Would you change our league?

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I count 8 issues there.

1) Along with almost all non-Rangers supporters.

2) The colts idea is not popular among fans. You know that, I know that.

3) Clubs being shut down due to size is something almost all football fans oppose. Not exactly swimming against the tide there.

4) Divisive issue, but plenty of people make the case for them. Lots of clubs have them, for goodness sake.

5) Minimum seat rules were widely unpopular for years. Hardly a brave stand (no pun intended).

6) Again, the introduction of a pyramid has been a popular issue for years.

7) Scottish Cup reform had been a discussed issue since I was a wean.

8 ) Ticket pricing... Come on!

You brought this stuff up, but there's absolutely nothing controversial or new there and you've certainly not been saying anything nobody else is saying. They're all pretty popular positions among Scottish football fans.

By just dismissing any change because you don't like all associated change you lessen the possibility of things getting better. People argued for years that promotion play-offs were the way to go. It became a mainstream idea and now we have them. People made it clear en masse that they wouldn't put up with Rangers being punted into the top flight and it changed the idea from an inevitability into an impossibility. The views expressed contrary to the accepted views became mainstream and won.

No ideas contrary to the Old Firm closed shop are even being expressed at the moment. Until they are, nothing will change. 35 years will become 70.

In fairness I think his point was that used his platform to discuss those issues from a fans point of view, which often contradicted your mainstream media outlets, in reference to Monkey's point that he just defended the status quo.

Don't think he was claiming he held some niche and bold views on those things.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

In fairness I think his point was that used his platform to discuss those issues from a fans point of view, which often contradicted your mainstream media outlets, in reference to Monkey's point that he just defended the status quo.

Don't think he was claiming he held some niche and bold views on those things.

Fair. But I don't think all of those issues were a particular closed shop of views.

Rangers to the top flight was a win for fan power, certainly. The others are issues that there was debate over already.

I'm talking about issues where there is no debate of any sort.

[gannonball]

On 06/11/2019 at 12:52, sjc said:

My situation was hardly a "race to the bottom", I earned a very good living from my chosen career. A higher top line pay rate, albeit without the "perks" that on the books employees got.

It needn't be dissimilar in footballers case.

Its frankly a ridiculous suggestion. They have far shorter careers and a far higher chance of injury and early retirement. Security is a huge thing for footballers.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

I count 8 issues there.

1) Along with almost all non-Rangers supporters.

2) The colts idea is not popular among fans. You know that, I know that.

3) Clubs being shut down due to size is something almost all football fans oppose. Not exactly swimming against the tide there.

4) Divisive issue, but plenty of people make the case for them. Lots of clubs have them, for goodness sake.

5) Minimum seat rules were widely unpopular for years. Hardly a brave stand (no pun intended).

6) Again, the introduction of a pyramid has been a popular issue for years.

7) Scottish Cup reform had been a discussed issue since I was a wean.

8 ) Ticket pricing... Come on!

You brought this stuff up, but there's absolutely nothing controversial or new there and you've certainly not been saying anything nobody else is saying. They're all pretty popular positions among Scottish football fans.

By just dismissing any change because you don't like all associated change you lessen the possibility of things getting better. People argued for years that promotion play-offs were the way to go. It became a mainstream idea and now we have them. People made it clear en masse that they wouldn't put up with Rangers being punted into the top flight and it changed the idea from an inevitability into an impossibility. The views expressed contrary to the accepted views became mainstream and won.

No ideas contrary to the Old Firm closed shop are even being expressed at the moment. Until they are, nothing will change. 35 years will become 70.

I'm not sitting here trying to paint myself as some sort of Scottish football activist, so it's weird that you'd take that away from it. I've never said I was alone in any of those things - indeed I even explicitly said that I wasn't when it came to the Rangers ones, and shared links to Twitter threads involving several other people who agreed with me.

