Red Star, Rangers battle for Champions League jackpot

come on rangers, all of serbia is with you!!!

humilate zv(J)ezda.

I completely agree with raso. I must add here that neither of the two teams deserves to play in a such competition if you consider their match (can it be called a football match?!) in Glasgow and their performance in the respective national leagues. I am sure there are a lot of other teams that should be playing in the Champions League (Partizan being one of them :)). This way, the quality and reputation of the competition can and will suffer a lot.

Glasgow Rangers should not even be playing this qualifier for the Champions League because Rangers are NOT the reigning Champions of the Scottish League (Celtic are the Scottish Champions), and Zvezda ARE the reigning Champions of the Serbian League. Surely a Champion should be in the CHAMPIONS League without needing to play-off against a runner-up from somewhere else? It's not even as if Scotland is a real country. After all, when was the last time you saw a Scottish passport? Me neither. It's just a scam for teams from Great Britain to enter as many teams as they can in the form of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. How many places and qualifying starters with potential for leading to the Champions League does Great Britain get from these 'countries'?

Hope to see a good game tonight, and plenty of goals.

"It's not even as if Scotland is a real country. After all, when was the last time you saw a Scottish passport? Me neither. It's just a scam for teams from Great Britain to enter as many teams as they can in the form of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland."

Well done Stevo, you begin by insulting other countries for no real reason at an early stage of your comment (a common problem on this forum).

So by your logic Serbia was not a 'real country' (whatever that means) during all the time you carried a Yugoslavian passport? Scotland has a long and rich history of which I am sure you know little or nothing.

Now, let me enlighten you: the modern version of football started in Britain in the middle of the 19th century. Indeed the first international fixture was between Scotland and England in Glasgow in 1872, the same year Glasgow Rangers were formed.

In contrast, Zvezda were latecomers to the game, formed some seventy three years later.

Do British teams have a privileged status in European competitions? Yes.
Why? Because they invented the modern game that so caught the world's imagination that teams from places like Yugoslavia formed to play it.
Does it really matter that much? No, not really.

However, if you don't like it you can always invent your own sport and enforce your own set of rules.

Otherwise I fully agree with your last comment: "Hope to see a good game tonight, and plenty of goals."

Alexander,
British teams enjoy the privileged status that they do, ie. many more (unfairly and unsportingly so) entries into European Cup football plus the World Cup plus the European Championships, NOT as you say because they invented the game. Wherever you heard that, it is wrong. British teams enjoy multiple teams entering competitions because a Great Britain side played a charity game to raise money to fund the foundation of FIFA, the world body for the sport. This 'bribe' leads to the decades old anomaly of FIFA turning a blind eye or not asking too many questions over multiple entries by British teams. Luckily, the Olympic Committee was not bribed/obliged to Great Britain in this way, so they would refuse any non-Great Britain (ie. not unified) team entering the Olympics to play football. It does matter that British teams get all of those places because they thin out the legitimate competition from other countries, and statistically boost the chances for British success over other countries.

Thanks for the history lessons, except for the wrong bit about why British teams are privileged and obliged-to by football rule-makers. You forgot to remind me that FK Jugoslavija played at the same place as Zvezda before WW2 and before WW1 the team was called Velika Srbija. I am also aware also that Rangers have won the Cup-Winners Cup - without my having to refer to a record of achievements for the team - and I am sure that you are aware that Zvezda were European (and World) Champions in 1991, and that was when it was more difficult, without scope for having second chances in a league format if you lose, or a 'parachute' to the UEFA Cup for failure, or raking in money if you are near the bottom of your group in the Champions League with nothing much to play for except the cash.

There are black, white, and other races/peoples born and living in Scotland and England, so how is the 'international' nature of Scottish and English people differentiated? There was a while ago John Barnes, born in Jamaica, but playing football for England.

As for Serbia, I honestly never considered it to be a country since 1918 - a province or republic in a federation is not a country. It only returned as a country this year, so whoever you are trying to kid about the country status of Scotland, it isn't me who is taken in by that. Show me the passport for Scotland. Sorry you feel insulted, but that was genuinely not my intention.

Stevo,
I didn't say football was 'invented' in Britain. I said the modern version of the game started in Britain. First clubs, first attempts at rules, first leagues, first international fixture, etc, etc.

Great Britain bribed FIFA? Paranoid conspiracy theories again on this forum? Why am I not surprised?

Zvezda were once called Velika Srbija? Again, why am I not surprised.

Zvezda won the European Cup when I truly was a European Champions Cup? This is correct.

I won't comment on your third paragraph because I have no idea what it means.

I hardly think Scottish people care what Serbs think about the 'status' of their 'country'. Scots carry European Union passports that reflect the fact that, at least for some Europeans, ideas of borders, flags and passports as central to national identity are quaint and faintly ridiculous.

And an incalculable number of my Serb friends would swap their 'real country' passports for those carried by Scots in a heartbeat.

