Ok, so here's a football related post. Looking at people who subscribe to my blog, I don't imagine it will be one of my most popular, but hopefully it will put a point across to others who do take an interest in football. These are the people for whom this blog is intended.. Also if occurs to me that I haven't posted a blog in ages. So hi. Good to be back.
As you will know, Rangers Football Club recently went into administration. This came about as a result of them failing to pay PAYE to the tune of approximately £9m. It has also emerged recently that Rangers owner Craig Whyte, Motherwell born Billionaire, Millionaire or 'thousandaire' depending on which newspaper you read and how gullible you are, has sold (not mortgaged, SOLD) 4 years worth or Rangers season tickets, depriving them of their main source of income for the next 4 years while bringing in £24m pounds which seems to have gone missing. They are also awaiting the results of a tax case relating to the use of EBTs since 2001, which could land them with a bill of between £49m and £75m. Liquidation looks inevitable.
But what does this mean for Scottish football? All week I've heard about how the powers that be will be doing everything they can to try and save Rangers, how Scottish football needs a strong Rangers and how Celtic could never survive without them. Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell made it clear at the start of the week that financially, Celtic would manage just fine without Rangers. It seems obvious, however, that initially, Scottish football would suffer without Rangers. The 'Old Firm' are the only two teams who are ever in the running for the SPL title; it's been this way since the late 1980s. No Rangers would mean Celtic would be certainties to win the League every year, which would make Scottish football extremely boring, and may even take something of the shine off the title celebrations for Celtic fans. However, I believe that ultimately, the demise of Rangers would be a good thing for Scottish football.
Let's look first at Celtic and how we would improve from not having Rangers in the league. Many people have pointed to the Sky TV money which we would lose if there were no Rangers, and hence no Old Firm games. Firstly, I'd like to point out that no Old Firm games wouldn't necessarily mean Sky withdrawing interest. There's no doubt that these games are the primary attraction in Scottish football, but that doesn't mean they're the only attraction. Sky also show Irish, Welsh and lower league English football, as well as some other Scottish games (just this weekend, in fact, Aberdeen v St Johnstone was shown on Sky Sports 1). Sky need to look at their market. A large number of that market will be Rangers fans. Another significant proportion will not support a Scottish team, but will follow Scottish football due to the Old Firm rivalry. However, a large proportion will also be Celtic fans, who will follow the team regardless of how poor the opposition is. There will be also be fans of other teams who relish the rare opportunity to see their team on TV. So while interest in Scottish football may drop generally, there's no guarantee that Sky would withdraw their interest. Besides, revenue from Sky accounts for less than 2% of Celtic's annual income, so we wouldn't be hit too hard from the lack of TV revenue. Now, in the past 3 years Celtic have not won the league. We came closest last season and are almost certain to win it this season. This is with a very talented squad of young players, assembled for very little. Key players last season were the likes of Hooper, Stokes, Kayal, Commons and Izaguirre, all of whom cost very little. The likes of Wanyama and Matthews have also come in for little money this season. Both of these players are under 21, and were relatively unknown before coming here. I think this shows that even if our income dropped, Celtic would still be able to maintain a strong squad.
But would our income drop? Remember, we haven't won the league since 2008. Prize money for winning the league is something in the region of £10m, a figure we'd be all but guaranteed to bring in with no Rangers to challenge us for the title.
But why strengthen the squad if there's no quality competition for the league? Well, the answer should be quite obvious; Europe. Glorious European nights have always been an integral part of Celtic's history, from the days of old when we beat the likes of Leeds and Liverpool, and of course winning and losing the final of the European Cup in the 60s/70s, to the modern days, when we were beating the likes of Juventus, A C Milan and Man UTD at Celtic Park, as well as reaching the UEFA cup final. Recently we haven't made an impact on Europe, largely due to our lack of League wins. Winning the title this season would put us in a good position to qualify for the group stage. I wouldn't expect us to reach the last 16 just yet, but based on our European exploits from this season, I think we could give teams a real game. This season, we were in easily the toughest Europa League group, playing 3 teams who wouldn't look out of place in the Champions League. We picked up a total of 6 points, which unfortunately wasn't enough to see us through to the next stage. However, we gave a good account of ourselves, creating some really good chances in each game as well as picking up a couple of rare European away points. Many of the goals we conceded were down to individual errors. The opening goal away to Athletico, when we were unable to defend a set piece, the absurd own goal from Cha against Rennes, the goal at home against Athletico when Kayal ducked on the line, and the goal away to Udinese when Cha headed the ball straight to the Udinese attacker. If we eliminate all these goals, as well as the goal at home to Udinese, which was a frankly dreadful penalty decision, this would have seen us pick up 13 points, easily enough to take us through. We have undoubtedly improved defensively since then, and some wise reinvestment of our SPL winnings in that area would set us in good stead for our Champions League challenge. This would mean not only would we get some more glorious European nights, but we would maintain Scotland's UEFA coefficient, allowing us to continue qualifying for the Champions League.
But what of the rest? Well, I feel it would be much the same story. Motherwell look like the 'best of the rest' in Scotland right now. I think they'd be sure to finish second this season if there were no Rangers, and may even manage it with Rangers still there. Finishing second would put them in qualifying for the Europa League. In addition, they would receive additional prize money for their higher league position. I believe the current prize money for finishing first is £10m. I don't have the exact figures for the rest, but you can find percentage breakdowns here: http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Rules%20at%2012-May-10%20%5BCURRENT%5D.pdf (scroll to page 31).
If the figure of £10m is correct then second place would take around £8.25m, which is pretty big money for a club like Motherwell. This money would allow them to bring in players of a higher quality, who would also likely be attracted by the chance to play in Europe. Given that the opportunity to play in the Europa League would bring in additional revenue in the form of ticket sales and TV revenue, Motherwell would continue to improve their squad, maybe to the point at which they would be able to challenge Celtic for the title.
But it's not just Motherwell. While at the moment, it's pretty much guaranteed that Celtic and Rangers will occupy first and second place each season, there's no guarantee as to who will finish in the places below that. Dundee UTD are usually challengers. They currently sit well off the pace in seventh. Hibs put in a real challenge not so long ago; they're currently battling relegation. Just 6 years ago Hearts split the Old Firm to finish second. Aberdeen were playing Bayern Munich in Europe in 2008. All these sides feel that they can push for 3rd place, if not now then in a few years, after some improvement which definitely seems to be necessary for the likes of Hibs and Aberdeen. If these sides mount a challenge for second in Rangers absence, then they too will improve in the same way as described by Motherwell above.
Finally, there are social reasons for Rangers' demise being a good thing. Rangers football club bleeds sectarianism and hatred. They didn't sign a Catholic player until 1989, and this was met by uproar. I don't believe that all of the Rangers support are inherently anti-Catholic or sectarian, but when you support a club founded on sectarian principles, you're going to feel that you should hold those views. The club itself has always been sectarian, and this bleeds onto the terraces. If the club was no longer there, then eventually, Scotland's sectarian problems would decrease dramatically. I feel that if Rangers no longer existed, future generations of Rangers fans who would otherwise hold the same bigoted, anti-Catholic views that you see on the terraces today, would not in fact hold those views, as there would be no football club for them to use as an outlet or justification for their hatred.
So next time you're watching a Rangers game, and you hear chants of 'up to our knees in Fenian blood', 'Fuck the Pope' or 'The Famine's over, why don't you go home', next time Rangers have a European tie in your city which results in fighting, vandalism and leaves the city a complete mess, ask yourself, is society really better off WITH this football club?
I wonder what answer the people of Manchester would give.