The only point I was trying to make was that I have used the only platform I have to push for the changes I'm in favour of, rather than the suggestion above that because I disagree on this one specific issue, I must therefore be on the side of the "traditional" media and am not using what little influence I have with my supposed platform.

You're then immediately contradicting yourself by suggesting that I'm "dismissing any change", which I am very much not doing. I am "dismissing" (ie disagreeing with) any change that either don't agree with or I don't think is workable. It would be ludicrous to expect me to sit and campagin for something I don't agree with just because there are some other slightly associated things that I do agree with.

If you want me to say something controversial that other fans haven't previously discussed, then I'd say it's that we need to have a discussion about whether holding Premiership games at 3pm on a Saturday has to be such a redline for people. People constantly compare our TV deal to that of othee countries, but these places tend to sell every single game going to the TV, or have them on their own platforms. We don't do that because of this 3pm Saturday fetish which means we have nearly every game kicking off simultaneously each week. In comparison, somewhere like Australia has literally every single match shown live. Rather than wanting to break the 3pm broadcasting rule, which actually protects smaller clubs, why not just have the Premiership games kicking off at different times across the weekend. It would also stop games being rescheduled for TV at short-notice, since they could be scheduled at the start of the season.

[Ray Patterson]

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Again, the problem seems to be that you are not happy that I am not raising the specific issues that you care most seriously about. Anyone who knows me across any or all of the three main platforms where I share my opinions on Scottish football (here, Twitter and on the Terrace Podcast) will have absolutely no doubt as to my opinions on any range of topics.

I've used those platforms to "campaign" on many topics. Like many people on here (probably including you), I was involved in shifting that "Overton Window" in terms of Rangers gaining access to the SPL (or SFL1) in 2012, including using my "platform" with a social media account with a large number of followers to argue that case. I used that same platform to write about it in The Blizzard to a UK (or even worldwide) explaining the whole scenario.

I've regularly opposed the inclusion of Colts teams in the league and defended smaller clubs against suggestions they should be forced to merge and/or lose their place based on club size (note that those in favour include a current BBC sport journalist, a much lauded comms manager at a Scottish Premiership club and the unfathomably popular Jim Spence). Both of those are widely considered "the right thing to do" by the bulk of the media in Scotland, and would most likely have been railed through but for the resistance they have met from other sources. You could probably look through a plethora of other topics - plastic pitches (even before we had one), minimum seat rules, the pyramid system, Scottish Cup reform, ticket pricing etc as areas where I have advocated for change for things I care about.

In your posts above you've highlighted things that I have argued against in the past - in each case these have been either because I don't like the ideas or more likely because I find them impractical. Nothing annoys me more than people saying stuff along the line "Why don't we just copy X? It's so obvious!" without actually giving the tiniest bit of thought as to the practicalities of that. There's no point in having an idea or campaigning for change if you don't actually know what it is you actually want to happen at the end beyond some vague notion.

Some of the other things you've suggested, I wouldn't advocate for because I don't agree with them. I don't like the idea of play-offs for any sporting competition where all of the teams have already participated against each other. I get it to some extent in US sports where they have different conferences and not every team plays the same fixtures, but if it's just a simple league system then it seems a bit wonky to have play-offs at the end. It devalues the rest of the games to some extent, and seems unfair on the team who has clearly proved themselves to be the best over the season. I appreciate that this also extends to promotion play-offs - but I find it more egregious when it's about who actually wins a competition. You disagree, and you use your own platform on here to share those opinions, but the way you express them doesn't seem particularly successful and therefore if anything you're probably damaging (or at the very least not helping) your own cause.

Keep up the good fight Craig. You ever going to grace or screens on AVFTT?

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, ArabAuslander said:

Keep up the good fight Craig. You ever going to grace or screens on AVFTT?

I'd say it's unlikely. The producers quite rightly want consistency on the screen, and the other boys are smashing it out of the park.

[sjc]

4 hours ago, gannonball said:

Its frankly a ridiculous suggestion. They have far shorter careers and a far higher chance of injury and early retirement. Security is a huge thing for footballers.