Oh, BTW: "Glasgow Rangers should not even be playing this qualifier for the Champions League because Rangers are NOT the reigning Champions of the Scottish League (Celtic are the Scottish Champions), and Zvezda ARE the reigning Champions of the Serbian League." I couldn't agree more, Champions League for Champions only...

This all seems like a silly argument. The reason that England, Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland have separate teams is because they all had national teams before anyone else did. The same is true in Rugby. The "home" nations played football together for 40 years or so before FIFA even existed. It might same strange to other countries that there are 4 UK teams, but there is a rational and historical explanation for it.

Alexander,
In 1947, a Great Britain XI played a European XI in Glasgow. There were 135000 people at this charity match - to raise money for a cash-strapped FIFA, who got £35000. It was probably a tidy sum back then and FIFA has been much obliged to British clubs since then. Four teams in every international competition? Certainly sir. Four entries in European Cup competition, one per 'country'? Absolutely sir. Don't want to play in Serbia? We can fix it for you, sir, and thanks for the money way back then. A few years ago, in the UEFA Cup, a Portugese team came to play in Belgrade against a Belgrade team, no problems. Next round of the same competition a couple of weeks after that, Leeds United refuse to some to Belgrade and therefore deprive Belgrade supporters of the right to support their team in their own country. Also happened with Leicester football team about 6 or 7 years ago when they also refused to come to Belgrade for political reasons and, instead of being punished by the footballing powers-that-be for refusing to play where they were supposed to, the non-British team had to concede any home advantage to appease the political whingers.

I note in the game last night, that the block of Rangers fans displayed a big Union flag as well as smaller ones. I did not see any Scottish flags. My own conclusion would be that maybe the Rangers fans consider themselves to be of British nationality because they - like myself - cannot figure the difference between Scottish and English nationality, not distinguish those from British nationality. Either way, and despite the favoritism toward British teams in the 4 sets of teams per competitions, their team got through, so good luck to them.

Stevo, I remember both Leeds and Leicester refusing to play in Belgrade. Leeds even got the home Partizan match moved to the Netherlands near a port that they could get to easily. They claimed there were no direct flights to Belgrade, though they could have flown to Budapest and finished the journey by coach. The UK government somehow persuaded UEFA to move the RS-Leicester game to Vienna claiming that Red Star couldn't guarantee safety or something. In both cases Belgrade hosted teams from other countries with no problem. This I think was down to the very anti-Serbian UK foreign secretary at the time Robin Cook putting pressure on the teams and UEFA.

As for the Rangers fans having UK and not Scottish flags: that is because they are Protestant Unionists - i.e. they support Northern Ireland staying part of the UK. It is complex to say the least. England/Scotland isn't really an issue at club level.

come on rangers, all of serbia is with you!!!

humilate zv(J)ezda.

I completely agree with raso. I must add here that neither of the two teams deserves to play in a such competition if you consider their match (can it be called a football match?!) in Glasgow and their performance in the respective national leagues. I am sure there are a lot of other teams that should be playing in the Champions League (Partizan being one of them :)). This way, the quality and reputation of the competition can and will suffer a lot.

Glasgow Rangers should not even be playing this qualifier for the Champions League because Rangers are NOT the reigning Champions of the Scottish League (Celtic are the Scottish Champions), and Zvezda ARE the reigning Champions of the Serbian League. Surely a Champion should be in the CHAMPIONS League without needing to play-off against a runner-up from somewhere else? It's not even as if Scotland is a real country. After all, when was the last time you saw a Scottish passport? Me neither. It's just a scam for teams from Great Britain to enter as many teams as they can in the form of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. How many places and qualifying starters with potential for leading to the Champions League does Great Britain get from these 'countries'?

Hope to see a good game tonight, and plenty of goals.

"It's not even as if Scotland is a real country. After all, when was the last time you saw a Scottish passport? Me neither. It's just a scam for teams from Great Britain to enter as many teams as they can in the form of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland."

Well done Stevo, you begin by insulting other countries for no real reason at an early stage of your comment (a common problem on this forum).

So by your logic Serbia was not a 'real country' (whatever that means) during all the time you carried a Yugoslavian passport? Scotland has a long and rich history of which I am sure you know little or nothing.

Now, let me enlighten you: the modern version of football started in Britain in the middle of the 19th century. Indeed the first international fixture was between Scotland and England in Glasgow in 1872, the same year Glasgow Rangers were formed.

In contrast, Zvezda were latecomers to the game, formed some seventy three years later.

Do British teams have a privileged status in European competitions? Yes.
Why? Because they invented the modern game that so caught the world's imagination that teams from places like Yugoslavia formed to play it.
Does it really matter that much? No, not really.

However, if you don't like it you can always invent your own sport and enforce your own set of rules.

Otherwise I fully agree with your last comment: "Hope to see a good game tonight, and plenty of goals."

