Monkey Tennis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 There are probably 20/22 clubs in Scotland who could average 4,000+ if they played in a top division, more than enough for a 2 x 16/18 set-up Brilliant! I've not heard such nonsense since Davie Rae stood down as our chairman. Have we even had 12 manage that this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Can't you - seriously? We're a relatively football mad nation. However, the vast majority of people from throughout the country who follow football, identify chiefly with the OF. This means the clubs from the towns many come from are smaller than they might otherwise be. We therefore run out of decent sized ones more quickly. I can't believe I just needed to explain that. Because it doesn't explain where on the 'gentle gradient' your run-out will happen and why it has to happen at that point - given that there is no 'sheer drop' between any two neighbouring teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Because it doesn't explain where on the 'gentle gradient' your run-out will happen and why it has to happen at that point - given that there is no 'sheer drop' between any two neighbouring teams It happens wherever you like. The 'decent sized' notion is clearly subjective. The fact is however that in bigger leagues, you're more likely to reach the point at which people choose arbitrarily to draw their line. I spoke of 16-20 as when people argue for bigger leagues, they're usually talking of numbers in this area. Yet again it's a feature distorted by the presence in our game of the OF. Without them, the difference between, say, Hearts and Raith Rovers would be smaller than that between Man Utd and Wigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Brilliant! I've not heard such nonsense since Davie Rae stood down as our chairman. Have we even had 12 manage that this season? Really? you think that? you cannot see that the potential is there for us to have a top division of 16/18 clubs where all those clubs could average over 4,000? Listen, you used the argument above about the OF impact ensures that these clubs are smaller than they should be, well then if you allowed them easier access into the top division where they will face the OF, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs on a regular basis, don't you think they have the opportunity to build a better fan base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 It happens wherever you like. The 'decent sized' notion is clearly subjective. The fact is however that in bigger leagues, you're more likely to reach the point at which people choose arbitrarily to draw their line. I spoke of 16-20 as when people argue for bigger leagues, they're usually talking of numbers in this area. Yet again it's a feature distorted by the presence in our game of the OF. Without them, the difference between, say, Hearts and Raith Rovers would be smaller than that between Man Utd and Wigan. If a line is 'subjective' and 'arbitrary' though, it's hardly a basis to make the strong claims about mid-table mediocrity and quality dilution that we see from some on here. The opinions may be strongly held but if they are based on not much more than gut-feeling, then that's all there is to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If a line is 'subjective' and 'arbitrary' though, it's hardly a basis to make the strong claims about mid-table mediocrity and quality dilution that we see from some on here. The opinions may be strongly held but if they are based on not much more than gut-feeling, then that's all there is to it. I wouldn't particularly disagree. Instinctively, I would favour bigger leagues, but I recognise that 16 would provide too few games. I also recognise that the vast majority of smaller nations have smallish leagues because crowds in the top flight tend to get sparse if it's too big, with little to play for, for many clubs. The proposals on the table, for me, offer a decent compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 I wouldn't particularly disagree. Instinctively, I would favour bigger leagues, but I recognise that 16 would provide too few games. I also recognise that the vast majority of smaller nations have smallish leagues because crowds in the top flight tend to get sparse if it's too big, with little to play for, for many clubs. The proposals on the table, fo me, offer a decent compromise. But can we look at other strategies to make clubs more competitive in themselves? Financial redistribution is being discussed and that's one obvious method whereby any cut-off point (however defined) can be shifted in the smaller clubs favour. Probably harder to push through such changes than pushing through reconstruction right enough, but, long-term, perhaps a better strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 But can we look at other strategies to make clubs more competitive in themselves? Financial redistribution is being discussed and that's one obvious method whereby any cut-off point (however defined) can be shifted in the smaller clubs favour. Probably harder to push through such changes than pushing through reconstruction right enough, but, long-term, perhaps a better strategy. Well, a better (although obviously imperfect) model of financial distribution is part of these proposals. People are getting absolutely hung up on this 'number of clubs game', to the extent that the big off-field changes are being overlooked. I actually quite like the sound of the new structure, although I can see why bottom 18 sides may have reservations. Even if I hated the sound of it though, it would in my view still be worth adopting, for fairer distribution of wealth, relaxation of ground criteria and one body in charge of all the leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If everyone is being honest with themselves, we know that the 12/12 8x8x8 will not stand the test of time, it will not be here in 20 years time so why on earth waste time with it? Put a structure in place now where we will not be looking to change it again 5 years down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If everyone is being honest with themselves, we know that the 12/12 8x8x8 will not stand the test of time, it will not be here in 20 years time so why on earth waste time with it? Put a structure in place now where we will not be looking to change it again 5 years down the line. Because, with the competing interests in our game and the financial pressure many face, this is a system that clubs on different points on the scale can buy into, right now. Personally, I like the sound of the new set-up, but like you, I wouldn't expect it to be in place twenty years from now either. We, after all, in common with many leagues in Europe, have arsed about with things plenty in recent decades and it would be very surprising if we stuck with anything for that long. The point is however, that right now, the proposals represent real progress in many important areas. We're not going to get