New BBC Documentary Series - Scottish Fitba is Pish

[Antiochas III]

12 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Plenty successful countries don't have 'B' teams, though.

Plenty countries that do aren't successful.

Not at our market level.

The other fix that most of our level leagues (and bigger) have is regionalisation after the second tier, another thing we should have. 

 

[1320Lichtie]

Not at our market level.

The other fix that most of our level leagues (and bigger) have is regionalisation after the second tier, another thing we should have. 

 

NOT THIS AGAIN

GTF.

How big are they countries? How small is ours. You've effectively got nearly every club in the lower league pyramid in between Montrose and Ayr (about 2 and a half hours apart), apart from Berwick, Annan, Stranraer, Elgin, Peterhead and QOTS (although they're FT)

24 out of your 30 clubs.

[1320Lichtie]

The Scottish league's UEFA ranking tends to flatten out the inevitable swings of public attention towards shock results though, and the league's performance on the basis of Scottish football's wealth is piss-poor. Maribor narrowly beating Aberdeen wasn't a surprise given the relatively greater European experience of the opponents, but Maribor ultimately play in front of a lower Premiership-sized crowd (4,000 or so) in a country that is by no means dirt poor but still has a lower standard of living than Scotland; their ticket prices will be far lower than any top flight side in Scotland. No-one is forking out huge sums for Slovenian TV rights, nor are there oil barons subsidising clubs. So when it is clear that the likes of Maribor, Spartak Trnava or fellow, middling clubs in European terms possess some good players who can compete with or are better than the options available to Scottish clubs, why aren't they being targeted using the greater financial muscle of Scottish club sides to improve their performances?

Said this for fucking ages. Instead Scottish clubs look to lower league English players.

There must be a good few cracking examples of a player that's come to this league and done brilliantly from some obscure European leagues... Must be

[Antiochas III]

9 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

NOT THIS AGAIN

GTF.

How big are they countries? How small is ours. You've effectively got nearly every club in the lower league pyramid in between Montrose and Ayr (about 2 and a half hours apart), apart from Berwick, Annan, Stranraer, Elgin, Peterhead and QOTS (although they're FT)

24 out of your 30 clubs.

Leagues within our market level, where our fans levels, possible fan level, participation etc...

Scotland - 78.3squared
Croatia - 56Squared
Portugal - 92squared
Netherlands - 41.54squared

Denmark - 42squared

Belgium - 30squared

 

So just a quick look and eh... 1 country bigger. 

 

 

[1320Lichtie]

Leagues within our market level, where our fans levels, possible fan level, participation etc...

Scotland - 78.3squared

Croatia - 56Squared

Portugal - 92squared

Netherlands - 41.54squared

Denmark - 42squared

Belgium - 30squared

 

So just a quick look and eh... 1 country bigger. 

 

 

That means nothing. Absolutely nothing. How are the other countries clubs geographically spread?

I assume you know about our central belt yes?

ETA: in fairness you did answer my question...

[Antiochas III]

11 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

 

That means nothing. Absolutely nothing. How are the other countries clubs geographically spread?

I assume you know about our central belt yes?

 

If it doesn't matter, why did you mention the size specifically, in fact you used it as your main argument against? 

You do know our league system doesn't only have 42 clubs right?  It is also not unusual for leagues to have more clubs in one league than another.  Croatia has 16 in the East and West while they have 18 in the South (including 3 in Split alone).  In Croatia, 12 (out of 22) of the clubs in the top two leagues are based in the East Section (8 of them in the one city) - they also include those dammed II teams. 

 

 

 

[1320Lichtie]

If it doesn't matter, why did you mention the size specifically, in fact you used it as your main argument against? 

You do know our league system doesn't only have 42 clubs right?  It is also not unusual for leagues to have more clubs in one league than another.  Croatia has 16 in the East and West while they have 18 in the South (including 3 in Split alone).  In Croatia, 12 (out of 22) of the clubs in the top two leagues are based in the East Section (8 of them in the one city) - they also include those dammed II teams. 

 

 

 

42 clubs at a national level

And the regionalisation argument has been done to death and proven to be a lot of utter guff. Like I said elsewhere, most of our players come from Glasgow, Edinburgh, we have one from as far as Stevenson (one of our best players by the way).. They'd have to travel further!!! As it stands he only has to come to Arbroath once every 2 weeks and Perth twice for training.

Plus we wouldn't be able to attract a lot of players, the clubs in and around Glasgow and Edinburgh would have a massive advantage. Even if all the players came from the town I'm really not sure how driving an hour less each way would make any difference. A load of utter nonsense.

Elgin x 2. Berwick x 2. Annan x 2 are the only long journeys we as a club will have to make in the next 10 month. Everything else under an hour and a half.

How would us playing a team closer in those 6 games help Scottish football improve in any way whatsoever? What difference would a 1 hour journey be instead of a 3? Seriously?

[Dunning1874]

The whole point of regionalisation is that you regionalise at a level where clubs don't have the resources to sustain playing at a national level. It is self-evident that clubs in our third and fourth tiers are able to sustain playing at a national level, therefore we do not need to regionalise at these levels.