Alexander,
British teams enjoy the privileged status that they do, ie. many more (unfairly and unsportingly so) entries into European Cup football plus the World Cup plus the European Championships, NOT as you say because they invented the game. Wherever you heard that, it is wrong. British teams enjoy multiple teams entering competitions because a Great Britain side played a charity game to raise money to fund the foundation of FIFA, the world body for the sport. This 'bribe' leads to the decades old anomaly of FIFA turning a blind eye or not asking too many questions over multiple entries by British teams. Luckily, the Olympic Committee was not bribed/obliged to Great Britain in this way, so they would refuse any non-Great Britain (ie. not unified) team entering the Olympics to play football. It does matter that British teams get all of those places because they thin out the legitimate competition from other countries, and statistically boost the chances for British success over other countries.

Thanks for the history lessons, except for the wrong bit about why British teams are privileged and obliged-to by football rule-makers. You forgot to remind me that FK Jugoslavija played at the same place as Zvezda before WW2 and before WW1 the team was called Velika Srbija. I am also aware also that Rangers have won the Cup-Winners Cup - without my having to refer to a record of achievements for the team - and I am sure that you are aware that Zvezda were European (and World) Champions in 1991, and that was when it was more difficult, without scope for having second chances in a league format if you lose, or a 'parachute' to the UEFA Cup for failure, or raking in money if you are near the bottom of your group in the Champions League with nothing much to play for except the cash.

There are black, white, and other races/peoples born and living in Scotland and England, so how is the 'international' nature of Scottish and English people differentiated? There was a while ago John Barnes, born in Jamaica, but playing football for England.

As for Serbia, I honestly never considered it to be a country since 1918 - a province or republic in a federation is not a country. It only returned as a country this year, so whoever you are trying to kid about the country status of Scotland, it isn't me who is taken in by that. Show me the passport for Scotland. Sorry you feel insulted, but that was genuinely not my intention.

Stevo,
I didn't say football was 'invented' in Britain. I said the modern version of the game started in Britain. First clubs, first attempts at rules, first leagues, first international fixture, etc, etc.

Great Britain bribed FIFA? Paranoid conspiracy theories again on this forum? Why am I not surprised?

Zvezda were once called Velika Srbija? Again, why am I not surprised.

Zvezda won the European Cup when I truly was a European Champions Cup? This is correct.

I won't comment on your third paragraph because I have no idea what it means.

I hardly think Scottish people care what Serbs think about the 'status' of their 'country'. Scots carry European Union passports that reflect the fact that, at least for some Europeans, ideas of borders, flags and passports as central to national identity are quaint and faintly ridiculous.

And an incalculable number of my Serb friends would swap their 'real country' passports for those carried by Scots in a heartbeat.

Oh, BTW: "Glasgow Rangers should not even be playing this qualifier for the Champions League because Rangers are NOT the reigning Champions of the Scottish League (Celtic are the Scottish Champions), and Zvezda ARE the reigning Champions of the Serbian League." I couldn't agree more, Champions League for Champions only...

This all seems like a silly argument. The reason that England, Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland have separate teams is because they all had national teams before anyone else did. The same is true in Rugby. The "home" nations played football together for 40 years or so before FIFA even existed. It might same strange to other countries that there are 4 UK teams, but there is a rational and historical explanation for it.

Alexander,
In 1947, a Great Britain XI played a European XI in Glasgow. There were 135000 people at this charity match - to raise money for a cash-strapped FIFA, who got £35000. It was probably a tidy sum back then and FIFA has been much obliged to British clubs since then. Four teams in every international competition? Certainly sir. Four entries in European Cup competition, one per 'country'? Absolutely sir. Don't want to play in Serbia? We can fix it for you, sir, and thanks for the money way back then. A few years ago, in the UEFA Cup, a Portugese team came to play in Belgrade against a Belgrade team, no problems. Next round of the same competition a couple of weeks after that, Leeds United refuse to some to Belgrade and therefore deprive Belgrade supporters of the right to support their team in their own country. Also happened with Leicester football team about 6 or 7 years ago when they also refused to come to Belgrade for political reasons and, instead of being punished by the footballing powers-that-be for refusing to play where they were supposed to, the non-British team had to concede any home advantage to appease the political whingers.

I note in the game last night, that the block of Rangers fans displayed a big Union flag as well as smaller ones. I did not see any Scottish flags. My own conclusion would be that maybe the Rangers fans consider themselves to be of British nationality because they - like myself - cannot figure the difference between Scottish and English nationality, not distinguish those from British nationality. Either way, and despite the favoritism toward British teams in the 4 sets of teams per competitions, their team got through, so good luck to them.

Stevo, I remember both Leeds and Leicester refusing to play in Belgrade. Leeds even got the home Partizan match moved to the Netherlands near a port that they could get to easily. They claimed there were no direct flights to Belgrade, though they could have flown to Budapest and finished the journey by coach. The UK government somehow persuaded UEFA to move the RS-Leicester game to Vienna claiming that Red Star couldn't guarantee safety or something. In both cases Belgrade hosted teams from other countries with no problem. This I think was down to the very anti-Serbian UK foreign secretary at the time Robin Cook putting pressure on the teams and UEFA.

As for the Rangers fans having UK and not Scottish flags: that is because they are Protestant Unionists - i.e. they support Northern Ireland staying part of the UK. It is complex to say the least. England/Scotland isn't really an issue at club level.