1690 Posts 71 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Same manager, same overall emphasis on Scottish players - for Ferguson see...Ferguson. For Thomson see McCall. For McPherson see Weir. For McCoist see Boyd. And yet we're miles off the consistency we had before with the same manager. And just like 9IAR we've spent big these last 2 seasons. Yet this time it's Celtic on top and we trail. Is it just a case of they're stronger than they were, or that Walter isn't as good a manager as he was? We don't have a goalie as good as Goram We don't have strikers as good as McCoist and Hateley (or arguably Durie) We don't have a centre half as good as Gough. We don't have a left back as good as Robertson. We don't have a right back as good as Stevens. Thomson isn't as good as McCall, Weir isn't as good as Brown, Davis isn't as good as Steven. And I haven't mentioned Laudrup or Gazza or even Miko, Huistra etc etc.... That's exactly it. None of those guys were bottlers either then you add the sublime skills of Laudrup and Gazza and it makes all the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emerson 2 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Same manager, same overall emphasis on Scottish players - for Ferguson see...Ferguson. For Thomson see McCall. For McPherson see Weir. For McCoist see Boyd. And yet we're miles off the consistency we had before with the same manager. And just like 9IAR we've spent big these last 2 seasons. Yet this time it's Celtic on top and we trail. Is it just a case of they're stronger than they were, or that Walter isn't as good a manager as he was? On your theme: For Beasley see Laudrup. For Adam see Albertz. Even for Mendes see Gascoigne. etc That is the difference my friend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheWholeStruth 7 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 As others have pointed out the consistency from then and now isn't all that different. One massive difference though is, Europe aside, if there was a crunch game that had to be won, more often than not we did. Not only that, I can remember I expected the team from that era to win it rather than hoped we did. There's no way the NIAR team would have lost back to back at the Piggary with a championship at stake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritishBear 34 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Archie Knox?????????????? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,286 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 I think I've posted this before that back then we (more or less) had the best 11 players in the SPL ... hardly surprising that we were successful was it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledWeegie123 1,240 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Archie Knox?????????????? my thoughts exactly oh aye and the fact that we're pish now and werent then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Newells Sexist Army 2 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 Celtic aren't as shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Brown Brogue Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 The difference isnt with us its with our title rivals. For most of Smiths first stint in charge Celtic were utter garbage and our nearest challengers were Aberdeen and Motherwell. We outspent both of those by millions upon millions but still never steamrollered the league. It's no coincidence that when McCann took over at Celtic and ploughed in money the league became much closer with them eventually winning it and Smith totally devoid of ideas to stop it. I posted this ages ago that Smith had an easy ride during the 9 in a row years, I honestly think any manager in charge of us at that time would have enjoyed a similar level of success and probably would have achieved more in Europe. Smith is and always has been a limited coach, and again this season it doesn't look like he has the answers to dealing with a relatively strong and consistent Celtic side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 9 Posted November 27, 2008 Author Share Posted November 27, 2008 Well actually you could pick and choose players over the last nine years who were on a par with a lot of them but I think we all agree the overall standard was higher than now. Still think that era is being looked at through rose tinted glasses and we were no more consistent than we are now, certainly not by miles as Danny suggested. the question was whats the difference between the 9IAR team and the one we have now!! Yes I know but the question was qualified in the OP, 'we're miles off the consistency we had before with the same manager'. My point is that we were not as different as is made out and there are a lot of myths surrounding those years. True or not, you can't argue with our 44 game unbeaten run during 92/93. Can't see this lot doing that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2102 577 Posted November 27, 2008 Share Posted November 27, 2008 difference in 2 words - hunger and passion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmckinlay 0 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 We won the league 9 times in a row. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miracle 7,818 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 We had a ton of cash and that lot kept making the wrong decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfc_no1fan 13 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Celtic are the difference. Our mistakes weren't punished back then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,286 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Celtic aren't as shite. That certainly isn't true, don't forget in one of the 9 they only lost one game all season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unionloyal 0 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Our £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unionloyal 0 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Our £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. What did it pay for the pies etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Our £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. What did it pay for the pies etc No. It emeged in the tailend of Advocaat's era. After Advocaat's second season we had cash in the bank and effectively no net debt. The £80m debt emerged AFTER that. Adsolutely nothing to do with NIAR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unionloyal 0 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Our £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. What did it pay for the pies etc No. It emeged in the tailend of Advocaat's era. After Advocaat's second season we had cash in the bank and effectively no net debt. The £80m debt emerged AFTER that. Adsolutely nothing to do with NIAR. Mmmmmm ???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Our £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. What did it pay for the pies etc No. It emeged in the tailend of Advocaat's era. After Advocaat's second season we had cash in the bank and effectively no net debt. The £80m debt emerged AFTER that. Adsolutely nothing to do with NIAR. Mmmmmm ???? If you are trying to say something, why not come out and say it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unionloyal 0 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Our £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. What did it pay for the pies etc No. It emeged in the tailend of Advocaat's era. After Advocaat's second season we had cash in the bank and effectively no net debt. The £80m debt emerged AFTER that. Adsolutely nothing to do with NIAR. Mmmmmm ???? If you are trying to say something, why not come out and say it? How did you come to that conclusion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 About 80 million quid I think Our £80m debt was nothing to do with NIAR. What did it pay for the pies etc No. It emeged in the tailend of Advocaat's era. After Advocaat's second season we had cash in the bank and effectively no net debt. The £80m debt emerged AFTER that. Adsolutely nothing to do with NIAR. Mmmmmm ???? If you are trying to say something, why not come out and say it? How did you come to that conclusion Which specific conclusion? The one that the £80m debt had nothing to do with NIAR? i thought I had already answered that, but can give you more details if you wish. The accounts at 30th June 1997 showed that we had £28m in the bank and no net debt. This was the end of NIAR. The accounts at 30th June 2000 showed that we had £21m in the bank and no net debt (on the same basis as they currently use). The accounts at 30th June 2004 showed that we were £74m in debt. It's easy to conclude that the debt in 2004 had nothing to do with NIAR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Manticore* 1,893 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Will we ever see another Gary Bollan? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Newells Sexist Army 2 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Celtic aren't as shite. That certainly isn't true, don't forget in one of the 9 they only lost one game all season Don't forget they didn't even come second in 7 of the 9, and 2 or 3 times they finished worse than third. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unionloyal 0 Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Celtic aren't as shite. That certainly isn't true, don't forget in one of the 9 they only lost one game all season Don't forget they didn't even come second in 7 of the 9, and 2 or 3 times they finished worse than third. And to think they overtook us now Unforgiveable considering the gap and they were minutes away from administration Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts