts in a 17K stadium is unsustainable to even try to compete with Rangers & Celtic even short term cos we're almost certain to lose horrific amounts - as I recall Pittodrie at Aberdeens peak could accommodate 20K plus.....any challenger needs to grow not only on the pitch but also off-pitch as well (with this growth being bigger) or else they will inevitably be caught in a deadly combination of losing players to England / OF as well as losing money and then crowds will fall as the team's fortune's decline again.....

 

The Old Firm are behemoths - they are top 10 EPL teams playing in the same division as 3 championship clubs (Hearts Hibs Aberdeen) 2 league one clubs (Dundee Utd & Motherwell) and 5/6 League Two or Conference size teams....it is an incredible mismatch in such a small division - if we had 18-20 teams then you could imagine such a gap between 1st & 20th but between 1st & 12th we have Celtic & Gretna or Celtic & Hamilton next year...says it all really,,,,

[Only a Game]

But Scotland's eternal curse is this: for reasons of historical migration, demographics, religion and politics, what should naturally be a small league is dwarfed by two behemoths who shouldn't, in a population of 5 million, normally belong in such a setup. Effectively, two Super League clubs are playing in a third tier domestic league: something which, given the rampant commercialisation of the modern game, and especially the way Bosman and the Champions League have distorted everything, makes life literally impossible for the rest of us. The need for real competition demands we at least try - but we all know what's happened when we have. Brief semi-success, followed by a horrible financial reckoning.

 

And it's Hearts' curse to be the third biggest club in such a league. On the one hand, we see ourselves as bigger and better than the rest, and natural standard bearers for a real, sustained challenge to Rantic's domination; but on the other, with gates of just 17,000, it's simply ludicrous to think we have any chance of doing it. The equivalent would involve someone like Blackburn winning the English title again: it just isn't feasible, even as a one-off.

 

Aberdeen and Dundee Utd both did it (both without horrible financial consequences when they stopped doing it), Aberdeen more than once. Hearts were within 7 minutes of doing it in 86. The situation you describe concerning the demographic of Scottish football and the apparent gulf in financial muscle was in exactly the same proportions then as it is today.

[shaun.lawson]

Aberdeen and Dundee Utd both did it (both without horrible financial consequences when they stopped doing it), Aberdeen more than once. Hearts were within 7 minutes of doing it in 86. The situation you describe concerning the demographic of Scottish football and the apparent gulf in financial muscle was in exactly the same proportions then as it is today.

 

?!

 

Were Rangers and Celtic raking in millions of Champions League revenue in the 1980s? Were they playing to anything like the gates they do now? And did either have the faintest clue how to maximise their commercial potential?

[Charlie-Brown]

One of the most fundamental things to have changed to competitive dynamics of the SPL in recent times was the Taylor report and the requirement for all seated stadia - prior to that tynecastle for big games could rake in 30K+ now no team in the SPL has a capacity above 18.5K whilst the Old Firm rebuilt their stadiums at 50K+ despite neither ever having had average crowds anywhere near this level prior to that.....

 

EVERY Hearts game played at Murrayfield as brought in crowds 19K-57K even for friendly matches ie bigger than 17,5K Tynecastle can accommondate........if we were being realistic we would see that selling or redeveloping the entire tynecastle site to clear or reduce debts would put us on a much sounder financial footing and playing at Murrayfield would provide us with capacity growth to grow / capitalise on good seasons where we could narrow the economic gap between Hearts & the Old Firm......

[Charlie-Brown]

What we did see was that Hearts relative 'success' in 2005-06 season had some quite profound (negative) financial implications for Glasgow Rangers even with a new hot-european-prospect manager in Le Guen they struggled to finance improvement in their team and it took the old heads & pockets of murray & smith to dig deep & spend bigger to get back to the level they had previously been at ie competing for 1st-2nd in the SPL - they could no longer take this for granted and had to spend(risk) ?10M in transfers and ?20M+ in wages to ensure this.......In any year that the Old Firm don't spend money efficiently then an opportunity will arise - to at least split them .... any non OF team has to be properly placed to do so & being in ?20M-?30M debt and a small stadium isn't the best starting point regardless of who the owner or manager is!

[Only a Game]

?!

 

Were Rangers and Celtic raking in millions of Champions League revenue in the 1980s?

 

No they werent but they were playing regularly in Europe and maximising the revenue that was available at that time through their participation

 

Were they playing to anything like the gates they do now?

 

No they were playing to higher gates, Celtic's capacity then was 67,000. Rangers 54,000. Capacities achieved often in their sucessful years .

 

And did either have the faintest clue how to maximise their commercial potential?

 

No ,but those techniques are not exclusive to Rangers and Celtic.

.

[Charlie-Brown]

All seated stadium brought an increase in average attendances UK wide but especially at the Old Firm whose crowds (average) grew even though they could previously get bigger one-off gates......a study shows that about 30-40 UK clubs who built bigger stadiums than they previously averaged have since enjoyed sustained higher attendances......obviously this is complex and each club circumstance is unique but the general trend is 'build it and they will come'.......

