Jump to content

Coefficientwatch


lionel hutz

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, I do indeed think this might go round  circles if you wish to deny that giving the already richest club £20m+ in the context of our game has limited impact.

I'll leave you to pull up a chair with wastecoatwillie, and you can both watch the season unfold in just the way you like your football to be.

Watching celtic at the start of the 80's beating real madrid and watching celtic beating juve and barca in recent times has the same feelings 30 years apart,weather celtic have money in the bank or not makes no difference.

Edited by wastecoatwilly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Watching celtic at the start of the 80's beating real madrid and watching celtic beating juve and barca in recent times has the same feelings 30 years apart,weather celtic have money in the bank or not makes no difference.

It makes one Hell of a difference to how they perform at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What possible difference would that make?

I imagine a couple of hundred grand would make, and has made, a hell of a difference when you consider League 2 prize money is in the region of 20-60 thousand pounds. Do you consider this to be acceptable financial doping? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, badgerthewitness said:

I imagine a couple of hundred grand would make, and has made, a hell of a difference when you consider League 2 prize money is in the region of 20-60 thousand pounds. Do you consider this to be acceptable financial doping? 

Yes, it's acceptable, if a little random. 

I'd go further though and have gates split also for league games.  The principle would be the same - if two teams don't show up, no spectators do either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, it's acceptable, if a little random. 

I'd go further though and have gates split also for league games.  The principle would be the same - if two teams don't show up, no spectators do either.

So disproportionate financial advantage is only acceptable when you decide so. 

Thanks for that. All the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, badgerthewitness said:

So disproportionate financial advantage is only acceptable when you decide so. 

Thanks for that. All the best.

The random nature of it means it's not enshrined or sustained like the financial advantages that are the real concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The random nature of it means it's not enshrined or sustained like the financial advantages that are the real concern.

Playing 8 games before getting the prize is surely worth something? If Celtic get to the group stages i believe this team is good enough to take a big scalp at Parkhead and that's before the draw is made,from pot 1 or 2 and money will have nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Playing 8 games before getting the prize is surely worth something? If Celtic get to the group stages i believe this team is good enough to take a big scalp at Parkhead and that's before the draw is made,from pot 1 or 2 and money will have nothing to do with it.

Willy, please tell me what you're on about now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to this debate continuing in the Scottish Cup forum, should a League 2 (or lower) side draw an away tie against either of the old firm.


This would be a better comparison if the League 2 side received a huge lump sum (which no other clubs at their level do) just for taking part in the competition.

A share of the gate receipts from a big tie is hardly comparable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically the money moaners want every team in the whole leagues set up, to receive the same amount?  Win their leagues climb the divisions then get into euro qualifiers and then get into group stages and then for all their hard work give the rewards to everyone else for doing sweet F A? 

 

Superb great idea!!! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spring Onion said:

So basically the money moaners want every team in the whole leagues set up, to receive the same amount?  Win their leagues climb the divisions then get into euro qualifiers and then get into group stages and then for all their hard work give the rewards to everyone else for doing sweet F A? 

 

Superb great idea!!! 

 

 

Am I to conclude from this post that you see "the rewards" of teams having success in football as purely financial?

Am I further to conclude that you see the £20m+ available to a Scottish side for reaching the CL group stages, as commensurate with the achievement involved in getting there?

Does that lead to the conclusion that this financial injection won't in your, view play a big part in hugely distorting domestic competition, thus ensuring that this financial advantage is self perpetuating?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pre Bosman, when the Clubs held the balance of power, players wages across the European leagues varied but nowhere near to the extent they do now. The transfer of this power from the Clubs to the players via their Agents plays into the bigger, richer Clubs. Smaller Clubs suffer due to not being able to pay the relative wages of bigger Clubs and know full well that as part of the Bosman rules, potential transfer fees diminish as the players contract runs down.

Clubs now being able to sign "World 11s" and the shift in attitudes towards far larger squad sizes has swung the balance in power even further towards the bigger, richer Clubs.

The real check and balance (pre Bosman) in football was in restricting the number of foreign players. It acted 2 fold in 1. Preventing Clubs from building "World 11s" which suits the rich Clubs and 2. It created a development conveyor belt transfer system in each of the domestic leagues with money filtering down from the top.

It wasn't perfect but far more equitable than what we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, sjc said:

Pre Bosman, when the Clubs held the balance of power, players wages across the European leagues varied but nowhere near to the extent they do now. The transfer of this power from the Clubs to the players via their Agents plays into the bigger, richer Clubs. Smaller Clubs suffer due to not being able to pay the relative wages of bigger Clubs and know full well that as part of the Bosman rules, potential transfer fees diminish as the players contract runs down.

Clubs now being able to sign "World 11s" and the shift in attitudes towards far larger squad sizes has swung the balance in power even further towards the bigger, richer Clubs.

The real check and balance (pre Bosman) in football was in restricting the number of foreign players. It acted 2 fold in 1. Preventing Clubs from building "World 11s" which suits the rich Clubs and 2. It created a development conveyor belt transfer system in each of the domestic leagues with money filtering down from the top.

It wasn't perfect but far more equitable than what we have now.

Good post.

I've long argued that the eight diddy rule was a good thing. 

There's an irony in that Rangers were a chief mover in having it dismantled.  Unwisely, they thought having to field eight players from a five million population handicapped them against sides who fielded eight from populations of more than fifty million.  The mistake they made was in not recognising how football finances could spiral in these big countries in an unregulated climate, enabling clubs there to access the very best from populations of billions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Good post.

I've long argued that the eight diddy rule was a good thing. 

There's an irony in that Rangers were a chief mover in having it dismantled.  Unwisely, they thought having to field eight players from a five million population handicapped them against sides who fielded eight from populations of more than fifty million.  The mistake they made was in not recognising how football finances could spiral in these big countries in an unregulated climate, enabling clubs there to access the very best from populations of billions.

The UK could become a tax haven for players after brexit when the restriction are put in place for the freedom of movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The UK could become a tax haven for players after brexit when the restriction are put in place for the freedom of movement.

What an attractive notion.

After all, striving to minimise tax obligations has worked so well for Scottish clubs in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...