calscot 0 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I think it's a bit harsh. The English league has been dominated by two clubs for a decade and now it's only improved to three with the help of a Russian billionaire (which is a bit of a joke). The only reason they are in the last stages of the CL is the ludicrous amount of money they get from tv. Scotland cannot compete with England in terms of spectator population but I don't see how that makes us a joke? In fact the joke's on England when you consider how close we are to them, despite the huge population difference. The other joke is that despite having a decent enough product in our own country, that so many of our population choose to follow and invest in an already wealthy league in a neighbouring country. It'll never happen but what we really need is a third big team from either Edinburgh, Dundee or Aberdeen to at least semi compete consistently with the OF. That way we'll match the likes of the Portugese and Dutch leagues for competition - and the English league too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I think it's a bit harsh. The English league has been dominated by two clubs for a decade and now it's only improved to three with the help of a Russian billionaire (which is a bit of a joke). The only reason they are in the last stages of the CL is the ludicrous amount of money they get from tv. Scotland cannot compete with England in terms of spectator population but I don't see how that makes us a joke? In fact the joke's on England when you consider how close we are to them, despite the huge population difference. The other joke is that despite having a decent enough product in our own country, that so many of our population choose to follow and invest in an already wealthy league in a neighbouring country. It'll never happen but what we really need is a third big team from either Edinburgh, Dundee or Aberdeen to at least semi compete consistently with the OF. That way we'll match the likes of the Portugese and Dutch leagues for competition - and the English league too. Agreed,however the glamour is not in Scottish football to attract the players,which is quite sad really that some players choose the EPL for money reasons instead of coming to Celtic,Rangers to play in europe and win some medals,but it's a fact,hence the reason Cousin wants to move Fulham instead of winning trophies and playing CL football with Rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juffery 0 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I think it's a bit harsh. The English league has been dominated by two clubs for a decade and now it's only improved to three with the help of a Russian billionaire (which is a bit of a joke). The only reason they are in the last stages of the CL is the ludicrous amount of money they get from tv. Scotland cannot compete with England in terms of spectator population but I don't see how that makes us a joke? In fact the joke's on England when you consider how close we are to them, despite the huge population difference. The other joke is that despite having a decent enough product in our own country, that so many of our population choose to follow and invest in an already wealthy league in a neighbouring country. It'll never happen but what we really need is a third big team from either Edinburgh, Dundee or Aberdeen to at least semi compete consistently with the OF. That way we'll match the likes of the Portugese and Dutch leagues for competition - and the English league too. What makes it laughable is the fact that a top flight club can only get an attendance of 501. Another club has had to close their ground for a month because of the poor state of the pitch and this affects 2 teams as another is groud sharing because they don't even have a stadium fit for professional top flight football. In Edinburgh there is a club with a foriegn owner who in 2 and a half years has seen a team built by a promising manager, chased said manager out the club, then taken over the managerial duties himself whilst hiding behind numerous managers/head coaches/interim head coaches/caretaker managers and run the team and virtually the club into the ground whilst the SPL/SFA/SFL triumverate stand back and watch. We have 42 clubs in the four leagues up here with a population of just over 5million. England has 92 clubs with a population of, I think about 60 million (this could be wrong, I'll check in a moment). We're kidding ourselves if we think that those numbers work. 2 leagues of 16, 3 up and 3 down, a pyramid system in place to allow junior clubs into the football league and, despite the euphoria of yesterday, the scrapping of the League Cup is what is needed to start rebuilding our game into an attractive, competitive competition. I was right about the population of England - 60,776,238 as of July '07. 12 times pour population but roughly double the number of clubs - those figures just don't add up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,330 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I was right about the population of England - 60,776,238 as of July '07. That's the population of the UK. England is around 50 million. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juffery 0 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 That's the population of the UK. England is around 50 million. Tell that to Google :cheers: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,330 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Tell that to Google :cheers: I did. The first site that it came up with was the government's own site which states that the UK's population is 60m and England's is 50m. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
juffery 0 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 I did. The first site that it came up with was the government's own site which states that the UK's population is 60m and England's is 50m. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=6 Ah, see I just asked the question, what is the population of England and that's the figure it gave me. I'll sue them, what with their shamrock covered St Patricks Day theme!!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 In fact the joke's on England when you consider how close we are to them, despite the huge population difference. . Who do you mean when you say this? The national team or our top flight clubs? The national team arent that far off but on a one game (that internationals mainly are) then there are so many countries who can beat there opposition on there day. Most countries are always going to gather 11 good players. However you dont see England playing many players who are eligible through grandmothers etc. But out top flight clubs are nowhere near Englands. Can you imagine St Mirren playing Everton 4 times a season or Kilmarnock against Tottenham? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,330 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Ah, see I just asked the question, what is the population of England and that's the figure it gave me. I'll sue them, what with their shamrock covered St Patricks Day theme!!!! It's not what you use but how you use it... ....as I'm sure our goalie would say. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Maybe my analysis is a few years out of date as Everton and Spurs now spend a bit more money than both the old firm due to 50M worth of Television money. However, only a few years ago the OF were richer and better than all but about 4 teams in England. In fact, judging by Europe, the OF are still 5th and 6th best teams in Britain this season. Sometimes the OF struggle against Kilmarnock and St Mirren and so why should those English clubs fair any better? There is plenty of evidence to suggest they'd do a lot worse - especially when you consider the OF's recent record against top English teams. I also remember Bayern having a tough task against Raith Rovers of all teams before easily sweeping aside Middlesbrough in the next round. So yes I can imagine those teams meeting 4 times a season as I've been watching the OF doing it for decades. As for us using the grandparents rule, you're way out of order. Scotland were the LAST country in the WORLD to use this rule. Not long agao we used to only use the parent rule as did England, while every single other country in the world used the grand parent rule. However, England were not as "pure" as Scotland as they played two players from the channel islands and a Jamaican. So not only do England not rule out the Grandparent rule they have used the naturalisation rule as well. It's also a harsh statement as when you're comparing 25M males to choose from, from which you shouldn't need the Grandparents rule so much, with 2.5M and one of the smallest populations around when you can see the point more. In fact, name one country above Scotland in the rankings with a smaller population? You'll probably have to go quite far below us to find one. England have plenty of smaller countries above them. So basically I completely disagree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.