As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
Herd wrote:It is all about the money but not just the TV Money Celtic and Rangers have been trying to leave the SPL for years because of it .
English Clubs can and do charge more to get in every week ,I dont think the Scottish fans could afford to charge what we charge,certainly not @ Arsenal.
I wouldn't want either sets of the sectarian soap dodgers in the EPL !
Anyone remember those ridiculous ski hat things that people wore in the 80's ?? with two teams on them one scottish ??????????
I had my girlfriend do a rangers half with a celtic one and wore it up there once when we played rangers .........didnt go down very well at all !
Yes I still have one tucked away somewhere. I never did understand it just wore one cause everyone else was
Almunia is a clown wrote:Celtic got 14,399 in a home League Cup quarter final a few weeks back. Arsenal always get much higher gates at home league cup ties usually close to capacity.
No way are the Glasgow pair of bigots bigger than Arsenal nor Liverpool worldwide.
Bit selective there mate
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Almunia is a clown wrote:Celtic got 14,399 in a home League Cup quarter final a few weeks back. Arsenal always get much higher gates at home league cup ties usually close to capacity.
No way are the Glasgow pair of bigots bigger than Arsenal nor Liverpool worldwide.
Bit selective there mate
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Are you saying that we dont represent something wider ? Can you not see that we represent all that is good in financial prudence and FFP ?
Almunia is a clown wrote:Celtic got 14,399 in a home League Cup quarter final a few weeks back. Arsenal always get much higher gates at home league cup ties usually close to capacity.
No way are the Glasgow pair of bigots bigger than Arsenal nor Liverpool worldwide.
Bit selective there mate
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Slightly different seeing as people were getting stabbed left right and centre by Gala kunts but if you're sure
Almunia is a clown wrote:Celtic got 14,399 in a home League Cup quarter final a few weeks back. Arsenal always get much higher gates at home league cup ties usually close to capacity.
No way are the Glasgow pair of bigots bigger than Arsenal nor Liverpool worldwide.
Bit selective there mate
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Slightly different seeing as people were getting stabbed left right and centre by Gala kunts but if you're sure
Slightly exaggerating there mate!
And anyway that wasnt the case in '94. I went to both finals we played there and would say we took a similar number of supporters each time. Even in 2000 I had no trouble at all before the game. But then we went to drink around the harbour area rather than hang around in the square where things turned nasty.
augie wrote:
Are you saying that we dont represent something wider ? Can you not see that we represent all that is good in financial prudence and FFP ?
Well of course, my mistake.
As Arsenal legend Ivan Gazidis says, ''we like to think we do things a little differently to everyone else''.
This is about as new and exciting as the news about all the top clubs wanting to form a European Super League, at the end of the day it's all about the money, not the game itself. When was the last time Scottish clubs made an impact in Europe for example?
I recall about ten or so years ago this got hyped up, and Celtic played Friendlies against Liverpool and Newcastle I think, and got their arse handed to them. At best they are lower PL teams, more realistically Championship teams, they wouldn't last long.
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Yeah but that's because most of them are on the fecking dole and don't have work commitments!!
Also like to point out that although Celtic and Rangers have big fan bases in America, Canada and Australia because of the religious and family associations, they hardly make a ripple in other growing world wide markets like Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. The original comment by the Ranger's chairman was about world-wide support and under every quantifiable measure (shirt sales; estimated fan base etc) albeit not exactly scientific, neither Celtic or Rangers normally show up anywhere near the list of top 10 clubs - as opposed to Arsenal, who are usually in the top half a dozen. Both Celtic and Rangers are massive clubs in the traditional sense but not sure how big they remain in the wider context of World football and this more transitional era .
Almunia is a clown wrote:Celtic got 14,399 in a home League Cup quarter final a few weeks back. Arsenal always get much higher gates at home league cup ties usually close to capacity.
No way are the Glasgow pair of bigots bigger than Arsenal nor Liverpool worldwide.
