There’s been no shortage of football people lining up to give their comments on Rangers since the club went into administration a month ago. Whether it’s been fans, former players, managers, journalists or even board members of rival clubs, everyone has had something to say about Rangers. One person who was keen to make his point heard was Celtic chief executive Peter Lawell, who claimed that Celtic were financially sound, and did not need a strong Rangers in order to keep their finances secure.
And now Gordon Strachan, one of Celtic’s most successful managers of recent years (although far from the most popular), has echoed Lawell’s comments. In an interview with Yahoo, Strachan said:
“Celtic and Rangers need each other for the excitement of the game. The rest of the league need Celtic and Rangers for the financial part of it. Celtic don’t need Rangers for the financial part of it that’s for sure, because they are a well-run, well-organised club. If Rangers are not there then ironically Celtic will probably make more money because they will get to the Champions League easier, will get the TV money from the Champions League far easier, so they will make more money. The rest of the league needs Celtic and Rangers financially because the better they do, Celtic and Rangers, the more money those two will make. The more money they make, Celtic and Rangers will spread about by buying players from Dundee United, Hearts, Hibs, whatever it is. A good Celtic and Rangers will fill stadiums.”
>He is correct about both clubs needing each other for ‘the excitement of the game’. If Rangers hadn’t gone into administration and deducted 10 points, they would be 13 points ahead of 3rd place Motherwell. In the last 10-15 years, the SPL title has been decided on the final day of the season several times, as both Glasgow clubs have pushed each other to the limit in pursuit of the SPL title. Only Hearts, at the end of the 2005/06 season, have split the Old Firm at the top of the table this century, and if Rangers weren’t in the league, Celtic would likely win the title at a canter.
He’s also correct about the financial benefits the 10 other SPL clubs get from Celtic and Rangers. Both clubs have bigger away supports than the rest of the SPL teams, and those clubs will push up ticket prices when the Old Firm come to town. While the TV deal with Sky and ESPN is hardly lucrative when compared with the Premier League’s television deal, it would be significantly lower without four Old Firm clashes each season. Indeed, if Rangers were to go into liquidation, and forced to restart in a lower division, the TV deal would be renegotiated at a lower price, as it requires both Glasgow clubs to be in the SPL.
But where Strachan has things wrong is when he talks about how much better off financially Celtic would be without Rangers. As I’ve already said, if Rangers went into liquidation, then resurfaced with a new name in Division 3, the SPL’s TV deal would have to be renegotiated. While it’s possible that teams like Hearts, Motherwell or Dundee United could challenge Celtic for the SPL title, it seems unlikely that they could become much better than they currently are, with less TV money coming their way to fund transfers. With less TV money, could Celtic really afford to keep a large, well paid squad like they have now? While Celtic do have players such as Gary Hooper and James Forrest in their squad that could be sold for a large profit, could they reinvest that money in the playing squad?
And as for the Champions League, it’s a rather naive statement from Strachan to say that Celtic will get to the Champions League and its money ‘easier’ without Rangers. Scottish clubs face a tough route to the group stages of the competition as it is, and if the team finishing 2nd behind Celtic was knocked out early, it would hurt Scotland’s already poor coefficient ranking, leading to even tougher qualifying rounds. There’s certainly no guarantee that Celtic will reach the group stages every year, so quite how it would be ‘easier’ with less TV money to spend and a reduced wage bill is anyone’s guess.
The reality is that Scottish football needs both Old Firm clubs. Liquidation is still a possibility for Rangers, but although many fans of other teams would celebrate it if it happened, it would be anything but a good thing for Celtic or Scottish football.
Tagline: For more insight from Gordon Strachan and other leading managers plus exclusive Barclays Premier League highlights go to www.yahoo.co.uk/sport
For more blogs, follow me on Twitter @DavidWDougan or @TheGlassCase.
Introducing the neat little app that’ll pay you to view content tailored to your interests:
ThisisFutbol.com are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “thisisfutbol.com@snack-media.com” to learn more.
