1st Club to go into Administration?

[Romeo]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

1) In team sports, certainly, yes I do. As I said above, anything else is simply against the spirit of sport. It's a Tory-style might is right version of sport. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. Prize money in team sports damages competition. I don't see how that can be disputed. Especially considering the set-up currently already rewards wealth. Leagues are, to a great degree, simply spending competitions.

2) Yes, but not in the same manner as in a team sport. He can hire a more expensive coach and have better physio etc, but he can't hire another player of similar ability to play in low-key games he would rather rest for when he's carrying an injury, allowing him to still beat a more lowly opponent. He can't spend a fortune bringing in someone else to do his serving for him. He can't buy another player's backhand. It's simply not comparing like with like.

So you've refined your view and specified only team sports now, everybody else fill your boots and indulge in the "Tory-Style might is right" version of things.

No bother mate. Strange how Hearts will be getting relegated and less money and this is suddenly your view.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Romeo said:

So you've refined your view and specified only team sports now, everybody else fill your boots and indulge in the "Tory-Style might is right" version of things.

No bother mate. Strange how Hearts will be getting relegated and less money and this is suddenly your view.

No, this has been my view for about 25 years. I've articulated similar thoughts on this site long before Hearts were in a relegation battle.

And it's true. Big clubs taking the lion's share of prize money simply stops anyone else challenging them.

I know Celtic fans don't like to hear it because they are kiddy-on champions of the poor, but it's just the way it is. Rewarding rich clubs for being rich by giving them more money is Tory Sport.

[Romeo]

23 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

No, this has been my view for about 25 years. I've articulated similar thoughts on this site long before Hearts were in a relegation battle.

And it's true. Big clubs taking the lion's share of prize money simply stops anyone else challenging them.

I know Celtic fans don't like to hear it because they are kiddy-on champions of the poor, but it's just the way it is. Rewarding rich clubs for being rich by giving them more money is Tory Sport.

The Prize money Celtic get is probably on of their lowest revenues incomes.

So it's not like we are rushing out to buy Ronaldo because we won the title. So your "Celtic getting SPFL prize money" is one of the main reasons we out perform other teams argument is dead in the water.

Enjoy the championship and prize money for being the worst team in the league.

Hearts and Rangers fans showing themselves up for what they are.

ETA - I'm pretty confident Hearts could have all the prize money for the past few years. The fact that Harry Potter was manager and Budge is mis-managing the club is the main factor Hearts are a shambles of a club.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Romeo

[Guest JTS98]

12 minutes ago, Romeo said:

The Prize money Celtic get is probably on of their lowest revenues incomes.

So it's not like we are rushing out to buy Ronaldo because we won the title. So your "Celtic getting SPFL prize money" is one of the main reasons we out perform other teams argument is dead in the water.

Enjoy the championship and prize money for being the worst team in the league.

Hearts and Rangers fans showing themselves up for what they are.

I'm not saying it's the main reason. I think you're having trouble following the conversation.

Celtic's last reported revenue was 83.3 million quid. In a non-Champions League season. Down from 101 million. On what planet is it acceptable in a sporting sense for them to then be given a bigger share of prize money than Ross County or Hamilton Accies?

It simply makes no sense. It is anti-competition. It enhances Celtic's already unfairly dominant financial position.

Keep in mind that a great deal (tens of millions of pounds) of Celtic's income in recent years has come from the Champions League group stage, where their recent record is one win in 12 games against 8 defeats. Where they've lost games 7-0, 7-1, 5-0, 3-0. They are not even remotely competitive at that level, yet accept the charitable handouts they get from the big boys, then run home and bully the wee guys by taking the lion's share of prize money from clubs with a fraction of their resources.

Celtic benefit from socialism for the rich, but insist on strict Toryism at home. The Celtic Story, indeed.

Edited April 10, 2020 by JTS98

[Romeo]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

I'm not saying it's the main reason. I think you're having trouble following the conversation.

Celtic's last reported revenue was 83.3 million quid. In a non-Champions League season. Down from 101 million. On what planet is it acceptable in a sporting sense for them to then be given a bigger share of prize money than Ross County or Hamilton Accies?

It simply makes no sense. It is anti-competition. It enhances Celtic's already unfairly dominant financial position.

Keep in mind that a great deal (tens of millions of pounds) of Celtic's income in recent years has come from the Champions League group stage, where their recent record is one win in 12 games against 8 defeats. Where they've lost games 7-0, 7-1, 5-0, 3-0. They are not even remotely competitive at that level, yet accept the charitable handouts they get from the big boys, then run home and bully the wee guys by taking the lion's share of prize money from clubs with a fraction of their resources.

Celtic benefit from socialism for the rich, but insist on strict Toryism at home. The Celtic Story, indeed.

Aye, Alright Fidel.

Calm yourself.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

Aye, Alright Fidel.

Calm yourself.

Nae bother, Maggie.

No such thing as society in fitba, eh.

The Celtic Story.

[Romeo]

5 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Nae bother, Maggie.

No such thing as society in fitba, eh.

The Celtic Story.

You're getting yourself into an awful state here over something that's been the same for ever.

Copy us all into your emails to Hearts demanding they redistributes their prize money anytime they have a decent season. I'm sure you'll be calling for Hearts to spread their prize money out over the lower divisions this season too?

