Henrik's tongue Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 To clarify, Celtic are fucking shite. Concise and to the point, James. Others could learn from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I stated "co-efficient earned" for a reason. Scotland's base according to Kassie's is 3.230. This correctly puts Scottish sides a qualifying round or two ahead of pub teams from Slovenia: who start from a base of 2.575. But contrary to Tommy Nooka's tear-stained claims, several Scottish sides have more than surpassed that base - meaning they earned serious co-efficient points: Motherwell have 7.73 despite a shambolic outing this season; Dundee United and Hearts 6.23, St Johnstone 5.73. Hibs (!) 4.73, Aberdeen 4.23. All have made significant improvements on the basis of getting results - results earned at a harder level of the competition than Slovenian sides. Olympija have 4.825, Koper 4.325 and the rest are well beneath Aberdeen in the 3s. Which is the pub team ranking. And the co-efficient should absolutely reflect the reality that new European entrants from better leagues will start off superior to the plucky champions of Moldova or some other footballing backwater. I was also talking about co efficient points earned. I'll use another example. Pub team Maribor enter the contest and win 3 ties(Lets just say they win both legs in each) to qualify for the champions league. They get pumped 6 times in the group and crash out with no points. They have played 12 games, and won 6 of them. Big team Liverpool are put straight into the group stages. Unexpectedly, they f*ck up and are pumped 6 times. They have played 6 games and lost all of them. Who receives the highest number of coefficient points? If we exclude the base points, the answer is they both receive the same. Are you telling me that it is fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Absolutely: they've reached precisely the same level of performance in the competition. Which is what the co-efficient measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I think we are ignoring the bigger picture here by concentrating on footballing results, which are unpredictable and not the focus of the family. On this "journey" shareholder dividend and robust structural group performance look really positive. That's what Celtic are about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Absolutely: they've reached precisely the same level of performance in the competition. Which is what the co-efficient measures. I can see the logic in that thinking, but the reality is that they haven't. The pub team has won 6 games to get to that stage, the other team have won none. There should be some recognition of that, beyond the prize money. The "Champions" route has gone some way towards giving the perennial diddies a bit more of a chance, but the coefficient system could still be improved to recognise the extra effort put in. I think as it stands, every team who qualifies for the group stages starts on 4 coefficient points. If you have come through 2 or 3 rounds of qualifying there should be a small bonus to reflect the fact you have come through several rounds of qualifying. That said, over the piece it probably would not make much of a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I think we are ignoring the bigger picture here by concentrating on footballing results, which are unpredictable and not the focus of the family. On this "journey" shareholder dividend and robust structural group performance look really positive. That's what Celtic are about. Have Celtic ever made a dividend payment? Bloomberg shows nothing on the ordinary shares. ETA, I can see under director deals that Eric Riley received some shares by way of DRIP in 2012, so there must be something paid on the preference shares. Also found this which is a bit more recent: Celtic plc Announces Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares Payable on September 1, 2014 Jul 25 14 Celtic plc announced convertible Cumulative Preference Shares of 60 pence each for the financial year ended 30 June 2014. The ex-dividend date is July 30, 2014. The record date is August 1, 2014. The dividend is payable on September 1, 2014. So there is something paid. From what I can see it's around 1 new share for every existing 23, or about 3.24p per share. Somewhere in the region of 4% for the preference share holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Have Celtic ever made a dividend payment? Bloomberg shows nothing on the ordinary shares. ETA, I can see under director deals that Eric Riley received some shares by way of DRIP in 2012, so there must be something paid on the preference shares. Yes, they have a policy of paying dividends on preference shares, not ordinary shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shtuggie Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I was also talking about co efficient points earned. I'll use another example. Pub team Maribor enter the contest and win 3 ties(Lets just say they win both legs in each) to qualify for the champions league. They get pumped 6 times in the group and crash out with no points. They have played 12 games, and won 6 of them. Big team Liverpool are put straight into the group stages. Unexpectedly, they f*ck up and are pumped 6 times. They have played 6 games and lost all of them. Who receives the highest number of coefficient points? If we exclude the base points, the answer is they both receive the same. Are you telling me that it is fair? This is possibly one of the most bizarre interpretations I have ever read. A team should get more coefficient points for reaching the same level of competition as another because they had a longer route to that stage? Both teams get pumped six times but one gets more points because they got past dross in the earlier part of the competition? The reason the other team were admitted straight into the League stage is because they were deemed good