Utter Tosh! Where would Hibernian be without a financially doped predatory competitor using tax payers money to rape and pillage it’s first team squad over many a year? Let us see? K. Miller, G. Rae, K. Thompson, S. Whittaker is their more? Rangers had a policy of weakening there rivals during this time of financial doping that further eroded the competitiveness of the league with Hibernian particularly noticeable but also Hearts, Dundee Utd and others, without having their best players continually press ganged into joining a (Rich)Rangers by a compliant media the whole establishment of Scottish football becomes stronger and more competitive and subsequently attractive. Stop bleating on about the money its about the game, Honesty and Decency. A certain club has been found to have none and should be dealt with in a manner that protects the integrity and the fabric of the game in Scotland. We should be doing what is right the money is what created this mess in the first place!
The worrying thing is that you seem to believe what you are saying is true. EBTs were not illegal. Rangers paid every club for every player they signed during that time. They paid fair prices for the players they bought during that period.
Hibernian would never have won the SPL if that is what you are suggesting. If it hadn’t been Rangers or Celtic signing their best players, they would have gone down south. Hibs got £8million from Rangers and Celtic for Kevin Thomson, Steven Whittaker and Scott Brown, very fair prices.
‘with less TV money would Celtic be able to keep such a large well paid squad’. What a very poorly researched , very poorly written piece. Are you telling me that Celtic getting 2 million a season in TV money is keeping Hooper, Matthews, Wanyama, Ki, Izaguirre all in wages. All of the above are earning between 5-15,000 per week. Do the maths you half wit TV money doesn’t keep them for 6 months. The TV deal is the least of Celtic’s worries. I remember the early 90s. Rangers winning everything, cheating everyone, did their crowds go down because of lack of competition. NO. More people wanted to come and watch. Winning team=loads of people in the stands. Convince me Celtic in the next 10 years will be anything different.
Err yes, Celtic’s crowds DID go down when they weren’t competitive in the 90s. Rangers weren’t cheating, and more than once Celtic weren’t even the third best team in the top division.
DD, I think John is referring to Rangers crowds in the early 90s.
I agree with him. Rangers would have made a shipload more cash during this time with Celtic a bit of a lame tiger without bite. No-one was saying at the time that Scottish football or Rangers needed a strong Celtic to survive. In fact, Rangers were thriving without a strong Celtic and enjoying the most successful period in their history.
Now the roles are about to be reversed, what makes you so sure it will be different this time around?
Rangers were pushed by Aberdeen at least once when it came to winning the league title, the whole league in general was more competitive, despite Rangers increased spending power.
Scottish football has changed dramatically since then. As I said in the article, the TV deal requires both Celtic and Rangers in the SPL to keep it at the level it is now, and it’s more difficult to get into the Champions League.
I agree with Kcim67 – this is article is utter tosh and places FAR TOO MUCH importance to a TV contract which at best gives Celtic £2.2m a year in winning the league. Even if the TV money was ZEROED (not realistic), Celtic’s revenue would drop less than 5%. So the TV money gets reduced? What happens? Every team including Celtic would simply have to cut their cloth accordingly, something Rangers were unable or unwilling to do even when faced with oblivion – Jelavic £5m! Scottish football needs a huge injection of honesty and integrity, not least from the mainstream media who don’t know the meaning of these words! Celtic DON’T need Rangers from a financial point of view – PERIOD!
Yes, Celtic would have to cut their cloth, which would mean the sale of some of their better players, without the finances to replace then with equal quality. I notice that no-one is agreeing with Strachan’s assertion that getting Champions League money would be easier, a lack of which creates a hole in the finances of Celtic and Rangers. Neither club has exactly over-achieved in the CL in the last couple of years, and a team like Motherwell would be even less likely to qualify, lowering the co-efficient and increasing the difficulty of reaching the group stages.
I notice you are avoiding the main thrust of the replies. Celtic dont need Rangers end of!
How am I ignoring them? I stated my reasons in my article, and have repeated them in the replies.
Whether either side likes it or not, in the SPL in it’s current form, they both need each other financially.
While the majority of SPL clubs don’t have much spare cash, and I include Celtic in that, they manage their finances quite effectively under the circumstances. The fact rfc outspent every other club put together over the Murray years is now haunting them. While the rest struggle, rangers are bankrupt. While they cheat other clubs out of ticket money, they (rangers) sink lower into the pit of insolvency – they couldn’t even afford administrators who could organize sending a simple letter to the FSA. So what makes you think these same people can steer them away from liquidation ?
