It would mean that Celtic have won 10 titles in a row.
It would mean that Rangers haven't won the top division for 10 years.
You are welcome.
It would mean that Celtic have won 10 titles in a row.
It would mean that Rangers haven't won the top division for 10 years.
You are welcome.
-------------
bloody good explanation that
Most likely for rangers it would mean having to start again in the 3rd division or king selling the club to mike ashley to cut and run.
He has staked it all on this and a rookie manager.
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
Often think this myself, it's no gonnae mean anything really is it let's face it. Most important thing about winning the league is it gives us a crack at the CL
I was too young to remember fully and appreciate it when Celtic stopped the 10 in the 90s. What did it feel like for you Rangers fans not doing 10 in a row then?
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fundamentally untrue.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fundamentally untrue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 then
For a lot of Bears Zoomers they would claim any titles won whilst they were not in the same league don't count, which is utter madness as if Celtic caused their demise and their 2 attempts to get out the 2nd tier.
___________________________________
Exactly.
It was United that caused it. Don't forget it.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fundamentally untrue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s a compfy blanket statement. Seems to think it will wind us up, when all it does is remind us that they had to start again in the 3rd division on a journey that took an extra year...
Anyway, it would mean continued success and domination for Celtic. Apparently wouldn’t mean anything to rangers as they never give it a minute’s thought.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by lexballielegend (U8325)
posted 1 minute ago
Sensible answer, for Celtic it would mean that an era on the pitch would go down in their History as unbreakable by any rival in Scotland in my lifetime certainly. It would be the culmination of a lot of good work behind the scenes and it would give the support a stick to beat Rangers with for pretty much ever.
For Rangers after a week or 2 it would be a painful day resigned to History as they attempt to stop 11. For a lot of Bears Zoomers they would claim any titles won whilst they were not in the same league don't count, which is utter madness as if Celtic caused their demise and their 2 attempts to get out the 2nd tier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and there is obviously some merit in it but 10 in a row with Rangers missing for 4 seasons
or 9 in a row with Celtic present for all 9.
Taking it over 9 seasons in a row is harder to take than.the 2 in a row we've had even if that stretches over the 10 barrier in total.
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you explain that please?
comment by *Zico* (U21900)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you explain that please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read back. I meant 4.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Ultimately it's meaningless in terms of our overall title haul as we don't exactly want to lose the one to win 11 if we win the 10 and then give up
That said, as fans it's just another piece of history to add to our club.
I want to win 55 titles before Rangers, now THAT, would be funny.
10 will be tricky, we are out own biggest obstacle as we have shown in the summer with our transfer activity.
we could honestly get to 9 then rodgers leaves, and we would hire john barnes for the 10.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I get what you're saying and there is obviously some merit in it but 10 in a row with Rangers missing for 4 seasons
=========
who's fault is that
dave king chat there "disnae coont bit"
Bragging rights for a generation.
All that potential CL dough would also mean it might not end at 10.
It's not pedantry this time.
If Celtic get 10, they get 10 and it will be a record you hold. You'll still be behind us overall.
Still it won't be as painful as 9 was for you because Celtic's success wasn't against us for 4 seasons so only feels like 2 in a row for me. I know you lot want it to hurt like a real 10 in a row but it just won't because of the circumstances surrounding it.
celtic were on their knees for half of rangers 9 in a row bid so they don't count.
Actually, I'm turning the other cheek and joining HB on this.
We've all seen what's happened since United dropped out the league, so I think it's fair to say that none of the titles you've won without both United AND Rangers in the league count.
So you're on 1 title.
Congratulations.
#BearLogic
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 40 seconds ago
Bragging rights for a generation.
All that potential CL dough would also mean it might not end at 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second part of that would be the worrying bit. The longer it goes on the longer it is likely to continue.
That said i feel like chanting about 10 before it's on the table, much like we did is a good sign for us.
Wait....
What if Rangers win the title this year..?
Surely a riddy for us and a Wim Jansen moment for them - unthinkable imho.
Sign in if you want to comment
Ten in a row
Page 1 of 6
6
posted on 4/12/18
It would mean that Celtic have won 10 titles in a row.
It would mean that Rangers haven't won the top division for 10 years.
You are welcome.
posted on 4/12/18
It would mean that Celtic have won 10 titles in a row.
It would mean that Rangers haven't won the top division for 10 years.
You are welcome.