One of the reasons our clubs can sustain themselves at a national level where clubs at the same tier in similar size countries may not be able to are our comparatively excellent attendances when compared with the lower leagues in those countries. Perhaps because we have real clubs at these levels rather than glorified reserve leagues full of B teams.

[1320Lichtie]

The whole point of regionalisation is that you regionalise at a level where clubs don't have the resources to sustain playing at a national level. It is self-evident that clubs in our third and fourth tiers are able to sustain playing at a national level, therefore we do not need to regionalise at these levels.

One of the reasons our clubs can sustain themselves at a national level where clubs at the same tier in similar size countries may not be able to are our comparatively excellent attendances when compared with the lower leagues in those countries. Perhaps because we have real clubs at these levels rather than glorified reserve leagues full of B teams.

Keep this post handy Dunning this'll more than likely come up again in a few days.

It's pretty apparent that the people saying this have no idea about the clubs, fans or players they're talking about. As there's absolutely zero desire for it from anybody involved.

How it would improve anything is anyone's guess as well by the way, I'm not sure how this hypothetical idea that travelling an hour or 2 less to a game would improve anything in any way.

[Salvo Montalbano]

Absolutely. People go on about our lower league clubs "only" getting a fee hundred through the gates but there are plenty of countries where lower league teams get even fewer - even with regionalisation. I'd wager that our second tier stands up well in comparison too, even without the likes of Rangers, Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd in the past few years.

[Antiochas III]

49 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

The whole point of regionalisation is that you regionalise at a level where clubs don't have the resources to sustain playing at a national level. It is self-evident that clubs in our third and fourth tiers are able to sustain playing at a national level, therefore we do not need to regionalise at these levels.

One of the reasons our clubs can sustain themselves at a national level where clubs at the same tier in similar size countries may not be able to are our comparatively excellent attendances when compared with the lower leagues in those countries. Perhaps because we have real clubs at these levels rather than glorified reserve leagues full of B teams.

 

43 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

 

 

 

Keep this post handy Dunning this'll more than likely come up again in a few days.

It's pretty apparent that the people saying this have no idea about the clubs, fans or players they're talking about. As there's absolutely zero desire for it from anybody involved.

How it would improve anything is anyone's guess as well by the way, I'm not sure how this hypothetical idea that travelling an hour or 2 less to a game would improve anything in any way.
 

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

Absolutely. People go on about our lower league clubs "only" getting a fee hundred through the gates but there are plenty of countries where lower league teams get even fewer - even with regionalisation. I'd wager that our second tier stands up well in comparison too, even without the likes of Rangers, Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd in the past few years.

Compared to Croatia, no doubt - not a single club averages over 10,000.  But Netherlands says no - be it League 2 or the semi professional leagues, where 14 semi-pro/amateur teams get over 750 fans a week, many of them over a 1000 - and they have second teams in their tier two and three (although from this season their regionalisation begins at tier 4).  In fact a total of 45 of their clubs had 1000 fans or more on average every week.   

The fact our attendances from top to bottom of our football league (SPFL level) holds up against most leagues very well though and the fact we're a dinosaur in our production of footballers should not be compatible in anyway, but in Scotland it is.  So the coaching isn't fine, the league system isn't fine, the youth/development set up isn't fine. 

 

Regionalisation isn't about closer games fo me and it certainly isn't to do with fan numbers, that's one of the worst ways to decide what is a good league, hell I don't care if a teams gets 1000 fans to a game, 50000 to a game or 1 man and a dog - you'll never see me going "ha ha what an embarrassment x club only got 2500 in the Premiership as it's on the field that matters regarding what league you are in not how many of us ****wits pay over the odds to watch it) , as attendances do not make you a good or bad team. 

What regionalisation allows (and especially would if in Scotland)  more clubs into a system that has been far to closed for far too long - which the lower leagues have been much worse for that the SPL/Premiership clubs have been in the horrible period (IMHO) history of Scottish football that began in 1998.  Hell you don't even have to call it by Regions, call it League 1a, 1b and 1c.  By expanding the bottom end, it allows us to expand the top end too

Thinking about it, regionalisation was probably the wrong word to use. 

[Dunning1874]

The average attendance in the Dutch third tier for 2015/16 was 847. Ours was 975. Their fourth tier average was 579, compared to 555 for us. Yes, they have more clubs with high individual attendances, but the Netherlands has a population more than three times the size of ours.

I see no reason why regionalising the third and fourth tiers would improve the standard of any tier.

[parsforlife]

 

What regionalisation allows (and especially would if in Scotland)  more clubs into a system that has been far to closed for far too long - which the lower leagues have been much worse for that the SPL/Premiership clubs have been in the horrible period (IMHO) history of Scottish football that began in 1998.  Hell you don't even have to call it by Regions, call it League 1a, 1b and 1c.  By expanding the bottom end, it allows us to expand the top end too

Thinking about it, regionalisation was probably the wrong word to use. 

So what your asking for is an expansion of the number of teams in our league structure.

You do realise the number of teams with direct access (through promotion ) to the top division having recently gone under a massive expansion is the highest it's ever been?