David – you say that without Rangers Celtic couldn’t afford to replace the likes of Hoopr and Forrest who currently Celtic could expect to get £10M – £12M for. (combined total)
A complete loss of domestic TV revenue would result in Celtic losing £2M – so where would the remaining £8M to £10M come from ?
HELLO!!!!
They’ve CHEATED every team in Scotland out of MILLIONS.
No, but seriously, of course they haven’t.
They won league titles on the last day of the season 4 times since 2001. They played players which its been shown that they couldn’t afford. Portsmouth did the same to win an FA Cup. In football terms its called “financial doping”.
They could have chosen not to buy Jelavic in 2010 and sell other players so as to be in a position to deal with the tax case and other liabilities. That is also true for other seasons. David Murray chose not to. It might not be illegal but its morally bankrupt.
And it might yet be proven that they did act against the rules (if what Hugh Adam is saying is correct) in which case action could yet be taken on what that they won over the past 12 years
Who showed Rangers ‘couldn’t afford’ those players? Rangers bought Jelavic for £4million after selling Kevin Thomson and Danny Wilson for £2million each.
Hugh Adam’s claims have already been dismissed by David Murray, Campbell Ogilvie and players contracted to the club at that time.
Rangers will not lose any trophies they’ve won in the last 20 years, because they won them all fairly.
The bottom line is that whatever rangers are found guilty of be that tax expansion thro improper use and/or second contracts for players & it is important to remember they haven’t been found guilty of anything yet but they must be punished accordingly. The bottom line is if they are found guilty they will then have been guilty of financial doping which is the same as any other doping & requires those results affected to be expunged from the record.
What I would say as well is that up until Souness & then SDM arrived Scottish football was quite strong regular qualification for World Cups & the Dons & Arabs reaching Euro finals & semi finals. Once we had the pre-occupation with mainly (but not all) second rate foreign footballers we stopped performing as an international team.
It appears that Rangers have chased the dream ultimately which may well end up costing them their club & I fully expect Uefa & Fifa to have a good look at this especially the dual contracts. This isn’t going away anytime soon & finally Celtic & the rest of Scottish football will survive without a strong or indeed any rangers, we did in the late 70’s to mid 80’s and the smaller clubs with the chance of getting to cup finals and an extra European place up for grabs will get healthier attendances just look at last weekends cup q-finals, no sign of rangers but decent attendances and really good games of football as well.
I’m sorry, but you simply don’t live in the real world if you believe that without Rangers, the rest of the SPL would suddenly become a much better, much stronger league, and the likes of Aberdeen and Dundee Utd would suddenly be capable of competing in Europe. Rangers and Celtic have regularly bought players from other SPL clubs for fair prices, and that money went a long way to keeping those clubs in business.
Football has moved on. I’m not going to deny that the spending power of Celtic and Rangers has been a large factor in the overall decline of the SPL, but to suggest that the rest of the SPL would suddenly be able to catch up to Celtic and be capable of going far in European competition is absolute nonsense.
As I can’t reply up there to your response above.
You choose to believe David Murray over Hugh Adam. David that says everything – it really does.
You don’t need to be Petrocelli to have torn apart Murray’s performance to certain hacks earlier this week. David Murray says that he knew nothing about Craig whyte’s background – a newspaper archive search would have told you plenty about Mr Whyte. Clearly Alasdair Johnstone did his homework on Whyte but Murray claims he was ignorant – David you believe that ?
Celtic decided that they couldn’t afford Jelavic in 2010. rangers decided they could. Events prove that in reality they could not. Rangers could have put money aside to meet all liabilities by selling certain players and not buying others. They chose not to and instead other clubs, the taxman and other creditors are doing without. Thats morally bankrupt – by all means delude yourself if you wish to excuse Rangers behaviour over the past decade
David Dougan,
I’m getting a strong feeling that you are in actual fact a rangers supporter.
