Hated football teams Watch

pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#161
Report 5 years ago
#161
(Original post by Boner in joggers)
Do you not feel it necessary to criticise them for that then?
The title of the thread is 'Hated football teams'. I hate Celtic and have given reasons for that.
0
reply
Boner in joggers
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#162
Report 5 years ago
#162
(Original post by pane123)
The title of the thread is 'Hated football teams'. I hate Celtic and have given reasons for that.
You've spent a lot more time defending Rangers than talking about why you hate Celtic.
0
reply
sr90
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#163
Report 5 years ago
#163
(Original post by Mechie)
Rangers went out of business. They weren't relegated, they went into administration and ceased to exist. A new club started up, originally named The Rangers (and later on dodgily allowed to change their name back, cause y'know, it's Rangers). This club was then dodgily admitted into the SFL division 3 despite not having 3 years worth of audited accounts (which is a requirement, but was obviously overlooked, cause y'know, it's Rangers). Spartans had a better case for being admitted into the league system, but that's a bit off the point.
Rangers didn't really do anything different to Leeds United in 2007, transferred all their assets to a ''newco'' whilst the ''oldco'' was liquidated. Looking into Europe, Fiorentina had a similar situation in 2002. They went bust and had to start from the bottom again. Nobody ever throws this argument around either of these clubs or questions their history, so why should it apply to Rangers?

Is it wrong that they can clear their debts like that? Absolutely, it's disgusting seeing countless local businesses get shafted whilst the football creditors get paid in full. However it's wrong to say Rangers are a brand new club. They're a continuation of the old one and UEFA seem to think so too, because Rangers' coefficient is still listed.

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociatio...rankings/club/
1
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#164
Report 5 years ago
#164
(Original post by Boner in joggers)
You've spent a lot more time defending Rangers than talking about why you hate Celtic.
That's not true. I haven't 'defended' Rangers, I have just set some facts straight.

One problem with the Internet is that everyone assumes an equal level of intelligence.

I'm not going to allow a pseudo intellectual from the University of Bradford present an argument based entirely on lies.
0
reply
Boner in joggers
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#165
Report 5 years ago
#165
(Original post by pane123)
That's not true. I haven't 'defended' Rangers, I have just set some facts straight.

One problem with the Internet is that everyone assumes an equal level of intelligence.

I'm not going to allow a pseudo intellectual from the University of Bradford present an argument based entirely on lies.
Haha love a good university-based insult on TSR
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#166
Report 5 years ago
#166
(Original post by pane123)
Clearly you don't know if it's true or not. Rangers have a lot more success to their name than Celtic.
Celtic have won the European Cup...
0
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#167
Report 5 years ago
#167
(Original post by Zürich)
Celtic have won the European Cup...
I know.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#168
Report 5 years ago
#168
(Original post by pane123)
I know.
That's got to be worth 30 SPLs
0
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#169
Report 5 years ago
#169
(Original post by Zürich)
That's got to be worth 30 SPLs
Don't be ridiculous. While an impressive achievement, Celtic winning the European Cup in 1967 isn't nearly as big an achievement as it would be now. That aside, you can't just pluck a number from thin air. I suspect you know nothing about the Scottish league, but I know you are no stranger to talking authoritatively on subjects you know nothing about.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#170
Report 5 years ago
#170
(Original post by pane123)
Don't be ridiculous. While an impressive achievement, Celtic winning the European Cup in 1967 isn't nearly as big an achievement as it would be now. That aside, you can't just pluck a number from thin air. I suspect you know nothing about the Scottish league, but I know you are no stranger to talking authoritatively on subjects you know nothing about.
Were you the guy who felt hed worked out a system for guaranteed gambling profits? You're still risking your own money, you're still taking odds from the bookies which dont properly compensate you for the risk youre taking and you're still running the risk of losing the head and chasing losses at some stage.