Bit selective there mate
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Slightly different seeing as people were getting stabbed left right and centre by Gala kunts but if you're sure
Slightly exaggerating there mate!
And anyway that wasnt the case in '94. I went to both finals we played there and would say we took a similar number of supporters each time. Even in 2000 I had no trouble at all before the game. But then we went to drink around the harbour area rather than hang around in the square where things turned nasty.
Sorry, thought you were referring to the 2000 final. I know a fair few people who were loath to go because of the rumoured attendance of other "firms".
Either way this whole argument comes down to what people's definition of a "big club" is. I prefer stats, so to attempt to sort this -
Research by Germany company SPORT+MARKT has revealed an estimation of how many supporters each club has around the world. A sample of 1,000 people from 34 countries has revealed the top 13 football teams with the most fans.
1 Manchester United (354m)
2 Barcelona (270m)
3 Real Madrid (174m)
4 Chelsea (135m)
5 Arsenal (113m)
6 AC Milan (99m)
7 Liverpool (71m)
8 Inter Milan (49m)
9 Bayern Munich (24m)
10 Juventus (20m)
Not even in the top 13 - Man City, the Scum and Newcastle filled those positions.
Or alternatively, let former Rangers director Hugh Adam take it away:
"Rangers' so called global appeal is a myth. When I was there, we did an exercise which involved asking 50,000 fans on the database to recommend a friend or a relative abroad.
"A big response was expected - some were even talking about getting 100,000 names - because everybody in Scotland seems to know somebody abroad.
"We got back 2,800 names and three-quarters of them didn’t know they had been nominated. It’s no surprise that Celtic are officially the best-supported football club in North America, with more official clubs than anybody else. The difference is the Irish connection.
"Many Irish people may support Manchester United, Liverpool or whoever, but they all - every one of them - have an affection for Celtic. And, of course, Celtic also have a great Scottish following.
"The difference is that, while the Irish all have an allegiance to Parkhead, there are millions of Scots who not only don’t support Rangers, but actively dislike them.
"Despite the claims of international appeal, Rangers are, essentially, a West of Scotland club. They talk of supporters’ buses leaving from all parts of Scotland, but if you look closely, you’ll see there aren’t many from each area and they are not all full."
As Hlebby said they're not exactly huge around the globe but the only reason it would even be considered is because North America is one of the (if not THE) holy grail markets for Scudawhore & the old firm's fanbase there would possibly help the Premier League brand as whole to "crack it."
I cant believe any reasonable, sane bastard would be in favour of them being jettisoned into the PL though. If they're that desperate to play here then the bare minimum they should be prepared to do is start at the bottom of the pyramid & work their way up. Fast-tracking them into the top tier would mean an extra 2 teams being relegated from the PL, and in turn another 2 from the championship, 2 from league 1 and so on all the way down the chain. Why should 15+ clubs have their hard-earned places taken away from them and their future's potentially placed in doubt just so those 2 arrogant *word censored* can mosey into town carefree. Imagine if Brian McDermott defied the odds to keep Reading up only for finishing 16th to not be enough. Or if AFC Wimbledon got relegated back out of the football league as a result, after all they had to do to earn their place.
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Yeah but that's because most of them are on the fecking dole and don't have work commitments!!
Does anybody actually want them in the PL? And why? The novelty of having two new away trips would wear off when fans are expected to fuck off to that dump twice every year (at least). Who really gives a fuck about seeing whether or not Celtic or Rangers would compete with more money? I'd rather see Hadrian's Wall rebuilt in its entirety than let those two in the PL. And you might think that the rest of Scottish football is dire as it is but take the only two clubs with appeal out and it'll become worse than Welsh football. I've been to Edinburgh quite a few times over the last few years and for every person you can see wearing Hearts/Hibs merchandise there are at least 4 or 5 with Celtic/Rangers tops on.