You are aware that a lot of smaller Clubs only offer 1 year contracts, don't you?, and that footballers currently get get injured in the final year of their contracts?

Why is it different from working in the oil and gas or construction industry which are statistically the most dangerous? 

 

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, sjc said:

You are aware that a lot of smaller Clubs only offer 1 year contracts, don't you?, and that footballers currently get get injured in the final year of their contracts?

Why is it different from working in the oil and gas or construction industry which are statistically the most dangerous? 

What? You can work in those sectors for over 40 years, and if you do get an injury that prevents you working then you'll get compensation. 

The average Scottish footballer probably gets about 10 years of decent pay from the game, at best and is then forgotten about. It's pretty well documented lower league players have to pay for their own operations/etc. too, Rory Loy is an example.

[sjc]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

What? You can work in those sectors for over 40 years, and if you do get an injury that prevents you working then you'll get compensation. 

The average Scottish footballer probably gets about 10 years of decent pay from the game, at best and is then forgotten about. It's pretty well documented lower league players have to pay for their own operations/etc. too, Rory Loy is an example.

I appreciate this but not everyone gets compensated in these industries, sadly. Anyway, my suggestion wasn't aimed at screwing footballers over, it was to do away with the ridiculous transfer fees involved which further increase the divide between rich and poor Clubs. This is one way.

How to protect players in the circumstances you mention as well as compensating clubs for the initial development of players would be a square to circle but not necessarily unsurmountible.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Again, the problem seems to be that you are not happy that I am not raising the specific issues that you care most seriously about. Anyone who knows me across any or all of the three main platforms where I share my opinions on Scottish football (here, Twitter and on the Terrace Podcast) will have absolutely no doubt as to my opinions on any range of topics.

I've used those platforms to "campaign" on many topics. Like many people on here (probably including you), I was involved in shifting that "Overton Window" in terms of Rangers gaining access to the SPL (or SFL1) in 2012, including using my "platform" with a social media account with a large number of followers to argue that case. I used that same platform to write about it in The Blizzard to a UK (or even worldwide) explaining the whole scenario.

I've regularly opposed the inclusion of Colts teams in the league and defended smaller clubs against suggestions they should be forced to merge and/or lose their place based on club size (note that those in favour include a current BBC sport journalist, a much lauded comms manager at a Scottish Premiership club and the unfathomably popular Jim Spence). Both of those are widely considered "the right thing to do" by the bulk of the media in Scotland, and would most likely have been railed through but for the resistance they have met from other sources. You could probably look through a plethora of other topics - plastic pitches (even before we had one), minimum seat rules, the pyramid system, Scottish Cup reform, ticket pricing etc as areas where I have advocated for change for things I care about.

In your posts above you've highlighted things that I have argued against in the past - in each case these have been either because I don't like the ideas or more likely because I find them impractical. Nothing annoys me more than people saying stuff along the line "Why don't we just copy X? It's so obvious!" without actually giving the tiniest bit of thought as to the practicalities of that. There's no point in having an idea or campaigning for change if you don't actually know what it is you actually want to happen at the end beyond some vague notion.

Some of the other things you've suggested, I wouldn't advocate for because I don't agree with them. I don't like the idea of play-offs for any sporting competition where all of the teams have already participated against each other. I get it to some extent in US sports where they have different conferences and not every team plays the same fixtures, but if it's just a simple league system then it seems a bit wonky to have play-offs at the end. It devalues the rest of the games to some extent, and seems unfair on the team who has clearly proved themselves to be the best over the season. I appreciate that this also extends to promotion play-offs - but I find it more egregious when it's about who actually wins a competition. You disagree, and you use your own platform on here to share those opinions, but the way you express them doesn't seem particularly successful and therefore if anything you're probably damaging (or at the very least not helping) your own cause.

Ach fair enough.