Think I saw you on the matched betting forum, and that is a great little guaranteed earner but that's not gambling.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#171
Report 5 years ago
#171
(Original post by pane123)
Clearly you don't know if it's true or not. Rangers have a lot more success to their name than Celtic.
Actually it's well known to be false and based off the old idea of Celtic as a catholic club (which is pretty wrong - Celtic have never really adhered to the sectarianism - not to the same degree as rangers at any rate).

Do you actually read what people say? I said from the very beginning it was about the European cup victory: you can blabber on about spl titles all you want but the facts of the matter is Celtic have won the biggest prize in Europe, rangers haven't and rangers are bitter about that.

Oh, and the idea that it wasn't that big an achievement? :toofunny: look at who was involved in the tournament that year: Ajax as total football was getting going, division 1 champions Liverpool, Real Madrid - 5 successive la ligas with puskas in the side and inter Milan coached by Herrera with two successive serie a/European cups to their name? Smaller competition - certainly, but easier? No chance


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#172
Report 5 years ago
#172
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Actually it's well known to be false and based off the old idea of Celtic as a catholic club (which is pretty wrong - Celtic have never really adhered to the sectarianism - not to the same degree as rangers at any rate).

Do you actually read what people say? I said from the very beginning it was about the European cup victory: you can blabber on about spl titles all you want but the facts of the matter is Celtic have won the biggest prize in Europe, rangers haven't and rangers are bitter about that.

Oh, and the idea that it wasn't that big an achievement? :toofunny: look at who was involved in the tournament that year: Ajax as total football was getting going, division 1 champions Liverpool, Real Madrid - 5 successive la ligas with puskas in the side and inter Milan coached by Herrera with two successive serie a/European cups to their name? Smaller competition - certainly, but easier? No chance


Posted from TSR Mobile
What has it got to do with Catholicism? The idea that 'Big Jock knew' exists because child abuse took place within Celtic Boys' Club.

I didn't say it wasn't a big achievement; do you actually read what people say? Do you have to be able to read to get into Bradford?

Anyway, since you brought it up, let's look at the teams Celtic played on their way to the European Cup win:

FC Zurich
Nantes
Vojvodina
Dukla Prague
Internazionale

So of the four teams you mentioned, Celtic only had to play one. My point was that Celtic winning the Champions' League in this era would be much, much harder than it was in 1967. My point stands.
0
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#173
Report 5 years ago
#173
(Original post by Zürich)
Were you the guy who felt hed worked out a system for guaranteed gambling profits? You're still risking your own money, you're still taking odds from the bookies which dont properly compensate you for the risk youre taking and you're still running the risk of losing the head and chasing losses at some stage.
This is totally off topic. I make a living from betting, but there is no system to guarantee profit.

The part in bold doesn't make sense.
0
reply
Zürich
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#174
Report 5 years ago
#174
(Original post by pane123)
This is totally off topic. I make a living from betting, but there is no system to guarantee profit.

The part in bold doesn't make sense.
The odds correlate strongly to risk, but its not the real price. O/W bookies would make zero profit.
Do you arb then? That's not gambling.

If 10m mugs play roulette repeatedly 1000 times, each randomly deciding whether to bet between red/black each time then some after 1000 spins will have won 1000 times purely by luck. Maybe you happen to be in this subsection purely by luck, but you're not doing anything intelligent that's for sure
0
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#175
Report 5 years ago
#175
(Original post by Zürich)
The odds correlate strongly to risk, but its not the real price. O/W bookies would make zero profit.
Do you arb then? That's not gambling.

If 10m mugs play roulette repeatedly 1000 times, each randomly deciding whether to bet between red/black each time then some after 1000 spins will have won 1000 times purely by luck. Maybe you happen to be in this subsection purely by luck, but you're not doing anything intelligent that's for sure
All the odds represent is the chance of something happening, with a bit of overround stuck on top so the bookie makes profit. Claiming it's impossible to make money from sports betting is like claiming bookmakers are right 100% of the time, on every market they offer.

