Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 41 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: How could you possibly read that post and think this was the pertinent point? 'But, then again, should England have that many full time clubs at a national level compared to Scotland? Whereas the longest possible journey between full time clubs in Scotland is Killie to Dingwall (4hrs) the longest in England is, what, Carlisle to Plymouth? That's twice as long a journey. Even taking away outliers the geographic spread in England is far more diverse unlike ourselves. All but half a dozen full time clubs in Scotland are in the central belt (if we're being very generous and claiming Killie and Perth aren't central belt) The fact that that travel costs in England are, generally, higher means they have the same amount of full time clubs as Scotland has (per population that actually goes to the football) but have greater costs associated with it.' Its pertinent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 22 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: Actually makes perfect sense. England has a population of 55,000,000 but, of that population, only 0.7% of the population goes to league football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 374,730. Scotland has a population of 5,400,000 but of that population, 1.1% of the population goes to football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 61,401 This gives us, roughly 16% of the "football" population of England. Therefore we should have, roughly 16% of the number of full time clubs. That means 22 full time clubs, for equivalency, England should have around 130 full time clubs. Which is about the figure they have. But, then again, should England have that many full time clubs at a national level compared to Scotland? Whereas the longest possible journey between full time clubs in Scotland is Killie to Dingwall (4hrs) the longest in England is, what, Carlisle to Plymouth? That's twice as long a journey. Even taking away outliers the geographic spread in England is far more diverse unlike ourselves. All but half a dozen full time clubs in Scotland are in the central belt (if we're being very generous and claiming Killie and Perth aren't central belt) The fact that that travel costs in England are, generally, higher means they have the same amount of full time clubs as Scotland has (per population that actually goes to the football) but have greater costs associated with it. I meant it doesnt make sense that Scotland has 4 tiers in its national league, same as England, with less than half the number of clubs. Apologies, on rereading that, i probably didnt make that clear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 22 hours ago, Cyclizine said: So what? Scotland is a small country and we're not England. If the SPFL clubs thought regionalisation would bring in more crowds and cash, we'd already be doing it. Oh ? Like the pyramid thats obviously a good idea ? Yet took decades to get up and running. You think Scottish football is doing everything perfectly and 'we're already doing every good idea' ? Of course we arent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 56 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: But what was Solihull Moors? Or AFC Fylde? etc. You can't hand pick on team to make an example. Which of the full time clubs in Scotland does not receive adequate crowds to support full time football? I was referencing league clubs. I thought you were, as you mentioned Carlisle and Plymouth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Quote If their travelling costs were reduced, why on earth would they not welcome it ?? Because there are other considerations. For example, travel costs would be negligible if East Fife were to limit themselves to a Fife only league or Airdrie to a Lanarkshire only league. I know it's a relatively extreme example but I'm sure you could understand why those clubs wouldn't want that. Quote I still fail to see though, how 10 clubs, and EVERY single club below them, wouldnt want to be one tier closer to the top. Because that's practically meaningless. Assuming no extra promotion places are available then you are no more likely to move up than you are now. If you're a club capable of challenging to get into tier 2 then it makes no difference to your chances of going up. If you're a club who isn't then all it's done is take away promotion and relegation between the current tiers 3 and 4. Quote But im not pretending to be a spokesman on behalf of 20 clubs. Are you ? Of course not and I don't think I've said anythiing to suggest that I think I am. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 24 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: 'But, then again, should England have that many full time clubs at a national level compared to Scotland? Whereas the longest possible journey between full time clubs in Scotland is Killie to Dingwall (4hrs) the longest in England is, what, Carlisle to Plymouth? That's twice as long a journey. Even taking away outliers the geographic spread in England is far more diverse unlike ourselves. All but half a dozen full time clubs in Scotland are in the central belt (if we're being very generous and claiming Killie and Perth aren't central belt) The fact that that travel costs in England are, generally, higher means they have the same amount of full time clubs as Scotland has (per population that actually goes to the football) but have greater costs associated with it.' Its pertinent. It's not because he wasn't meaning to use Plymouth as a specific example, only as an example to illustrate the difference in travel times, generally, in England compared to Scotland. So that fact that Plymouth are capable of dealing with those costs is irrelevant. There are plenty of full time clubs in relatively extreme geographical areas who get far lower crowds than Plymouth - Barrow for example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 26 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: I meant it doesnt make sense that Scotland has 4 tiers in its national league, same as England, with less than half the number of clubs. Apologies, on rereading that, i probably didnt make that clear. England has 5 national tiers, not that it really makes much difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: Because there are other considerations. For example, travel costs would be negligible if East Fife were to limit themselves to a Fife only league or Airdrie to a Lanarkshire only league. I know it's a relatively extreme example but I'm sure you could understand why those clubs wouldn't want that. Because that's practically meaningless. Assuming no extra promotion places are available then you are no more likely to move up than you are now. If you're a club capable of challenging to get into tier 2 then it makes no difference to your chances of going up. If you're a club who isn't then all it's done is take away promotion and relegation between the current tiers 3 and 4. Of course not and I don't think I've said anythiing to suggest that I think I am. Re tiers, i disagree. If you are one tier closer to the top, you are....one tier closer to the top. Thats a fact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Just now, Doonhamer1969 said: Re tiers, i disagree. If you are one tier closer to the top, you are....one tier closer to the top. Thats a fact. I didn't say it wasn't a fact. I said it was practically meaningless. For example, if you're American and deciding who to vote for as President, I could state that you should vote for Bernie Sanders because he wears glasses. That's a fact too but no reasonable person thinks it should have any bearing on who would make the best president. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: It's not because he wasn't meaning to use Plymouth as a specific example, only as an example to illustrate the difference in travel times, generally, in England compared to Scotland. So that fact that Plymouth are capable of dealing with those costs is irrelevant. There are plenty of full time clubs in relatively extreme geographical areas who get far lower crowds than Plymouth - Barrow for example. Yep, Barrow, whose average home attendances are higher than all bar ONE of League One and League Two's teams, amd higher than at least 3 of the Championship teams. So can afford to travel further. Proof. https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/barrow/attendances 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Re tiers, i disagree. If you are one tier closer to the top, you are....one tier closer to the top. Thats a fact. If you're the 42nd ranked club in Scotland you remain the 42nd ranked club in Scotland whether yer bottom of the 4th tier or bottom of the 2nd. Yer still Brechin City and yer still shite. You seem to say something with no evidence to back it up then when others use actual facts and examples to prove that what you say makes no sense you ignore the jist of the argument and point out on example they may have got wrong even if that minutae isn't important to the general point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 minute ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: If you're the 42nd ranked club in Scotland you remain the 42nd ranked club in Scotland whether yer bottom of the 4th tier or bottom of the 2nd. Yer still Brechin City and yer still shite. You seem to say something with no evidence to back it up then when others use actual facts and examples to prove that what you say makes no sense you ignore the jist of the argument and point out on example they may have got wrong even if that minutae isn't important to the general point. If there are only 3 tiers, you have a good season, guess what , you are in Tier 2. If you are in tier 4 and have a good season, you're in ......Tier 3. It aint rocket science. eg Cove Rangers ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Yep, Barrow, whose average home attendances are higher than all bar ONE of League One and League Two's teams, amd higher than at least 3 of the Championship teams. So can afford to travel further. Proof. https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/barrow/attendances Their attendences are much higher this season because they're pushing for the league. A few seasons ago they were playing in front of about 600. Besides the point though, they travel far, far further every season than any Scottish club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: If you're the 42nd ranked club in Scotland you remain the 42nd ranked club in Scotland whether yer bottom of the 4th tier or bottom of the 2nd. Yer still Brechin City and yer still shite. You seem to say something with no