"Scotland Has Too Many Clubs" - Ann Budge

[Ayrshire-SFC]

Not bothered to read through the whole thread. But Iceland 's football league system has a total of 72 teams. I don't know to what standard although I know they are all part time. But what Iceland share in common with us is a lot of the international players play outwith their country. If it works in Iceland don't see the issue here.

[BFTD]

10 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Surely the point of a regional setup is that you move from national to regional at the point where clubs can't sustain the infrastructure/budget required to play at a national level, moving to smaller regions on the same basis the further down you go through the pyramid?

It's self evident that clubs can sustain themselves playing at a national level in tiers three & four, therefore there's clearly no need to introduce regionalisation at that level.

This. It's amazing that some folk are still posting about regionalisation being "common sense" without any foundation that hasn't already been shown to be bobbins.

[Hampden Diehard]

8 hours ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

This. It's amazing that some folk are still posting about regionalisation being "common sense" without any foundation that hasn't already been shown to be bobbins.

Correct.  Regionalisation is fine if there is an even geographical spread of the population, but Scotland has its population skewed to the central belt, Fife / Angus and a line stradding the M9.  I do feel for the likes of Annan and Stranraer having to trek to Peterhead or wherever in midweek, but if they want to progress, then they'll have to put up with it.

[WaffenThinMint]

On 12/08/2016 at 08:55, NewBlue said:

I see this said a lot but I don't think it is a fair comparison. The top non league sides in England are a lot more professional than our non league set up in Scotland and is also well attended - the national Leagues average attendance for last season was over 5000. So it isn't exactly fair to make a direct comparison as there are arguably a lot more 'professional' sides in England outside the top 4 leagues.

England with a population of 55 million has 106 professional clubs with full time staff and players (the 92 clubs of the national league and 14 in the Conference/National) and 160 clubs altogether which can be considered professional if you add in the two regional leagues directly below the National. The vast majority are well run with realistic potential for improvement and advancement - and they face competition from professional rugby for hearts and minds on top.

Scotland meanwhile with under five and a half million tries to run 42 professional clubs (full and part time) in the SPFL alone - it still amounts to trying to run a quarter of the number of clubs with a tenth of the population, and damn few of those clubs have any realistic prospects other than survival for another season - little to no money left to invest in the long term.

It's silly to expect such clubs to travel to the back of beyond taking few fans with them and encouraging even fewer extra locals to come out and watch when there's the same size of gates and more which can be gleaned from the likes of Linlithgow Rose or East Kilbride on their doorsteps. Yet this madness persists, mainly down to ancient wrongs clouding judgements instead of dealing with the pragmatics of running a football club in a more sparsely populated and poorer area of the country where every penny counts.

[DiegoDiego]

9 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

It's silly to expect such clubs to travel to the back of beyond taking few fans with them

I think many people overestimate the importance of fans. I love that Scotland has such a high percentage of dedicated fans and it's one thing I've always missed whenever I've lived abroad, but it's quite clear that when comparing domestic football around Europe, ticket receipts have little impact on the quality of football.

Rabotnicki knocked Trabzonspor out of the Europe last season but they only took 200 fans to the Macedonian cup final, which was at their home stadium. Alaskhert who did in St Johnstone don't charge entry for their matches. Even in richer countries it's the same; the last match I saw in Denmark was the Roskilde-Naestved derby where only 3% of the regular Naestved crowd made the forty minute trip. Second tier Danish sides give away season tickets for £35 yet still fail to reach four figure attendances while Scotland with its hardcore fans ploughing cash into the game has an equally abject national team and worse clubs.

tl;dr If you want to increase the quality of Scottish football, crowdwanking achieves nothing.

[WaffenThinMint]

32 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

I think many people overestimate the importance of fans. I love that Scotland has such a high percentage of dedicated fans and it's one thing I've always missed whenever I've lived abroad, but it's quite clear that when comparing domestic football around Europe, ticket receipts have little impact on the quality of football.

Rabotnicki knocked Trabzonspor out of the Europe last season but they only took 200 fans to the Macedonian cup final, which was at their home stadium. Alaskhert who did in St Johnstone don't charge entry for their matches. Even in richer countries it's the same; the last match I saw in Denmark was the Roskilde-Naestved derby where only 3% of the regular Naestved crowd made the forty minute trip. Second tier Danish sides give away season tickets for £35 yet still fail to reach four figure attendances while Scotland with its hardcore fans ploughing cash into the game has an equally abject national team and worse clubs.

tl;dr If you want to increase the quality of Scottish football, crowdwanking achieves nothing.

