Glasgow to Manchester can be comfortably covered in two-and-a-half hours. The footballing gulf which now exists between these old cities, however, looks unbridgeable.
Celtic and Rangers have always been in a lower-tier and always will be.
I do not even see the point of article, what is it trying to say and or prove? This article could have been written in the mid-90's when Rangers were spending money on players like Gazzer, Laudrup, Negro, etc.
"The footballing gulf which now exists between these old jewels of the British Empire"
This is where the article loses the plot - Liverpool and Everton have been far more successful then Utd and City. Has the article compared Liverpool and Utd with the Old Firm far enough - success in their own league and in Europe (well the latter to a small extent for the Old Firm).
City have money now, but Chelsea have had money and made some success with it. City have only just started and they have a long way to go to break the top-four.
That'll be why your great premiership clubs always crap out of letting the Old Firm join then?
In 1967 Celtic were the top team in Europe trailblazing a new era in British Football by winning ,and being the first British team to do so, the European Cup.
People won't invest cash into Scottish football because our country on a world-wide scale is regarded as a county in England.
English teams have got better because of money only, not skill or grass roots training academies, hence the England squad's failures. People down south expect so much of their national team because of the successes of Man U and Liverpool to name a few forgetting that half to nine tenths of these teams are foreigners and are managed by foreigners.
This reason and this reason alone is why the Old Firm are considered lower tier by some.