evidence to back it up then when others use actual facts and examples to prove that what you say makes no sense you ignore the jist of the argument and point out on example they may have got wrong even if that minutae isn't important to the general point. See my above post for evidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Gordon EF said: Their attendences are much higher this season because they're pushing for the league. A few seasons ago they were playing in front of about 600. Besides the point though, they travel far, far further every season than any Scottish club. Cheers. Perfectly illustrates my point re Tiers. What do you think Cove's attendances would be this year if the promotion they are about to get was into the Championship ? You seriously think they would be exactly the same as they are now ?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Doonhamer1969 said: If there are only 3 tiers, you have a good season, guess what , you are in Tier 2. If you are in tier 4 and have a good season, you're in ......Tier 3. It aint rocket science. eg Cove Rangers ? If this is such a great argument, then why not regionalise all footbal lin Scotland below the Premier League. Going by your own logic.... Decreased trvel = good One step closer to top level = good England has 10 times as many people as Scotland and 5 national levels, so techincally Scotland should really only have 0.5 national leagues, let's round it up to 1. Really, I'd be interested to know the reasons against doing this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Just now, Doonhamer1969 said: Cheers. Perfectly illustrates my point re Tiers. What do you think Cove's attendances would be this year if the promotion they are about to get was into the Championship ? You seriously think they would be exactly the same as they are now ?? How big would they be if they were going for promotion to the Premier League - a great argument for regionalising all football outside the Premier. Seriously though, what about all the clubs who're playing for promotion right now who wouldn't be if they were in a larger, regiolaised tier? They'd surely get smaller crowds? So doesn't that cancel out your point? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 8 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Re tiers, i disagree. If you are one tier closer to the top, you are....one tier closer to the top. Thats a fact. The clubs are playing quite happily in a national setup at the moment. Edinburgh City and Cove Rangers weren't clamouring for regionalisation after promotion. Again, we are a small country with a few geographical outliers who are coping just fine. Just because you've merged League 1 and 2 into and split them quasi-geographically (which doesn't really help with travel anyway, given the population distribution in Scotland) doesn't mean that you've made it easier for clubs to be promoted. The number remains the same. I'd also argue from a sponsorship point of view, there is more to be gained from national divisions in terms of exposure. "Scottish National League Division 2" has more inherent prestige than the "Scottish Provincial League Division 1 Northeast": even if they're both notionally at Tier 3 in your spreadsheet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: If there are only 3 tiers, you have a good season, guess what , you are in Tier 2. If you are in tier 4 and have a good season, you're in ......Tier 3. It aint rocket science. eg Cove Rangers ? Or, alternatively, if you are, say, Forfar or Stranraer you know you will almost certainly never make it into a top tier of 16. However you can make it into the 2nd tier of 10. Teams like Cowdenbeath, Arbroath, Alloa, Stranraer, Dumbarton, etc. have had a season or two in the 2nd tier playing against Rangers, Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United, Dundee... big clubs with big supports and a level of prestige that would otherwise be beyond them. Larger leagues would take this opportunity away from most part time clubs. Those clubs would be unlikely to be relegated with dross below them. Furthermore Cove would not be winning the bottom tier if it was larger with better quality teams from the league above in it. So instead of Cove having a good season in tier 4 they would just be having an average season in tier 3. What's more prestigious? Mediocrity or a title? I am, personally, in favour of larger leagues but don't pretend your half thoughts are evidence or that, even if they were, there isn't a contradictory argument to be made. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: If this is such a great argument, then why not regionalise all footbal lin Scotland below the Premier League. Going by your own logic.... Decreased trvel = good One step closer to top level = good England has 10 times as many people as Scotland and 5 national levels, so techincally Scotland should really only have 0.5 national leagues, let's round it up to 1. Really, I'd be interested to know the reasons against doing this. ive already said, the top two tiers are practically all full time, so no need to regionalise. Ive also just said that im not copying England. There are , as far as i am aware, no developed countries with just one national tier, so clearly, you are just being facetious. Edited March 10, 2020 by Doonhamer1969 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.