Edited April 10, 2020 by Romeo

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

You're getting yourself into an awful state here over something that's been the same for ever.

Copy us all into your emails to the Hearts demanding they redistributes their prize money anytime they have a decent season. I'm sure you'll be calling for Hearts to spread their prize money out over the lower divisions this season too?

I'm not in a state at all.

If you think typing out a few paragraphs to explain a position constitutes a 'state', then you must have a low bar for stress and worry.

1) Just because the distribution of cash in football has been like this for a long time, it is not necessarily right. It is demonstrably wrong.

2) My opinion on how football should be run doesn't change based on what club we're talking about. I think all clubs should get the same share as all the other clubs in their division. Ideally, I'd favour the lowest clubs getting the most money, but that would incentivise finishing 10th rather than 6th, so would be stupid.

Hearts in the Premiership should get the same as all the other teams in the Premiership. Hearts in the Championship should get the same as all the other teams in the Championship.

Not sure what part of this you're struggling with.

[Romeo]

5 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

 

Not sure what part of this you're struggling with.

Why should the prem, championship league 1 and 2 get different prize money, surely would be better to distribute evenly between all the teams give your socialism model?

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

Why should the prem, championship league 1 and 2 get different prize money, surely would be better to distribute evenly between all the teams give your socialism model?

Because those are typically clubs operating at a different level with different needs.

For example, a club in League Two, such as Brechin City, will tend to come from a small town or an area where it is very difficult for them to generate a support base. They typically will not be clubs that can support full-time football. They have different needs from clubs who are trying to qualify for Europe, win cups, compete with other well-resourced clubs.

These clubs should be allowed to carry on playing at a level that their community can support. There is no need to fund them to the same level as full-time professional clubs in the top flight.

There is no reason for Brechin to be as well resourced as Celtic by the league. Brechin are not trying to compete with Celtic.

Teams in the same league are competing at the same level and should be paid out as such.

[Romeo]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Because those are typically clubs operating at a different level with different needs.

 

So different Socialism sometimes because reasons?

Got it.

If you are going to bang on about injustice and socialism in footbal it would be a good starting point for you to know what socialism is.

socialism

/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Romeo

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Romeo said:

So different Socialism sometimes because reasons?

Got it.

socialism

/ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/

Learn to pronounce

 

noun

 

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Yes. I'm not sure that you've read the definition there.

The money would be owned by the whole, then given out to clubs equally at their level as the level requires it.

Again, not sure what you're struggling to follow.

[Guest JTS98]

14 hours ago, tree house tam said:

It kills competition? Does it f**k. My own club have benefitted, as have plenty others with the extra income based on merit of performance throughout league season. The only way it doesn't is if the biggest teams, the ones with more attendance income, are in the top spots. They of course should be in the top spots but most of them are pish and are regularly shown up for being exactly that, pish.

In the last ten years St Johnstone's average league position is 5.8 (unless I've slipped up somewhere).

Based on this season's prize money, that would mean St Johnstone's average payout over that decade would be 1.68 million (if they were fifth) or 1.56 million (if they were sixth).

If the money was simply split between the clubs, St Johnstone would get 1.71m per season.

At this season's figures, I work that out as St Johnstone (assuming an average of 6th) being better off by about 1.5m in that period if the money was split evenly.

Edited April 10, 2020 by JTS98

[Romeo]

5 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Yes. I'm not sure that you've read the definition there.

The money would be owned by the whole, then given out to clubs equally at their level as the level requires it.

 

So now you are advocating for different levels of socialism or groups having their own socialism depending on the which league a team is in?

No point repeatedly saying "not sure what your struggling with" because you've made a rip roaring c**t of things either.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Romeo

[RandomGuy.]

22 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

 

Hearts in the Premiership should get the same as all the other teams in the Premiership. Hearts in the Championship should get the same as all the other teams in the Championship.

So you want all the pooled Premiership money to split evenly? 

Same with the Championship?

This would be the situation, based on 18/19 amounts.

Premiership - every club receives £1.7m

Championship - every club receives £300k

Yes. You've really levelled the playing field.

Edited April 10, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

So now you are advocating for different levels of socialism depending on the which league a team is in?

No. I'm not. I'm advocating exactly the same thing. Clubs being resourced at the level they need to be.

A club competing in League Two does not require the resources to compete with full-time professional clubs. I think you know that and are being obtuse.

I'm always surprised when people pretend to not understand something simply because of the club they support. I shouldn't be, but I am.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

So you want all the pooled Premiership money to split evenly? 

Same with the Championship?

This would be the situation, based on 18/19 amounts.

Premiership - every club receives £1.7m

Championship - every club receives £300k

Yes. You've really levelled the playing field.

Here's the thing, that could be adjusted. Crazy thought, eh?

[Romeo]

Just now, JTS98 said:

No. I'm not. I'm advocating exactly the same thing. Clubs being resourced at the level they need to be.

.

Just so we are clear, you know that's not socialism, right?

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

Just so we are clear, you know that's not socialism, right?

Just to be clear. I mentioned Celtic accepting socialism for the rich while being Tories at home.

You began mentioning socialism in respect to Scottish football.

I think all clubs in each division should receive the same share of the central money. You don't, you're a Tory. That's up to you.

[KnightswoodBear]

Can you just let Romeo go back to posting "Rangers are skint" and his awful memes, ffs?