You have indeed done some good fight fighting, rendering the 'apologist' charge a bit cheap and unfair.  For it I therefore duly er... apologise.  

I maintain that on the matters raised on this thread though, your contributions are essentially conservative.  Whether that's due to conviction, posturing or a combination of both I don't know, but the impression is that your instincts lean in such a direction.

I haven't actually suggested or advocated play-offs.  I don't like the idea, because we have Cups for that.  I also think that there's only a need for arsing round with such fundamentals because of the enshrined vaulting inequality our game doesn't just tolerate, but promotes.

As for an approach that "doesn't seem particularly successful", I'm not sure how that's measured.  I'm not really on a quest to get support or agreement; I'm just expressing a view.   Of course I'm a bit strident at times, but a bit of hyperbole doesn't go amiss if feelings are strong.

[Guest JTS98]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

If you want me to say something controversial that other fans haven't previously discussed, then I'd say it's that we need to have a discussion about whether holding Premiership games at 3pm on a Saturday has to be such a redline for people. People constantly compare our TV deal to that of othee countries, but these places tend to sell every single game going to the TV, or have them on their own platforms. We don't do that because of this 3pm Saturday fetish which means we have nearly every game kicking off simultaneously each week. In comparison, somewhere like Australia has literally every single match shown live. Rather than wanting to break the 3pm broadcasting rule, which actually protects smaller clubs, why not just have the Premiership games kicking off at different times across the weekend. It would also stop games being rescheduled for TV at short-notice, since they could be scheduled at the start of the season.

I'd be for that as well. To be honest, 3pm is a pretty rubbish time for a kick-off. I'd rather it was early or late. Makes for a better day for both the drinkers and those who want to do something else with their day too.

[YassinMoutaouakil]

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this, but when did it become apparent to people that it had became a two-horse race? 

I'm 20, so I've obviously only ever known OF/Celtic dominance, but a couple of years before I was born Celtic finished 4th behind Motherwell and Hibs. Did Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts and Dundee United fans go through the 90s and early 2000s thinking they'd eventually challenge again or did Rangers' 9iar shut the door on that? I've always wondered when the OF managed to accelerate away as well, was it the Champions League restructuring and TV money?

 

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this, but when did it become apparent to people that it had became a two-horse race? 

I'm 20, so I've obviously only ever known OF/Celtic dominance, but a couple of years before I was born Celtic finished 4th behind Motherwell and Hibs. Did Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts and Dundee United fans go through the 90s and early 2000s thinking they'd eventually challenge again or did Rangers' 9iar shut the door on that? I've always wondered when the OF managed to accelerate away as well, was it the Champions League restructuring and TV money?

 

Aberdeen came incredibly close in 1991, but thereafter, Rangers' successive titles were pretty comfortable, although the likes of Hearts had some decent runs up to Christmas.

It took until Parkhead was rebuilt for Celtic to start challenging, pushing Rangers for a couple of seasons before winning it in 1998.  It was realistically a one horse race for a few years until Celtic joined in.

Champion's League money helped both pull further clear after that, but the capacity for both to mobilise their big supports via season tickets in all seater grounds, was probably the biggest factor.  Rangers decision to then  spend enough money to kill a club, also helped move them move away from the others.

The reasons for the mess that developed are many though.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Monkey Tennis

[Monkey Tennis]

8 hours ago, JTS98 said:

I'd be for that as well. To be honest, 3pm is a pretty rubbish time for a kick-off. I'd rather it was early or late. Makes for a better day for both the drinkers and those who want to do something else with their day too.

He's not talking about finding a new blanket kick-off time though.  He's talking about them being staggered all over the place to allow more matches to be screened on TV.

It's a dreadful idea, involving the blatant prostitution of our game (thumps table and stamps foot).  I think I prefer it when he argues against change.

[Guest JTS98]

16 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

He's not talking about finding a new blanket kick-off time though.  He's talking about them being staggered all over the place to allow more matches to be screened on TV.