enough to beat said dross by having a superior coefficient. Baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I can see the logic in that thinking, but the reality is that they haven't. The pub team has won 6 games to get to that stage, the other team have won none. There should be some recognition of that, beyond the prize money. The "Champions" route has gone some way towards giving the perennial diddies a bit more of a chance, but the coefficient system could still be improved to recognise the extra effort put in. I think as it stands, every team who qualifies for the group stages starts on 4 coefficient points. If you have come through 2 or 3 rounds of qualifying there should be a small bonus to reflect the fact you have come through several rounds of qualifying. That said, over the piece it probably would not make much of a difference. They do earn recognition - getting four points on top of their dogshit base total substantially improves their ranking for the next and following seasons. It can turn them from a non-seed to a seed next season in the round before the play-off. Conversely, any English side earning finishing bottom of their group will be punished by sliding down the rankings and not earning a decent seeding. Which is why Manchester City won't be a top seed in the CL, despite being the best side in England. And will likely have a far tougher task winning the competition than a top seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 This is possibly one of the most bizarre interpretations I have ever read. A team should get more coefficient points for reaching the same level of competition as another because they had a longer route to that stage? Both teams get pumped six times but one gets more points because they got past dross in the earlier part of the competition? The reason the other team were admitted straight into the League stage is because they were deemed good enough to beat said dross by having a superior coefficient. Baffling. A team winning 6 games in a competition should receive more coefficient points than a team who win no games in a competition. That's another way of looking at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Answer the question please: how many Slovenian internationals are plying their trade in their domestic league? Erm yes: so if we just disregard the richest and most approximate league - the league which serves as a natural upward step and scouts Scottish football more intensively than the rest of Europe's scouts put together, then Scotland 'only' has about four players outside its domestic league. But why would we disregard England at all? Or indeed, disregard the number of players in a much stronger Scottish league than in Slovenia. Well no they don't - Scotland's international side now is better than Slovenia's. Scottish teams do better in Europe than Slovenian teams. Scotland's domestic game is far wealthier than Slovenia's, partly by virtue of actually having fans attend matches. Maribor are the highest-supported team in Slovenia, and attract crowds that would look ordinary in any season of the Scottish Championship. They attract fewer people to games than Falkirk. Well given Scottish sides have reached two European finals since the turn of the century, while no Slovenian side has ever came close to a European final - Scottish clubs have both made it to and through the group stages on European competitions frequently; Slovenian sides do not - it is categoric to state that you are talking, once again, utter shite. Yes: because Maribor have been so piss-poor in Europe that three years' of results can't overhaul historic success by Scottish clubs. Tl;dr - There is simply no excuse for Celtic's own, entirely self-inflicted failure against a complete pub team. It is not the fault of Scottish football: other Scottish sides would comfortably beat their Slovenian counterparts. And the gulf in resources between Celtic and the rest in Scottish football is orders of magnitude greater than between the Falkirk and Ayr Uniteds of Slovenia, shuffling their way into European football. Gutted for you. What a lot of utter pish! The Slovenian national side has 3 players that play in Slovenia, the exact same number of home based players as the Scottish side. Means eff all about how good those players are though so I don't know what you are trying to prove and I get the feeling you don't either. You're claiming that Scottish teams have reached European finals so must be better than Slovenian teams despite the fact our last European finalist were beaten in more recent tie by a team from Slovenia. Nobody can possibly deny the poor standard of Scottish football in general directly effects ALL of our teams chances of competing with superior european opponents. Can't even be arsed responding to the rest of it as I've got to head home to pick up the wean from school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 A team winning 6 games in a competition should receive more coefficient points than a team who win no games in a competition. That's another way of looking at it. If they were winning them at a comparable level of the competition. But they're not. In fact, they're being eliminated with the same performance, and the co-efficient kicks in at the highest level of competition reached. Perfectly straightforward stuff IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 What a lot of utter pish! The Slovenian national side has 3 players that play in Slovenia, the exact same number of home based players as the Scottish side. Means eff all about how good those players are though so I don't know what you are trying to prove and I get the feeling you don't either. You're claiming that Scottish teams have reached European finals so must be better than Slovenian teams despite the fact our last European finalist were beaten in more recent tie by a team from Slovenia. Nobody can possibly deny the poor standard of Scottish football in