When you have no major backers and the only sources of revenue are advertising hoardings with diminishing returns (as is the case across the advertising industry) and those coming through the gates, you cannot overestimate the importance of fans. This is particularly the case in this country where clubs own their grounds rather than renting off the local municipality as is common in Europe.

TL; DR No fans today, no club tomorrow.

[DiegoDiego]

15 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

When you have no major backers and the only sources of revenue are advertising hoardings with diminishing returns (as is the case across the advertising industry) and those coming through the gates, you cannot overestimate the importance of fans. This is particularly the case in this country where clubs own their grounds rather than renting off the local municipality as is common in Europe.

TL; DR No fans today, no club tomorrow.

I agree, the fans are vitally important to Scottish football and are perhaps our last remaining competitive advantage. My question is why are we lagging so far behind on these other revenue streams which nations across Europe are using to fund the clubs which are outperforming our own? How do Scottish clubs attract the sort of investment and advertising which is almost single-handedly funding clubs in similar sized markets? It boggles my mind when I see local firms fall over each other in a rush to connect their brand with Danish and Finnish diddy clubs the size of Livingston or Airdrie. My instinct, as always, is to blame our failings on the Old Firm and Doncaster.

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, WaffenThinMint said:

England with a population of 55 million has 106 professional clubs with full time staff and players (the 92 clubs of the national league and 14 in the Conference/National) and 160 clubs altogether which can be considered professional if you add in the two regional leagues directly below the National. The vast majority are well run with realistic potential for improvement and advancement - and they face competition from professional rugby for hearts and minds on top.

Well that's bollocks for a start. Why wouldn't you count Northern Premier League etc (level 7) where there are 72 clubs. They're not pub league amateurs.

If you expand that to level 8, you're adding another 136 clubs. For reference, Lancaster City play at level 8. They've got a decent little 3,500 capacity stadium and Lancaster, as a town is larger than Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline, Greenock, Dumfries, Dumbarton, Falkirk and Ayr.

In terms of the kinds of towns represented by each league level, Level 8 towns in England probably have a substantially higher average population than level 4 in Scotland. So in reality, we're comparing 42 with around 224 at least.

Beyond that you don't really seem to be making any kind of point at all. Let's take an extreme example and say we disbanded all but the 'top' 22 clubs in Scotland. Does anyone think that the 'life force' of the dead clubs would pass on to the remaining 22 like fucking Highlander and Scottish football would be brilliant because 5.3 million divided by 22 is a really big number? No. The remaining 22 would be just as shit and have just as many fans as they do now. And, as can be proved by the simplest of comparisons, Scottish clubs actually do very, very well in attracting fans.

[HibeeJibee]

Annan-Elgin and Peterhead-Stranraer only happen twice a season in each direction, and cannot happen that often midweek. Avoiding those games is the only thing that regionalising would markedly achieve... Annan and Stranraer would still have to travel into the central belt every other week, and teams in the central belt would still have to travel to the fringe four times a season.

Some would say "fair enough" and point out that it would slightly increase the number of derbies and so on. However, the issue is the concern about the trade-off of no longer playing nationwide: its effect to media coverage, ability to attract hospitality and sponsorship, prestige, attractiveness to supporters and so on. Simply being part of SPFL and playing national football is seen as a strong contributor to those, and almost certainly is IMO. Also in the past regionalising has been tied-in with reducing the amount of promotion/relegation (clearly it wouldn't stay equivalent to 2 horizontal divisions) and stopping these clubs playing in the League Cup, neither being desirable.

[Ivo den Bieman]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

Rabotnicki knocked Trabzonspor out of the Europe last season but they only took 200 fans to the Macedonian cup final, which was at their home stadium. Alaskhert who did in St Johnstone don't charge entry for their matches.

 

I was at the home leg for that game against Trabzonspor and there were around 3-4,000 fans there. Rabotnicki do have a good fanbase, it's just that the cup competition (as in many European countries) just doesn't rate as important. Not really comparing like with like here.

Rabotnicki, Vardar, Shkendija, Pelister and Pobeda are all well supported clubs and would have (comparatively) big turn outs for European games.

