Would you change our league?

[nsr]

4 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I do hope you gloated endlessly about your achievement.

I'll be releasing a DVD when I beat him for the 10th time in a row.

[Guest JTS98]

In the discussion above about what Celtic can spend relative to the other clubs, it seems to me the elephant in the room is gate receipts.

When the Football League was formed in England it was written into the original charter than gate receipts should be split 50/50 to ensure competition and prevent bigger clubs completely dominating. Afterall, what's the point in having a sport if we just let the most popular clubs dominate? This seems such an obvious point that it shouldn't need to be stated, but the prevailing modern attitude seems to be to accept that big clubs deserve to be rich and deserve to have a sporting advantage.

The Scottish Football League went on to copy that idea and I'd imagine that if you told the founders of these competitions that this safeguard (because that's what it was) would be removed, they'd have been horrified.

This kind of thing is the main reason I find Celtic such an objectionable club. They make such a big public play of the idea of charity and of being somehow morally better than everyone else. Yet they have led the charge to dismantle the integrity of Scottish football in terms of competition. The hypocrisy is laughable.

All clubs who signed up to the SPL, including my own, are complicit, but Celtic are the club always trying o make out they're the good guys. That's why they can f**k off with their talk of the coefficient, with their only concern being access to the Champions League money to obliterate competition in Scottish football. It's also why people should start questioning why we have a tv deal that rewards high league placings. There is absolutely no reason for that to be the case.

[RandomGuy.]

On 01/11/2019 at 15:07, wastecoatwilly said:

Expain how it's harder?

Celtic spent £9m to replace Dembele.

When we sold May the first time, they money had to go into our accounts to help us to run at a profit, and we replaced him with Brian Graham on loan.

This is why it's harder. Celtic have so much more money than the rest of the league they can afford to chuck millions upon millions at replacements, while the rest of the league is scrambling to try and not rack up debt so cant afford to be chucking fees about.

No doubt you'll start rambling about a lack of ambition etc. as if clubs should just forgoe financial sense to chase an unreachable dream, but then we'd be back to the 90s/00s which almost killed a fair amount of middling/large clubs in this country.

I don't expect you'll understand any of that, as you're totally blind and unable to accept your club has absolutely mammoth advantages, but there we go.

[DA Baracus]

2 hours ago, JTS98 said:

In the discussion above about what Celtic can spend relative to the other clubs, it seems to me the elephant in the room is gate receipts.

When the Football League was formed in England it was written into the original charter than gate receipts should be split 50/50 to ensure competition and prevent bigger clubs completely dominating. Afterall, what's the point in having a sport if we just let the most popular clubs dominate? This seems such an obvious point that it shouldn't need to be stated, but the prevailing modern attitude seems to be to accept that big clubs deserve to be rich and deserve to have a sporting advantage.

The Scottish Football League went on to copy that idea and I'd imagine that if you told the founders of these competitions that this safeguard (because that's what it was) would be removed, they'd have been horrified.

This kind of thing is the main reason I find Celtic such an objectionable club. They make such a big public play of the idea of charity and of being somehow morally better than everyone else. Yet they have led the charge to dismantle the integrity of Scottish football in terms of competition. The hypocrisy is laughable.

All clubs who signed up to the SPL, including my own, are complicit, but Celtic are the club always trying o make out they're the good guys. That's why they can f**k off with their talk of the coefficient, with their only concern being access to the Champions League money to obliterate competition in Scottish football. It's also why people should start questioning why we have a tv deal that rewards high league placings. There is absolutely no reason for that to be the case.

Celtic are staunchly right wing when it comes to finances.

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

In the discussion above about what Celtic can spend relative to the other clubs, it seems to me the elephant in the room is gate receipts.

When the Football League was formed in England it was written into the original charter than gate receipts should be split 50/50 to ensure competition and prevent bigger clubs completely dominating. Afterall, what's the point in having a sport if we just let the most popular clubs dominate? This seems such an obvious point that it shouldn't need to be stated, but the prevailing modern attitude seems to be to accept that big clubs deserve to be rich and deserve to have a sporting advantage.

The Scottish Football League went on to copy that idea and I'd imagine that if you told the founders of these competitions that this safeguard (because that's what it was) would be removed, they'd have been horrified.

It's the conflict between those who see football/sport as a sporting contest or as an entertainment industry.