[bighusref]

Shame this thread has went this way IMO.

 

My personal view is that I am a Hearts fan, the default position of that means that I hate every other team in the league, I hate the two Glasgow teams slightly more than the rest, and C*lt!c slightly more than R@ng*rs.

 

This is due to the years of C*lt!c stealing results from us by late goals and the more than ocassional shocking decision. IIRC it happened more than against R@ng*rs.

 

I would laugh my erse off if R@ng*rs, from being in a position for a momentous quadruple managed to fumble the league, preferrably, three of the four remaining trophies. NOT because I want anybody else to win it, entirely because I think it would be fun to laugh at the seemingly high and mighty R@ng*rs, the tactical mastermind that is Smith and the downright hideous Cuellar fall a yard before the line.

[MacDonald Jardine]

Could you expand on what you mean by 'Tim sympathisers'?

 

I mean that many on here adopt what seems to be the kneejerk reaction to the OF:

Rangers = vile, bigoted, racist neanderthals.

Celtic = standard bearers for a poor oppressed minority who proudly celebrate their Irish roots.

 

As I've said on another thread I suspect it is largely to avoid the "bigot" charge from others that leads to this.

 

I can understand the "one is as bad as the other" argument.

Frankly, while having no love of Rangers, my background means I'm closer to them than Celtic. By that I mean I grew up in a Protestant family who came from the west, not that I was brought up to hate Catholics.

Other than the above I can't see any reason to find Rangers more hateful than Celtic, particularly given the Celtic fans' behaviour towards Hearts is far worse than Rangers.

 

NMH: my username is because these two transformed Hearts from a shambles of a club into a top SPL team.

If that makes me a Rangers fan, fine.

[Only a Game]

I mean that many on here adopt what seems to be the kneejerk reaction to the OF:

Rangers = vile, bigoted, racist neanderthals.

Celtic = standard bearers for a poor oppressed minority who proudly celebrate their Irish roots.

 

As I've said on another thread I suspect it is largely to avoid the "bigot" charge from others that leads to this.

 

I can understand the "one is as bad as the other" argument.

Frankly, while having no love of Rangers, my background means I'm closer to them than Celtic. By that I mean I grew up in a Protestant family who came from the west, not that I was brought up to hate Catholics.

Other than the above I can't see any reason to find Rangers more hateful than Celtic, particularly given the Celtic fans' behaviour towards Hearts is far worse than Rangers.

 

NMH: my username is because these two transformed Hearts from a shambles of a club into a top SPL team.

If that makes me a Rangers fan, fine.

 

Meanwhile, through here in the vastly more civilised east, we hate Rangers AND Celtic in roughly equal amounts and one of the prime reasons we do so is because they constantly bring religion into football, as you just did there.

 

Lets get this right, you'll find way more Rangers sympathisers on here than you will Celtic, you know full well why that is. In fact you also know full well that anyone sympathising with Celtic on here, to the extent that some sympathise with Rangers, would be the subject of prolonged abuse and hatred on here.

 

There are no out and out "Tim Lovers" on here as you called them to your shame. Some of us, most of us I'm guessing, look forward to the prospect of one of the vile insitutions falling flat on its feckin horrible face in the next week.

 

So what, the other vile insitution wins it. Thats been happening for years anyway.

[MacDonald Jardine]

Meanwhile, through here in the vastly more civilised east, we hate Rangers AND Celtic in roughly equal amounts and one of the prime reasons we do so is because they constantly bring religion into football, as you just did there.

 

Lets get this right, you'll find way more Rangers sympathisers on here than you will Celtic, you know full well why that is. In fact you also know full well that anyone sympathising with Celtic on here, to the extent that some sympathise with Rangers, would be the subject of prolonged abuse and hatred on here.

 

There are no out and out "Tim Lovers" on here as you called them to your shame. Some of us, most of us I'm guessing, look forward to the prospect of one of the vile insitutions falling flat on its feckin horrible face in the next week.

 

So what, the other vile insitution wins it. Thats been happening for years anyway.

 

Not in the recent past you don't.

[Only a Game]

Not in the recent past you don't.

 

You must be seeing things through your eyes that I'm not seeing through mine.

[monkfish1979]

I mean that many on here adopt what seems to be the kneejerk reaction to the OF:

Rangers = vile, bigoted, racist neanderthals.

Celtic = standard bearers for a poor oppressed minority who proudly celebrate their Irish roots.

 

Posters that disagree can feel free to correct me, but the impression that I get is that the kneejerk reaction to the OF is

 

Rangers - Glaswegian fuds with a god complex.

Celtic - Glaswegian fuds with a persecution complex.

 

OF fans in general - Stinking, toothless, benefit stealing rascals.

 

And I'm not avoiding any sort of bigot accusation. I was brought up an aetheist. I divide my scorn and ridicule equally between all religions.