[Yoda8]

On 7 August 2016 at 20:24, LongTimeLurker said:

Malta is only slightly bigger than Clackmannanshire with less than a tenth of Scotland's population, so that isn't a sensible parallel. Not sure why people see having twenty fewer clubs in the national divisions as meaning clubs would no longer exist. Most of Scotland's 950 or so Saturday afternoon teams already play outside the SPFL. Bo'ness United vs Alloa makes more sense than Stranraer vs Alloa from a logistical standpoint when part-time players are involved and you would still get a decent sized crowd along to watch it. Regional divisions at the top part-time level would not be the end of the world for the clubs involved.

But how serious would players take it if just another version of Juniors ???? 

The smaller clubs maintain focus and many boys that would have been lost to the game or level of professionalism would have been lowered. 

Greg Stewart & Hemmings are a case in point this week. Both went from Rangers at young age and ended up at Cowdenbeath,  Stewart being released from Hearts ironically enough, and have now served Dundee well & earned them the guts of a Million quid.

 

[Ivo den Bieman]

I think that as long as there is a Scottish football, there will be this "there's too many wee clubs all holding us back" argument. It's tedious, factually inaccurate and bears no relation whatever to the possible future success of the game both domestically and at international level.

Whether there is a point to clubs like Elgin City and Montrose is neither here nor there to the development of a strategy that delivers an exciting league and successful national team. Elgin and Montrose are simply irrelevant in these debates.

What I am concerned about is the normalisation of U-20s participating in the league structure, and the total loss of much power and influence within the development of the game for the smaller clubs.

I can see big, big changes coming to Scottish football in the next 3-5 years; perhaps as big as the changes of the 1970s. The mood music at present suggests that these changes won't be particulalrly favourable to smaller clubs at all and their political marginalisation means that they will be able to do very little about it.

It's surely obvious that a successful national team and competitive, interesting domestic league depends at least in part on a healthy grassroots. 

[DiegoDiego]

15 minutes ago, Ivo den Bieman said:

I was at the home leg for that game against Trabzonspor and there were around 3-4,000 fans there. Rabotnicki do have a good fanbase, it's just that the cup competition (as in many European countries) just doesn't rate as important. Not really comparing like with like here.

Rabotnicki, Vardar, Shkendija, Pelister and Pobeda are all well supported clubs and would have (comparatively) big turn outs for European games.

You're probably right about the European games, but for the league Rabotnicki averaged 531 last season, an improvement over 247 the season before. Pelister's attendances have dropped off a lot after relegation so I was told (and their stadium might be the worst I've ever seen).

My point remains though, how much was the ticket for the Trabzonspor game? These clubs are competing with Scottish clubs who receive orders of magnitude more through ticket sales. Brondby's attendance may be slightly more than Hibs' but tickets are a third of the cost. The dedication and deep pockets of Scottish fans are the only thing keeping our clubs from slipping into even further irrelevance.

Edited August 13, 2016 by DiegoDiego

[Ivo den Bieman]

I seem to remember the ticket was 200 denars (about £2.40).   Pelister are now back in the Macedonian first league (as are Pobeda). Edited to add: the Macedonian league is pretty dreadful fayre on the whole; older fans won't go because it is disastrous compared to the old Yugoslav league; younger fans like everywhere else are much more interested in watching La Liga, the Bundesliga or the Premier League on TV. Many Macedonian friends look blank when you ask who their team is; they don't have a local team, instead "supporting" Real / Barca / Bayern/ Man U. Factor in a country with up to 50% unemployment, where most locals rub by on less than 300 euros a month, and football supporting of the kind seen in the UK just isn't going to happen.

Agree with your broader points about Scottish football. Not sure that culling /regionliaising the lower leagues wil make a blind bit of difference to be honest.

The problems are not to do with "too many clubs" which is simpy a red herring. The problems, in no particular order, come from 1. being next door to an incredibly wealthy and well established league pyramid 2. poor coaching 3. poor training facilities 4. "success at all costs" mentality 5. changing leisure patterns since 1980 or so coupled with 6. declining disposable income since 2008 7. parochialism /"I'm Alright Jack/ what's in it for me" attitudes from club chairmen who are conservatively minded in Scotland.