general directly effects ALL of our teams chances of competing with superior european opponents. Can't even be arsed responding to the rest of it as I've got to head home to pick up the wean from school. ^^^ idiot found Once, again, the baseless assertion that the Falkirk of Slovenian football are superior to anyone in Scotland. Which isn't actually the case. Unless they face Celtic, their hopeless manager and their stunning ability to bottle European ties against pub teams of course. Meanwhile the rest were knocked out by Azerbaijani herdsmen in the European equivalent of the Petrofac Training Cup. Says it all really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shtuggie Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 A team winning 6 games in a competition should receive more coefficient points than a team who win no games in a competition. That's another way of looking at it. An incorrect way of looking at it. The other team are deemed to have already won the six matches due to their superior coefficient. Whether or not some bunch of farmers from Eastern Europe manage to beat some ice fisherman from Iceland has nothing to do with it and should not result in said farmers or fisherman getting more coefficient points than a team who are eliminated at the same stage of the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 If they were winning them at a comparable level of the competition. But they're not. In fact, they're being eliminated with the same performance, and the co-efficient kicks in at the highest level of competition reached. Perfectly straightforward stuff IMO. I understand it completely, my point is that it's massively skewed towards maintaining the status quo and keeping the big boys at the top. The diddies will always remain diddies because it would take a monumental effort over a concerted period of time to move meaningfully up the rankings. They need to do more to change that, or at least something to give the impression that they are changing it. The "Champions route" is probably as much as they will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Nobody can possibly deny the poor standard of Scottish football in general directly effects ALL of our teams chances of competing with superior european opponents. Sorry again m8, how exactly have Maribor managed, given the absolute woefulness of the Slovenian domestic league? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 An incorrect way of looking at it. The other team are deemed to have already won the six matches due to their superior coefficient. Whether or not some bunch of farmers from Eastern Europe manage to beat some ice fisherman from Iceland has nothing to do with it and should not result in said farmers or fisherman getting more coefficient points than a team who are eliminated at the same stage of the competition. Malmo this year put out Sparta Prague and Red Bull Salzburg, both sides who would be viewed as a potential banana skin for a lot of clubs who receive automatic entry. It's not all farmers and fishermen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 I understand it completely, my point is that it's massively skewed towards maintaining the status quo and keeping the big boys at the top. The diddies will always remain diddies because it would take a monumental effort over a concerted period of time to move meaningfully up the rankings. The reason why it takes a "monumental effort" to move up is because diddies tend to be not very good, and certainly not consistently good. Which is why they're diddies in the first place. On the other hand, a team from a complete backwater like APOEL are now ranked 52nd in Europe - just six spots behind Liverpool, runners-up in the English Premiership - because they've actually managed to string together decent runs. PAOK are 49th, APOEL 52nd, BATE 57th: all far ahead of the likes of Real Sociedad, Besiktas, Fenerbace or Fiorentina. And deservedly so. So the system quite clearly allows for teams from smaller countries to climb well up the rankings - they just have to be good enough to do so, which is the underlying issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shtuggie Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Malmo this year put out Sparta Prague and Red Bull Salzburg, both sides who would be viewed as a potential banana skin for a lot of clubs who receive automatic entry. It's not all farmers and fishermen. Malmo are a great example of how a good team can get recognition in Europe and that it is not just set up for the 'big boys'. Just over a year ago I sat and watched them pump Hibs at Easter Road in the equivalent of what used to be known as the intertoto cup. Now they are in the group stages of the champions league awaiting a draw which will match them with the European elite. This as well as dramatically improving their coefficient and improving their chances of doing so again next year. Can't say fairer than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted August 28, 2014 Share Posted August 28, 2014 Malmo are a great example of how a good team can get recognition in Europe and that it is not just set up for the 'big boys'. Just over a year ago I sat and watched them pump Hibs at Easter Road in the equivalent of what used to be known as the intertoto cup. Now they are in the group stages of the champions league awaiting a draw which will match them with the European elite. This as well as dramatically improving their coefficient and improving their chances of doing so again next year. Can't say fairer than that? As I said, the introduction of the Champions route in the qualifying is a very good start. I still feel the coefficient points could perhaps be linked to the coefficient for the team you beat. You would receive slightly more points for beating Real Madrid for example, as opposed to Celtic. Not enough that 1 result would skew it ridiculously of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.