You cannot compare sports betting to roulette. As a maths graduate you should understand all of this.

I also wish you would stop making claims that have no founding. You say I am 'not doing anything intelligent', when the reality is that I am.
0
reply
TheLittlestElf
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#176
Report 5 years ago
#176
-Arsenal ( probably because of the posters on this site :lol: )
- Real Madrid
- FC Barcelona
- AC Milan
- Stoke
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
  • Volunteer Team
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#177
Report 5 years ago
#177
(Original post by pane123)
What has it got to do with Catholicism? The idea that 'Big Jock knew' exists because child abuse took place within Celtic Boys' Club.
Except of course Big Jock didn't know - the claims are completely unsubstantiated. And it's blowing one incident with one coach up into this idea of a child abuse ring because of course rangers are completely incapable of showing any sort of decency and want to make a big joke out of child abuse - no doubt aided by the catholic priests paedophilia scandal, given rangers still cling to this protestants vs catholics ideal (remember the no-catholics transfer policy?)

[quote
I didn't say it wasn't a big achievement; do you actually read what people say? Do you have to be able to read to get into Bradford?
[/quote]
And I didn't say that you did - don't attack my comprehension of posts when you don't read yourself. Let's look at what I said:
Oh, and the idea that it wasn't that big an achievement?
Now what you said:

Celtic winning the European Cup in 1967 isn't nearly as big an achievement as it would be now
I pretty much just took the exact words you said. So perhaps you should learn to read your own posts before you criticise anyone else.


Anyway, since you brought it up, let's look at the teams Celtic played on their way to the European Cup win:

FC Zurich
Nantes
Vojvodina
Dukla Prague
Internazionale

So of the four teams you mentioned, Celtic only had to play one. My point was that Celtic winning the Champions' League in this era would be much, much harder than it was in 1967. My point stands.
No it really wouldn't - there may be more teams in the competition nowadays, but thats because of the amount of extra places: back then it was literally the champions league: the creme de la creme and that's it made the tournament. It'd be as hard to win it then as it is now.
0
reply
Solemn Rain
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#178
Report 5 years ago
#178
Any hate for Arsenal is irrational and nonsense.
0
reply
pane123
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#179
Report 5 years ago
#179
(Original post by StiffLittle Fingers)
Except of course Big Jock didn't know - the claims are completely unsubstantiated. And it's blowing one incident with one coach up into this idea of a child abuse ring because of course rangers are completely incapable of showing any sort of decency and want to make a big joke out of child abuse - no doubt aided by the catholic priests paedophilia scandal, given rangers still cling to this protestants vs catholics ideal (remember the no-catholics transfer policy?)
The abuse in Celtic was covered up. While there might not be proof, the claims that Jock Stein knew are not without substance.

(Original post by StiffLittle Fingers)
I pretty much just took the exact words you said. So perhaps you should learn to read your own posts before you criticise anyone else.
And therein lies the problem. At no point did I say it was not a big achievement. In fact, I described it as an 'impressive achievement'.

(Original post by StiffLittle Fingers)
No it really wouldn't - there may be more teams in the competition nowadays, but thats because of the amount of extra places: back then it was literally the champions league: thecreme de la creme and that's it made the tournament. It'd be as hard to win it then as it is now.
This was hard to decipher, but I think I know what you are trying to say. However, you are wrong.

Football was more of a level playing field back then. With the financial constraints a team like Celtic has compared to teams from England, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal etc. it would be far, far harder to win it now.

I will concede, however, that this is impossible to prove, rendering this particular discussion pointless.
0
reply
Solemn Rain
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#180
Report 5 years ago
#180
I dislike Man City, United, Chelsea, Spurs and Stoke City.

Hate is a very strong word....dislike is more appropriate for me.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (143)
21.22%
The paper was reasonable (329)
48.81%
Not feeling great about that exam... (126)
18.69%
It was TERRIBLE (76)
11.28%

Watched Threads

View All