These are all intractable problems affecting the domestic game that the numbers of clubs playing at senior level has precisely f**k all to do with.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Ivo den Bieman

[HibeeJibee]

For at least 100 years the ultimate ambition of the biggest clubs has been for a league set-up of around 20 teams with the smaller clubs marginalised into regional leagues, if possible containing their own 'B' teams. At times various times, parts of this preference have been realised. After WWI the reinstatement of the Second Division was "blocked" until 1921. After WWII there was brief prospects of a standalone 16-team Superleague and until the 1950s the smallest clubs were successfully kept in regional C Divisions mainly filled with 'B' teams (plus an attempt led by Rangers to expel several clubs entirely was resisted). Various other ideas bubbled along either side of reconstruction in the mid-1970s. In recent times - when the number of full-time clubs happens to have coalesced around the same figure of 20 or so - we have seen ideas like SPL2, and the McLeish Plan (actually the Doncaster & Topping plan) for 10-10 with 2x 10-team regional leagues below including OF 'B' teams, later turned into 10-12 with 2x 16-team regional leagues below containing 'B' teams for all SPL1 clubs.

However, for all their progressive reductions in income and influence - which of course has also reduced the significance of getting rid of them - the small clubs still have the ultimate defence of their rule change voting bloc. They cannot be forced out of SPFL, regionalised, or have 'B' teams foisted upon them, unless over half of them vote for it.

Edited August 13, 2016 by HibeeJibee

[theoriginalhedge]

Basically Ann Budge has most likely taken the tig that Ken Ferguson from Brechin has as much say as her on the SPFL board .  That is sadly the situation here. I only hope democracy wins over dictatorship and greed. 

[FairWeatherFan]

T1. 12 team Premier

T2. 10 team Championship

T3. 18 team National League

T4. 18 team Highland League

T4. 18 team Lowland League

In terms of honours to be won you really only lose the League Two Championship. I'd prefer a larger 2nd tier but its the kind of compromise I could see happening.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

20 hours ago, Yoda8 said:

But how serious would players take it if just another version of Juniors ????

It wouldn't be just another version, my argument is it should be merged right into junior and Highland League football in an east-west-north format at the third tier. Have you ever been to a top junior game? The players and fans take it very seriously. Having watched both grades (senior more than junior) over the years, I don't get why lower division SPFL fans think their clubs are special in some way compared to the likes of Bo'ness United, Pollok or Auchinleck Talbot (take away the subsidy from league and association handouts and there would be little to no difference) and why Alloa would see a trip to Stranraer as better than a trip to Bo'ness when the scope for extra well-attended local derbies is obvious in a regional format.

[Jimmy48]

Ann Budge seems to be a sensible enough person, look at the turnaround at Hearts. So her ideas about the league are probably pretty near accurate.

[WaffenThinMint]

On 13/08/2016 at 12:53, HibeeJibee said:

Annan-Elgin and Peterhead-Stranraer only happen twice a season in each direction, and cannot happen that often midweek. Avoiding those games is the only thing that regionalising would markedly achieve... Annan and Stranraer would still have to travel into the central belt every other week, and teams in the central belt would still have to travel to the fringe four times a season.

Some would say "fair enough" and point out that it would slightly increase the number of derbies and so on. However, the issue is the concern about the trade-off of no longer playing nationwide: its effect to media coverage, ability to attract hospitality and sponsorship, prestige, attractiveness to supporters and so on. Simply being part of SPFL and playing national football is seen as a strong contributor to those, and almost certainly is IMO. Also in the past regionalising has been tied-in with reducing the amount of promotion/relegation (clearly it wouldn't stay equivalent to 2 horizontal divisions) and stopping these clubs playing in the League Cup, neither being desirable.

HJ, you know as well as I do that the transport infrastructure in England is vastly superior to that up here, and it's possible to travel far longer distances in far shorter times. Cutting down on journey times has a far bigger impact up here, especially with an inferior product on offer.

As for media coverage, seriously? The media doesn't care a flying fk about any other side outwith the Two Cheeks, there's little to nothing left for them to lose with the mainstream media and your local rags are so servile to anyone advertising they'll print any story a Tier 3 and 4 club gives them to fill column space for all the good it will do anyway.

"Also in the past regionalising has been..." SNIP!

Thereby lies the crux of the problem - the old "in the past" routine. Because something was tried or tied in before to plans betraying bad faith, that means it shouldn't be contemplated again. There's nothing to stop clubs in regional leagues within the SPFL still taking part in the national cup contests unregionalised.

Finally, there's the matter you mention of "prestige, attractiveness to supporters and so on." Fans are attracted to clubs - especially fans in Scotland where the need to be a Billy-Big-Baws mentality is far stronger than down south - by a number of factors, not least of all a "winning team", facilities, etc; and what league they're in coming very far down the pecking order. Hence why the Orcs managed to largely maintain their turnouts when in the lower leagues.