DM and CO wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit them in the face, and the mere fact you are suggesting that they won all their trophies in the last 20 years “fairly” is enough proof for most, if not all of the people here who have posted comments to refute your assertions, that you are just another media lacky determined to try and convince everyone that they should just parachute right back into the sp(hel)l.
apart from anything else, even through their years of financial doping (for financial doping, read cheating) they only won most of their trophies because sfa employees (refs, farry, dallas) cheated for them. they had to have the input of refs and linesmen in every game they played, giving them penalties that weren’t, goals that were actually offside and all manner of other mechanisms open to them, eg, chopping off perfectly good goals from the opposition, denying opposition stone wall penalties and allowing them (rearrangers) to hack and kick opponents off the park indiscriminately and with no sanctions in the way of yellow or red cards.
stop talking through a hole in your bahooky mate, we don’t need them and would rather our team had less money than allow them to parachute right back where they left off, debt free to cheat some more!!!
Let me guess Arnie, the years that Celtic have won the SPL, or indeed, any other trophies, that was in spite of a ‘conspiracy’ by the SFA and referees, right? Regardless of what they think of Rangers, the supporters of the rest of the SPL clubs laugh their heads off when they hear Celtic fans complaining about conspiracy theories and anti-Celtic agendas.
The reason that Celtic weren’t competitive in the 90s was because they were run horribly, running up debts, employing poor managers and players. The idea that the authorities in Scottish football are out to get Celtic is fantasy.
i’ll take your failure to deny that you are a rangers supporter as a tacit agreement you are. though anyone reading your article or posts surely would be in no doubt anyway.
it’s worth noting though that all of the clubs laughing their heads off at the idea of an anti celtic conspiracy like to roll out the same wee ditties about being up to their knees in our blood and telling us to go home.
Wwe don’t care what the animals say” nay, “what the hell do we care”?
articles and comments like yours confirm it in our eyes.
Its laughable to suggest that Celtic’s income would drop dramamtically without Rangers, Celtic’s share of tv money is tiny as is (£2m as suggested already) and the club always budget at the start of the season based on no Champions league football anyway. So the current spending level employed by Celtic has been based on a no ‘champions league’ model therefore players like Hooper etc are still realistic targets.
Re Hugh Adams, you tell us that David Murray has already rubbished Adams claims. Well that will be alright then, Adams must be lying if the bold Dave is rubbishing his claims!! Naive or what!
Rangers havent been cheating by overspending, lots of clubs do that. However if they have been paying players outside of the normal club contract submitted to the SFA then they have been cheating. We will wait and see if thats the case or not. Innocent till proven guilty and all that.
Its also complete nonsense to suggest that because rangers sold players for £4m that they then can afford to spend £4m on someone like Jelavic. They clearly couldnt afford it as they were knee deep in debt and any responsible business would utilise that money to bring debt down. Its car crash football management and they are getting their just desserts. Hell mend them.
Celtic have debt. Hearts have debt. Dunfermline have almost £10million of debt. Almost every club in the English Premier League has debt, some have hundreds of millions of pounds of it. As Dunfermline have recently proven, most SPL clubs rely on ticket money from the Old Firm to run their clubs. Those other clubs would miss the money they get from Rangers fans, just like Celtic would.
There is such a thing as manageable debt. rangers knew for a long time they couldnt manage their debt and thats why they are in administration. Oh actually are they? They cant even do that properly.
And the money from Rangers to Celtic? Its a small percentage of turnover and easily dealt with.
Dunfermline were owed money by rangers, that rangers had received from their supporters!!!
It doesn’t matter how many came through the door, if was the fact they hadn’t received any cash!!
Sheesh!
It’s not the debt that suggests the cheating it’s the second contract, that is cheating as its against the rules. Second contracts give rangers 40% to 50% more spending power when it comes to wages as no tax or ni is paid. When Thompson was offered a contract at Celtic the £20k a week Celtic would have paid wouldn’t stand up to the same 20k a week rangers offered as he’d have an extra £10k in his bank… A few players have gone to rangers instead of Celtic starting with judas… And it is now clear exactly why.
EBT’s as used by that lot amounted to an illegal tax strategy so I don’t know how you conclude otherwise. Therefore they were cheating. End of. Obviously your loyalties lie on the blue side of Glasgow so maybe you should stick to writing this kind of drivel on FF where you will have no end of admirers and leave the investigative journalism to those who do some research before committing their thoughts to print.