offered a perfect solution and none of us could agree on what that would be anyway. Right now, in the real world, this will do fine and we'd be daft not to grab it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Because, with the competing interests in our game and the financial pressure many face, this is a system that clubs on different points on the scale can buy into, right now. All clubs dont buy into it though, and that will ensure that change will happen once again. The financial benefits offered in this proposal can be offered right now. Personally, I like the sound of the new set-up, but like you, I wouldn't expect it to be in place twenty years from now either. We, after all, in common with many leagues in Europe, have arsed about with things plenty in recent decades and it would be very surprising if we stuck with anything for that long. The point is however, that right now, the proposals represent real progress in many important areas. We're not going to get offered a perfect solution and none of us could agree on what that would be anyway. Right now, in the real world, this will do fine and we'd be daft not to grab it. Once again, all the off field benefits of this proposal can happen without bringing in a failed league system. If they do not, that is when the SFA should be stepping in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Once again, all the off field benefits of this proposal can happen without bringing in a failed league system. Maybe they can, but they won't. I'd rather bring in this 'failed league system' with such benefits; than stick with our current disastrously 'failed league system' without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Really? you think that? you cannot see that the potential is there for us to have a top division of 16/18 clubs where all those clubs could average over 4,000? Sorry, but I absolutely cannot see that many clubs in Scotland, being able to average that many fans. How many have averaged it this season? I'd guess it's barely twelve, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Sorry, but I absolutely cannot see that many clubs in Scotland, being able to average that many fans. How many have averaged it this season? I'd guess it's barely twelve, is it? I didn't imply all at the same time, but there are 20/22 clubs that have the potential to average over 4,000 fans if they were playing top division football and having a reasonable season. Look at Ross County. We need to give these clubs the chance to acheive that and sustain it, and I very much doubt 8x8x8 does. Didn't Morton v Partick get nearly 6,000 last week? Anyway; Celtic 45992 Hearts 13453 Hibernian 10693 Aberdeen 10073 Dundee Utd 7472 Dundee 6544 Kilmarnock 4864 Motherwell 4820 St Mirren 4448 Ross County 4129 Inverness CT 4017 St Johnstone 3911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 SFL One; Dunfermline Athletic 3845 Falkirk 3165 PartickThistle 3076 Morton 2310 These four would average over 4k in a decent top division season. Ayr United have the potential to, as do Hamilton Accies and Raith Rovers, and there's a new team in SFL3 as well attracting a few punters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Do you actually know what average means? All you have done is compared crowds with six clubs from then and in 3 of them we were up and three we were down, but overall we were getting more fans through the gate then than we are now. Is there a point to this, because I cant see one? I specifically mentioned I thought it would be higher because the OF brought twice as many fans then as they do now, but you ignored that as well. WEhy dont you just iognore everything from now on because you are just making an arse of yourself. The point is that your crowds for general run of the mill league games in an 18 team league were pretty much the same as they are now. Obviously your average would have been higher in the seventies because the Old Firm brought higher crowds back then. In the season I mentioned the Celtic crowd was 13,000 and the Rangers crowd was 19,000. However that is down to two principal factors. Firstly your ground had a higher capacity back then and secondly live tv coverage has dramatically reduced the number of travelling old firm fans. So although the average crowd was higher it had nothing to do with larger leagues.Your crowds for most games were almost exactly the same as they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 .....and to pick up on this, from 74/75 season, the averages for those clubs who currently reside outwith the SPL and who could potentially enter an enlarged top division; Partick Thistle 6,136 Ayr United 5,800 Dunfermline 4,822 Airdrieonians 4,401 Stats eh? they can prove anything....... And those averages would have been inflated by the Old Firm crowds in exactly the same way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I still fail to see the need for over complication. 3 x 14 would give consistency right through the structure. Split into 7/7 in each league after 26 games. The 7 play each other home and away to take total fixtures to 38. Everyone will have a free week at some point but is that such a killer (i suppose it could be if a team playing last knows what is needed whilst another team looks on but frankly you have 35 or 36 games to avoid finding yourself in that space). Relegation would be a straight 2 up/2 down from every division - including the bottom one. This could put an end to meaningless games for a lot of people - if it doesn't then the chances are they would be meaningless in any structure that doesn't promote/relegate about 5 teams at each end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I still fail to see the need for over complication. 3 x 14 would give consistency right through the structure. Split into 7/7 in each league after 26 games. The 7 play each other home and away to take total fixtures to 38. Everyone will have a free week at some point but is that such a killer (i suppose it could be if a team playing last knows what is needed whilst another team looks on but frankly you have 35 or 36 games to avoid finding yourself in that space). Relegation would be a straight 2 up/2 down from every division - including the bottom one. This could put an end to meaningless games for a lot of people - if it doesn't then the chances are they would be meaningless in any structure that doesn't promote/relegate about 5 teams at each end. A structure where all competing teams can't finish at the same time has a fundamental flaw which cannot be overcome. If you want a league of 14 it has to be a 6/8 split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 A structure where all competing teams can't finish at the same time has a fundamental flaw which cannot be overcome. If you want a league of 14 it has to be a 6/8 split. Surely a structure where teams in the same 'competition' play differing numbers of games exhibits a far more fundamental flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.