-------------
bloody good explanation that
posted on 4/12/18
Most likely for rangers it would mean having to start again in the 3rd division or king selling the club to mike ashley to cut and run.
He has staked it all on this and a rookie manager.
posted on 4/12/18
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
posted on 4/12/18
Often think this myself, it's no gonnae mean anything really is it let's face it. Most important thing about winning the league is it gives us a crack at the CL
I was too young to remember fully and appreciate it when Celtic stopped the 10 in the 90s. What did it feel like for you Rangers fans not doing 10 in a row then?
posted on 4/12/18
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fundamentally untrue.
posted on 4/12/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/18
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fundamentally untrue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
4 then
posted on 4/12/18
For a lot of Bears Zoomers they would claim any titles won whilst they were not in the same league don't count, which is utter madness as if Celtic caused their demise and their 2 attempts to get out the 2nd tier.
___________________________________
Exactly.
It was United that caused it. Don't forget it.
posted on 4/12/18
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 2 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fundamentally untrue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s a compfy blanket statement. Seems to think it will wind us up, when all it does is remind us that they had to start again in the 3rd division on a journey that took an extra year...
Anyway, it would mean continued success and domination for Celtic. Apparently wouldn’t mean anything to rangers as they never give it a minute’s thought.
posted on 4/12/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/18
comment by lexballielegend (U8325)
posted 1 minute ago
Sensible answer, for Celtic it would mean that an era on the pitch would go down in their History as unbreakable by any rival in Scotland in my lifetime certainly. It would be the culmination of a lot of good work behind the scenes and it would give the support a stick to beat Rangers with for pretty much ever.
For Rangers after a week or 2 it would be a painful day resigned to History as they attempt to stop 11. For a lot of Bears Zoomers they would claim any titles won whilst they were not in the same league don't count, which is utter madness as if Celtic caused their demise and their 2 attempts to get out the 2nd tier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I get what you're saying and there is obviously some merit in it but 10 in a row with Rangers missing for 4 seasons
or 9 in a row with Celtic present for all 9.
Taking it over 9 seasons in a row is harder to take than.the 2 in a row we've had even if that stretches over the 10 barrier in total.
posted on 4/12/18
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you explain that please?
posted on 4/12/18
comment by *Zico* (U21900)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 12 minutes ago
it would mean for Celtic that only 5 more titles would be needed to get a real 10 in a row
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you explain that please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read back. I meant 4.
posted on 4/12/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/18
Ultimately it's meaningless in terms of our overall title haul as we don't exactly want to lose the one to win 11 if we win the 10 and then give up
That said, as fans it's just another piece of history to add to our club.
I want to win 55 titles before Rangers, now THAT, would be funny.
posted on 4/12/18
10 will be tricky, we are out own biggest obstacle as we have shown in the summer with our transfer activity.
we could honestly get to 9 then rodgers leaves, and we would hire john barnes for the 10.
posted on 4/12/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/12/18
I get what you're saying and there is obviously some merit in it but 10 in a row with Rangers missing for 4 seasons
=========
who's fault is that
dave king chat there "disnae coont bit"
posted on 4/12/18
Bragging rights for a generation.
All that potential CL dough would also mean it might not end at 10.
posted on 4/12/18
It's not pedantry this time.
If Celtic get 10, they get 10 and it will be a record you hold. You'll still be behind us overall.
Still it won't be as painful as 9 was for you because Celtic's success wasn't against us for 4 seasons so only feels like 2 in a row for me. I know you lot want it to hurt like a real 10 in a row but it just won't because of the circumstances surrounding it.
posted on 4/12/18
celtic were on their knees for half of rangers 9 in a row bid so they don't count.
posted on 4/12/18
Actually, I'm turning the other cheek and joining HB on this.
We've all seen what's happened since United dropped out the league, so I think it's fair to say that none of the titles you've won without both United AND Rangers in the league count.
So you're on 1 title.
Congratulations.
#BearLogic
posted on 4/12/18
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 40 seconds ago
Bragging rights for a generation.
All that potential CL dough would also mean it might not end at 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The second part of that would be the worrying bit. The longer it goes on the longer it is likely to continue.
That said i feel like chanting about 10 before it's on the table, much like we did is a good sign for us.
posted on 4/12/18
Wait....
What if Rangers win the title this year..?
Surely a riddy for us and a Wim Jansen moment for them - unthinkable imho.
Page 1 of 6
6