Almunia is a clown wrote:Celtic got 14,399 in a home League Cup quarter final a few weeks back. Arsenal always get much higher gates at home league cup ties usually close to capacity.
No way are the Glasgow pair of bigots bigger than Arsenal nor Liverpool worldwide.
Bit selective there mate
Celtic may have got less than 15,000 for a cup game but they also took 80,000 fans to Seville a few seasons back for a UEFA cup final. Rangers reportedly took 200,000 to Manchester when they got to a final there not so long ago.
Compare that to the 17,000 or so that Arsenal took to both their finals in Copenhagen and its hard to argue that given the same circumstances both Rangers and Celtic wouldnt be be bigger than us both domestically and worldwide. They are more than just football clubs, they represent something wider.
Slightly different seeing as people were getting stabbed left right and centre by Gala kunts but if you're sure
Slightly exaggerating there mate!
And anyway that wasnt the case in '94. I went to both finals we played there and would say we took a similar number of supporters each time. Even in 2000 I had no trouble at all before the game. But then we went to drink around the harbour area rather than hang around in the square where things turned nasty.
Sorry, thought you were referring to the 2000 final. I know a fair few people who were loath to go because of the rumoured attendance of other "firms".
Either way this whole argument comes down to what people's definition of a "big club" is. I prefer stats, so to attempt to sort this -
Research by Germany company SPORT+MARKT has revealed an estimation of how many supporters each club has around the world. A sample of 1,000 people from 34 countries has revealed the top 13 football teams with the most fans.
1 Manchester United (354m)
2 Barcelona (270m)
3 Real Madrid (174m)
4 Chelsea (135m)
5 Arsenal (113m)
6 AC Milan (99m)
7 Liverpool (71m)
8 Inter Milan (49m)
9 Bayern Munich (24m)
10 Juventus (20m)
Not even in the top 13 - Man City, the Scum and Newcastle filled those positions.
Or alternatively, let former Rangers director Hugh Adam take it away:
"Rangers' so called global appeal is a myth. When I was there, we did an exercise which involved asking 50,000 fans on the database to recommend a friend or a relative abroad.
"A big response was expected - some were even talking about getting 100,000 names - because everybody in Scotland seems to know somebody abroad.
"We got back 2,800 names and three-quarters of them didn’t know they had been nominated. It’s no surprise that Celtic are officially the best-supported football club in North America, with more official clubs than anybody else. The difference is the Irish connection.
"Many Irish people may support Manchester United, Liverpool or whoever, but they all - every one of them - have an affection for Celtic. And, of course, Celtic also have a great Scottish following.
"The difference is that, while the Irish all have an allegiance to Parkhead, there are millions of Scots who not only don’t support Rangers, but actively dislike them.
"Despite the claims of international appeal, Rangers are, essentially, a West of Scotland club. They talk of supporters’ buses leaving from all parts of Scotland, but if you look closely, you’ll see there aren’t many from each area and they are not all full."
Fair play to you there mate, you make some good points and have backed them up.
Im not sure I'd take those stats too seriously (anything that claims Chelsea have 135m fans is hard accept - or maybe I dont want to accept it ) . I prefer to judge a big club by the amount of support that attends matches instead of a global figure whcih could just involve someone owning a beer mat. That doesnt mean I'm right to do judge it like that though.
The Rangers thing I think you have proved. Wrongly I think I assumed they had a similar sized support to Celtic but clearly not. I wouldnt have a problem accepting Celtic as a bigger club than Arsenal though. I remember they played a European game in the mid 80s at Parkhead which they won but a bottle was thrown on the pitch. UEFA made them replay the game at Old Trafford. They managed to fill the ground. I dont think Arsenal would have done that back then or now.
Well of course, my mistake. 
) . I prefer to judge a big club by the amount of support that attends matches instead of a global figure whcih could just involve someone owning a beer mat. That doesnt mean I'm right to do judge it like that though.