The original charters will have been written before TV companies and others realised they could make a fortune out of football. Those who see it as entertainment are happy to have the money remain in the upper echelons of the game so clubs can assemble elite squads and play the most entertaining football out there, including regularly scudding the 'diddies' of whatever league involved.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the TV market is for the casual fan, the ones who just want to see good football, a team that's winning before they change the channel onto whatever Netflix series they're watching. The match going, toughing it out through thick and thin with their local team fan forms such a small % of the global audience that they don't matter.

[deej]

On 01/11/2019 at 23:01, sjc said:

Ok, I'll try to break this down to a simplistic terms as possible.....take a look at all the leagues around Europe and the Clubs that dominate them:

Real, Barca, Benfica, Porto, Bayern, Juve, PSG, Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd.

What's the common denominator?

 

None of those clubs names start with vowels. 

 

That's whats been holding back Aberdeen IMO

[Dons_1988]

Just now, deej said:

None of those clubs names start with vowels. 

 

That's whats been holding back Aberdeen IMO

We do start every season top of the league though so its swings and roundabouts.

[deej]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

We do start every season top of the league though so its swings and roundabouts.

If only you really really wanted to stay there, maybe you would have.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, deej said:

If only you really really wanted to stay there, maybe you would have.

Agreed. Sack Mcinnes and sack the board.

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Celtic spent £9m to replace Dembele.

When we sold May the first time, they money had to go into our accounts to help us to run at a profit, and we replaced him with Brian Graham on loan.

This is why it's harder. Celtic have so much more money than the rest of the league they can afford to chuck millions upon millions at replacements, while the rest of the league is scrambling to try and not rack up debt so cant afford to be chucking fees about.

No doubt you'll start rambling about a lack of ambition etc. as if clubs should just forgoe financial sense to chase an unreachable dream, but then we'd be back to the 90s/00s which almost killed a fair amount of middling/large clubs in this country.

I don't expect you'll understand any of that, as you're totally blind and unable to accept your club has absolutely mammoth advantages, but there we go.

I'm convinced Willie has been trolling for years. No-one can possibly be that dense.

[craigkillie]

The original founders of Scottish football were an even worse form of capitalists than the current ones. They were raking these gate receipts but the rules forbade them from paying the players a single penny, to the extent that Renton were expelled for professionalism in the first season. Think of the modern day nonsense of American college sport, where some universities are getting paying crowds of over 100,000 and not passing any of it on to the actual talent.

We then had years of having a minimum wage and registration retention, which were again purely down to the greed of club owners in wanting to keep as much of the money for themselves. Players were treated like commodities and had basically no rights.

Maybe it's gone too far in the other direction now, but the idea that club football was founded on Corinthian ideals is an absolute myth. The money was just going into different pockets. And that's before we even talk about the nonsense of elections rather than promotion, another notion which is about as unfair as you can get. Imagine if Ayr United or Inverness won the league this season and they just said "Nah, we'd rather have Dundee United up".

[deej]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The original founders of Scottish football were an even worse form of capitalists than the current ones. They were raking these gate receipts but the rules forbade them from paying the players a single penny, to the extent that Renton were expelled for professionalism in the first season. Think of the modern day nonsense of American college sport, where some universities are getting paying crowds of over 100,000 and not passing any of it on to the actual talent.

We then had years of having a minimum wage and registration retention, which were again purely down to the greed of club owners in wanting to keep as much of the money for themselves. Players were treated like commodities and had basically no rights.

Maybe it's gone too far in the other direction now, but the idea that club football was founded on Corinthian ideals is an absolute myth. The money was just going into different pockets. And that's before we even talk about the nonsense of elections rather than promotion, another notion which is about as unfair as you can get. Imagine if Ayr United or Inverness won the league this season and they just said "Nah, we'd rather have Dundee United up".

 

But according to most of the pundits that are actually paid to give opinions on our football, Dundee/Dundee Utd/Hearts/Hibs/Rangers are too big to be in the second tier. Despite the fact that all of them are/were there on merit. Looking forward to Friday and hearing how the Dundee derby "should be a Premiership fixture"

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The original founders of Scottish football were an even worse form of capitalists than the current ones. They were raking these gate receipts but the rules forbade them from paying the players a single penny, to the extent that Renton were expelled for professionalism in the first season. Think of the modern day nonsense of American college sport, where some universities are getting paying crowds of over 100,000 and not passing any of it on to the actual talent.

We then had years of having a minimum wage and registration retention, which were again purely down to the greed of club owners in wanting to keep as much of the money for themselves. Players were treated like commodities and had basically no rights.

Maybe it's gone too far in the other direction now, but the idea that club football was founded on Corinthian ideals is an absolute myth. The money was just going into different pockets. And that's before we even talk about the nonsense of elections rather than promotion, another notion which is about as unfair as you can get. Imagine if Ayr United or Inverness won the league this season and they just said "Nah, we'd rather have Dundee United up".