It's a dreadful idea, involving the blatant prostitution of our game (thumps table and stamps foot).  I think I prefer it when he argues against change.

Depends how it's done. Again, it's about degrees.

I watch the A-League from afar these days so I love the staggered kick-offs. But I get that people more into it would dislike it.

That said, I see no problem with three early Saturday games in the Premiership and three late Saturday games. I think that would be good.

[DA Baracus]

3pm is the ideal kick off, especially when you have to travel for away games.

[Guest JTS98]

8 hours ago, YassinMoutaouakil said:

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this, but when did it become apparent to people that it had became a two-horse race? 

I'm 20, so I've obviously only ever known OF/Celtic dominance, but a couple of years before I was born Celtic finished 4th behind Motherwell and Hibs. Did Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts and Dundee United fans go through the 90s and early 2000s thinking they'd eventually challenge again or did Rangers' 9iar shut the door on that? I've always wondered when the OF managed to accelerate away as well, was it the Champions League restructuring and TV money?

 

I remember (just!) Aberdeen nearly winning it in 1991, but I was too young to really have much of a grasp of it. I was seven and just watched the football.

I was conscious of Hearts doing really well in the 91/92 season (until after new year) and that we might win the league, but had no reason to see this as unusual. I was very young.

I remember 97/98 when long into the spring Hearts had a good shot at the double. But it's worth noting that all through that season the narrative was that Hearts were a bubble waiting to burst rather than a genuine challenger. The idea of other teams being on an equal footing to the Old Firm had gone. We drew 0-0 with Celtic at Parkhead in March to stay two points off the top with 6 games to play and it suddenly seemed very real. But we won none of the next five, including home games with St Johnstone and Motherwell and an away defeat to soon-to-be-relegated Hibs. And a golden opportunity was gone. Maybe our last.

At the start of the 98/99 season I was hopeful that we might have learned enough to come back again and win it this time. The optimism around Hearts was huge. We had a shocker and looked set to go down until we signed Darren Jackson and Colin Cameron came back from injury.

Apart from that, the first two months of 2005/06 are the only time I've ever really though it was possible there'd be a non-Old Firm winner. I think the time when Advocaat came to Rangers and then O'Neill to Celtic and the money they were both spending became huge was when most of us accepted the game was up, while in reality it probably already had been for some time.

Not sure how many decades there have to be before anybody does anything.

It's worth pointing out that the end of the era where a non-Old Firm team could challenge coincided with the end of Scotland qualifying for things. Since this two-donkey show really took over, it has kicked Scottish football into the gutter where we have a non-competitive league and a non-competitive national side.

Yet we plod on.

Edited November 8, 2019 by JTS98

[Dons_1988]

We finished 2nd in 94 only 3 points behind Rangers, although not sure how close we actually were to winning it.

The following season was when we narrowly escaped relegation and was a large resetting of expectations. We never really challenged again, unless you count the Mcinnes efforts.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Dons_1988

[Guest JTS98]

10 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

We finished 2nd in 94 only 3 points behind Rangers, although not sure how close we actually were to winning it.

The following season was when we narrowly escaped relegation and was a large resetting of expectations. We never really challenged again, unless you count the Mcinnes efforts.

93/94 was 2 points for a win and Aberdeen and Motherwell were within a few points till March. Rangers started April 7 points (10 in today's money) ahead of Aberdeen and 5 (7 in today's money) ahead of Motherwell with a game in hand over Motherwell.

So, not a procession, but not quite down to the wire either.

Edited November 8, 2019 by JTS98

[Dons_1988]

Just now, JTS98 said:

93/94 was 2 points for a win and Aberdeen and Motherwell were within a few points till March. Rangers started April 7 ahead of Aberdeen and 5 ahead of Motherwell with a game in hand over Motherwell.

So, not a procession, but not quite down to the wire either.

Aye didn't think so. I'm too young to remember that season but no one that does looks back at 94 as one that got away. 1991 was the real boot in the pie for us.