[Antiochas III]

No it hasn't. Direct access remains at 1 club.  The lowest in any major league in Europe.  While the playoffs has given us 1 promotion in 3 attempts.

 Or did you mean lowest division - which again is one of the lowest available in any major league in Europe 

[stu2910]

When it comes to league structure, why can't we just merge the top 2 divisions and the bottom 2 divisions to give 22 and 20 (or 20 and 22 if that makes any difference).

Never going to happen because green would only play blue twice a year and I know 42 games is a lot, but one of the biggest problems with attendances in the lower leagues is that it's hard to see the point. If you're a Stranraer fan, the most exciting thing that can happen is a 1 in 100 cup run to the 4th round, or promotion to the championship to play a couple of bigger teams and then be relegated again.

If you change the leagues as I said, Stranraer, Brechin, Airdrie etc would all be fighting for a very realistic promotion (especially if the places are increased) to the top flight with all the biggest teams in the country.

There is also a youth development benefit. For teams that currently qualify for Europe, this would give them several games each year that they would expect to win by several goals. That gives them the opportunity to play a few youth players to give them experience with less worry that points would be dropped. The same goes for Dundee, Partick, Hamilton, Killie etc as these teams are much more likely to develop and play youth players without the constant threat of relegation.

So surely the potential for increased attendances due to the variety of opposition and the potential development of youth players benefits both the league and the national side?

[1320Lichtie]

When it comes to league structure, why can't we just merge the top 2 divisions and the bottom 2 divisions to give 22 and 20 (or 20 and 22 if that makes any difference).

Never going to happen because green would only play blue twice a year and I know 42 games is a lot, but one of the biggest problems with attendances in the lower leagues is that it's hard to see the point. If you're a Stranraer fan, the most exciting thing that can happen is a 1 in 100 cup run to the 4th round, or promotion to the championship to play a couple of bigger teams and then be relegated again.

If you change the leagues as I said, Stranraer, Brechin, Airdrie etc would all be fighting for a very realistic promotion (especially if the places are increased) to the top flight with all the biggest teams in the country.

There is also a youth development benefit. For teams that currently qualify for Europe, this would give them several games each year that they would expect to win by several goals. That gives them the opportunity to play a few youth players to give them experience with less worry that points would be dropped. The same goes for Dundee, Partick, Hamilton, Killie etc as these teams are much more likely to develop and play youth players without the constant threat of relegation.

So surely the potential for increased attendances due to the variety of opposition and the potential development of youth players benefits both the league and the national side?

Whit????

Extending the leagues wouldn't make it more exciting what a bizarre claim. There's also nothing wrong with attendances. The best we can hope for (Arbroath) is a Dumbarton, same with all other part time teams, so what? Every single club has their limitations, be that St Johnstone and 3rd/4th, Raith Rovers and promotion to the premiership or Celtic and the last 16 of the champions league, doesn't matter. Fans know the limitations of their clubs all over the world.

L1 is without doubt the most exciting league in the country, only 4 places from 10 mean nothing, it's a great league to be in as a fan, L2 is pretty similar minus the relegation play off. Could you imagine the massive number of teams with nothing to play for halfway in to a season if that was 20 or 22 teams?

Mental

[EdTheDuck]

31 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

So surely the potential for increased attendances due to the variety of opposition and the potential development of youth players benefits both the league and the national side?

You think more Hamilton fans will turn for a mid-table nothing-at-stake game against Dumbarton rather than the second game of the season against Partick Thistle that might keep one of them out of the playoff spot?? 

[1320Lichtie]

You think more Hamilton fans will turn for a mid-table nothing-at-stake game against Dumbarton rather than the second game of the season against Partick Thistle that might keep one of them out of the playoff spot?? 

I would fear for the team promoted from the second division too, not just 9 other FT clubs but 19/21, that they only got to play twice, Celtics/Aberdeens/Hearts/Rangers etc etc. They'd finish about -200 goal difference.

Atleast the part time teams coming from tier 3 to tier 2 have a realistic chance of survival.

A mental idea.

I must be alone in thinking there's nothing wrong with the league set up at all..

[EdTheDuck]

7 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

 

I would fear for the team promoted from the second division too, not just 9 other FT clubs but 19/21, that they only got to play twice, Celtics/Aberdeens/Hearts/Rangers etc etc. They'd finish about -200 goal difference.

Atleast the part time teams coming from tier 3 to tier 2 have a realistic chance of survival.

A mental idea.

I must be alone in thinking there's nothing wrong with the league set up at all..

 

 

You're not at all but the MSM have repeated the lie that a 16/18 is the cure for all our games ills for so long that it has been indelibly etched into the public consciousness. 

[DA Baracus]

Back to this show. After hearing a radio advert of and seeing a programme description of the first episode, I fear it will all revolve around the Mo Johnston transfer and then the whole "we'll spend £10 for every £5 they spend" pish (or whatever the quote was). They'll talk about escalating wages but will mostly just w**k over that transfer and then a few other high profile Old Firm 90s transfers.

So basically a thinly veiled puff piece yet again about the Old Firm.