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting we have to bin everything and return to the 19th century.

Also, were Renton not kicked out for playing St Bernard's, rather than professionalism?

Anyway, I'd honestly rather watch a sport where those creaming the cash off it weren't killing what makes it worth watching in the process. Both shite, but I know what I'd rather watch.

Footballers aren't about to hit poverty wages.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting we have to bin everything and return to the 19th century.

Also, were Renton not kicked out for playing St Bernard's, rather than professionalism?

Anyway, I'd honestly rather watch a sport where those creaming the cash off it weren't killing what makes it worth watching in the process. Both shite, but I know what I'd rather watch.

Footballers aren't about to hit poverty wages.

Tbh I wouldn't support a salary cap for the reason that if that level of wealth is kicking about football then the talent should benefit, not the boards of directors, which is what would happen.

If the wealth wasn't concentrated on a handful of clubs though you would see wages reduced anyway as individual clubs wouldn't have the resource to pay the ludicrous sums of money.

[Guest JTS98]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Tbh I wouldn't support a salary cap for the reason that if that level of wealth is kicking about football then the talent should benefit, not the boards of directors, which is what would happen.

If the wealth wasn't concentrated on a handful of clubs though you would see wages reduced anyway as individual clubs wouldn't have the resource to pay the ludicrous sums of money.

I think it depends on how you view pay in general.

What's fair pay for a footballer? I doubt they'd be on minimum wage with a salary cap.

I'd rather the finances of the game were regulated so that players could only earn so much and the extra went into the game itself. There must be a way.

[DukDukGoose]

The problem I see with a salary cap is that it's only going to push talent to leave the league sooner. We're already struggling to compete with English League One teams as it is. 

[sjc]

Big Clubs have always had more money than smaller Clubs. That will never change. But when Dundee Utd beat Barcelona or Aberdeen beat Real Madrid the rules such as foreign player restrictions, number of substitutions and being able to retain talent easier helped to level the playing field a little.

I agree that players were treated like commodities and in some cases, appallingly but the amount of money going out of the game to agents is ridiculous.

You won't be able to level the money playing field, what you can do is change the rules that take the benefits of having huge sums of money comparable to others. IE : restricting number of players over 21yo to 18 or 22.......this also creates a pathway for youth players as there would be less of a logjam and more opportunities when injuries occurred.

I'd also restrict the number of players under 21yo to prevent hoarding at this level also.

[nsr]

2 hours ago, Merkland Red said:

I'm convinced Willie has been trolling for years. No-one can possibly be that dense.

His team: Celtic.

[wastecoatwilly]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Celtic spent £9m to replace Dembele.

When we sold May the first time, they money had to go into our accounts to help us to run at a profit, and we replaced him with Brian Graham on loan.

This is why it's harder. Celtic have so much more money than the rest of the league they can afford to chuck millions upon millions at replacements, while the rest of the league is scrambling to try and not rack up debt so cant afford to be chucking fees about.

No doubt you'll start rambling about a lack of ambition etc. as if clubs should just forgoe financial sense to chase an unreachable dream, but then we'd be back to the 90s/00s which almost killed a fair amount of middling/large clubs in this country.

I don't expect you'll understand any of that, as you're totally blind and unable to accept your club has absolutely mammoth advantages, but there we go.

Why would I want any club to spend money they don't have? Celtic live within their means they spend most of the money they make(wage bill), it's not a crime.
I go out every day to make more than I spend,I couldn't careless how much french Eddie costs as long as he knows where the goals are. 
I give Celtic maybe a couple of grand a year maybe that's why the motherwell or hearts model works for them through fan ownership.
Because Celtic have 60,000 fans and your club only has 5,000 the imbalance should be addressed off the field?
It cost Celtic buttons to buy Frimpong from Man city and we sent Ralston out on loan does that address the imbalance on the field?
For a hundred years the custodians of Celtic pissed the dosh away like most clubs in Scotland.
Clubs are now kicking and screaming because they don't have the infrastructure to move forward with the game.

[Jacksgranda]

4 hours ago, deej said:

 

But according to most of the pundits that are actually paid to give opinions on our football, Dundee/Dundee Utd/Hearts/Hibs/Rangers are too big to be in the second tier. Despite the fact that all of them are/were there on merit. Looking forward to Friday and hearing how the Dundee derby "should be a Premiership fixture"

It would be if there were 18 teams in the Premiership.