ranger_syntax

Regardless of the other results I think it is a must win. If we want to challenge for the league then we need to deal with teams like Dundee comfortably at home.

Quite. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

We've put up with some heinous things over the years so why don't we just put up with one more heinous thing?! I think I'd rather be forced to listen to a boorish 3 hour lecture about how great the English Premier League is.

I went to Ayr a couple of times too. I thought it was great. One of the highlights.

I'm not a football socialist. If you have reached that conclusion then I suggest paying closer attention to what I am saying.

In the absence of a loan system talented young players would still play but would be registered with smaller clubs. Smaller clubs would then be able to gain medium term rewards when selling players. As it is the small club takes a short term risk, ie playing the young player, and the rich club keeps any medium/long term reward. The best teams will always end up rich. That will not, and should not, change. There is no reason to structure football in a way that makes it even easier for them to use wealth as an advantage. In addition to the loan system rich clubs also gain an unfair advantage from playing youth teams in lower divisions and seeded cup competitions.

I'm finding it difficult to make sense of what you typed. As far as I can tell you are just asserting your point without any explanation. I'll restate the question in case anybody else can help me out. Is there any reason why the football authorities can't eliminate the loan system?

I completely disagree. I don't see why 'socio-economic change' is necessary to eliminate the loan system. Why can't this can be done by the football authorities?

I don't mind who develops players. I do mind if football is decreasingly competitive.

The first step towards any change would be for football fans to acknowledge the problem that the loan system causes.

That's not what I asked about though. If loan deals are structured to favour the richer club, I think they are, then will football be more, or less, competive with a loan system.

Does it make football more, or less, competitive though? Perhaps in a system without loans better players would sign for clubs like us instead of being hoarded by richer clubs.

Does anybody else think that the loan system is to the detriment of football in general? I think that it makes things too easy for rich clubs. Would football be more competitive without it?

When we win I don't want our players to spare a thought for opposition supporters. Players should celebrate with their own supporters.

You pick a price that maximizes revenue.

Speaking as a thoughtful contributor ...

I may be wrong but I think we will sell out. I think there will be plenty of demand by others if some find they can't afford it.

What do you think?

There is no fine for not paying a T.V. licence if you do so legitimately.

There is probably a double standard in play. If I remember correctly the press were quite critical of our players for doing a huddle after winning the league there. I doubt anyone in the press will criticise the celtic players for this although it probably warrants some criticism. At the same time I don't think that anybody deserves a pat on the back for remaining in the stand.

Jokes aside ..... noticed some discussion elsewhere suggesting the prices are a bit high. Not sure I agree myself, seems about right to me.

Oh dear. I don't think people will stop watching the Old Firm match because of this. Neither is this the only thing that this league has to offer the wider football world. This change was led by demand for season tickets and will be extremely difficult to reverse as long as that demand remains high.

Oh dear. We wanted to sell thousands more season tickets. You know, for about 19 matches a year. Doubt it would make much sense to change our mind, about that, based on two matches a year.

Why share a video that a Celtic fan has posted?