David Dougan,
Celtic’s business model is almost totally independent from what Rangers do, and has been for quite some time. The TV deal is of minimal consequence and makes up a tiny part of Celtic’s income. Each season the budget for having NO Champions League football.
So, Celtic’s income would barely change if Rangers were to go. Numerous people have stated this and yet you have not responded to any of these points. PLEASE DO.
Where you may be right, is the possibility of a lower TV deal having more affect on the other SPL clubs. However, with ‘the 10’ meeting to discuss what plans they have for the future of the league, they will probably be able to make up for a lower TV deal by taking a bigger cut of it.
Celtic will therefore take a smaller cut, but as has been established, this will have little effect on them.
Also,
“Who showed Rangers ‘couldn’t afford’ those players? Rangers bought Jelavic for £4million after selling Kevin Thomson and Danny Wilson for £2million each.”
and
“Celtic have debt. Hearts have debt. Dunfermline have almost £10million of debt. Almost every club in the English Premier League has debt, some have hundreds of millions of pounds of it”
– shows little understanding of finance.
Firstly, just because Rangers signed Jelavic does not necessarily mean they could AFFORD to do so, regardless of whether they sold Thomson and Wilson. Rangers were in financial trouble at the time but instead chose to sign him. The fact that Rapid Vienna are still waiting on payments and that between £9m-£15m in VAT, PAYE and NIC has not been paid for a year shows where any income SHOULD have gone. Not on players. Instead they chose to go on spending, including bumper deals for Davis, McGregor and Whittaker. They were just making things worse for themselves in the long run, not thinking about how this would all catch up with them eventually.
On the point of debt, yes many clubs have debt. But for most club this is at a manageable level. Indeed, much of the world’s businesses are in debt but their financial model allows them to manage it.
Rangers, on the other hand, had debt at a level that was unsustainable. Their income was far too low to meet expenditure. Again, this is evidenced by the VAT, PAYE and NIC points earlier and the fact they still owe Rapid Vienna but also numerous other teams money.
If you but something using a credit card, does that necessarily mean you can afford to do so?
You may own the item temporarily but if your income doesn’t cover the payments then you can’t afford it. You may then have to sell it on. Sound familiar?
Further to my point above, I should really have said the biggest evidence for Rangers not being able to afford Jelavic and big contracts for the likes of Mcgregor is surely that they are IN ADMINISTRATION.
As a Celtic fan I truly despair.
There’s a genuine hatred of Rangers that’s absolutely irrational and nothing to do with sport amongst, what seems increasingly like the majority of our fans.
I don’t see one cold objective post from another Celtic fan above. So I’ll do it.
Celtic will survive and be the strongest club in the country without Rangers. Of that, I have no doubt, but on what level?
Do we really think, that without the competition and intense rivalry that Rangers provide we would continue to draw on the same gate receipts every season? Will there still be 55k+ at our home games? Will we still sell 50k season tickets? People will quickly get bored of the lack of competition, attendances will drop, nothing surer. Other clubs will feel the pinch too, only 2 OF visits per year, and yes, the attendances will drop through boredom of our fans. We will simply pick and choose games and with 3-4 years I’ll bet anyone that our Season Ticket holders will drop below 30k and average attendance not much more. Enough to continually win the league, no doubt, but not enough to sustain the quality of players we have now, because the lack of competition won’t improve them, nor will it encourage players to come and play. Europe WILL get harder to get into, because we WILL be the only club to have any real hope of getting anywhere, and that WILL get harder as our co-efficient drops.
And as for the TV deal, yes “it’s only £2m”. But the sponsorship it attracts for not only the club, but in player endorsements etc., will soon drop too, meaning the global exposure of the club drops, sponsorship and kit deals are rarer and less lucrative and player endorsements are lowered too, making it harder to keep our better ones or tempt others to the club!!
Sorry lads, this whole vendetta against Rangers is admirable, but I believe for too many it’s not about football and it’s not about finance, it’s all about another itch that’s wanting scratched and these are just convenient covers to hide behind.
Be careful what you wish for eh??
We and rangers get the lions share of the tv deal should there be no rangers then that’s 2million to go into the pot if the tv deal stays the same or similar… We will be better off, it’s simple maths.