Next non-Old Firm title winner

[Junior_Arab]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

. I'm sure fans would be piling in to watch Hibernian and Aberdeen play for a meaningless 8th place finish tbh.

If you’re saying Aberdeen playing Hibs for a meaningless 8th place finish in a new set up would hardly attract the fans you’ll have to explain to me why Aberdeen playing Hibs for a meaningless 8th place finish in the current system is any different.   

[gudge1903]

Spot on junior arab

Be more interesting if it wasn't potentially the 6th time said 8th and 9th placed clubs had met that or any  season.

(I know AFC have been papped out both cups at first time of asking so being hypothetical)

[Jacksgranda]

11 hours ago, gudge1903 said:

Spot on junior arab

Be more interesting if it wasn't potentially the 6th time said 8th and 9th placed clubs had met that or any  season.

(I know AFC have been papped out both cups at first time of asking so being hypothetical)

How very dare you - we breezed past Edinburgh City at Pittodrie (the same Edinburgh City who lost at home to Albion Rovers the other night).

[gudge1903]

Aye so we did. Forgot about that.

[VincentGuerin]

I'm not really in favour of a bigger league, I don't see how Rangers and Celtic having an extra 8 games a season against sides worse than those they currently play makes it more likely that they won't win every week.

My team, Hearts, might win more games if we removed two games against Aberdeen and replaced them with two games against Arbroath, but we'd still drop points to the new sides from time to time while the Old Firm would batter them pretty much all the time. I don't see it helping.

However, I don't agree that crowds would suffer from us having a bigger league. Scottish football attendances have held up impressively well for three decades despite supporters of every club but two knowing their side can't win and will usually have nothing to play for. Making the league 16 or 18 isn't going to suddenly make loads of people chuck it.

If we've put up with this shite for so long, we'll put up with fucking anything.

[DukDukGoose]

 

Wasn't sure where to chuck this. Here will do.

[kingjoey]

On 17/02/2022 at 09:17, Jacksgranda said:

How very dare you - we breezed past Edinburgh City at Pittodrie (the same Edinburgh City who lost at home to Albion Rovers the other night).

So you’re now having a go at the team for beating a club from League 2, because they’re not very good.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

 
Wasn't sure where to chuck this. Here will do.

Summary

You tend to get roughly what you pay for and the old firm pay a lot more

[DukDukGoose]

18 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Summary

You tend to get roughly what you pay for and the old firm pay a lot more

Well, yeah.

But it also mentioned Leicester, which folk in here claimed was less possible than a diddy winning the league.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Merkland Red

[ahemps]

I thought the OF just wanted it more and have greater football knowledge????

A Celtic fan on here recently said that their advantage with finances is irrelevant because if they don't spend it well then it isn't an advantage and pointed to last seasons debacle as proof that poorly spent money is not advantageous. So we were basically told that money isn't an advantage and it is down to the fact they simply spend their money better as well.

[Jimmain]

1 hour ago, ahemps said:

I thought the OF just wanted it more and have greater football knowledge????

A Celtic fan on here recently said that their advantage with finances is irrelevant because if they don't spend it well then it isn't an advantage and pointed to last seasons debacle as proof that poorly spent money is not advantageous. So we were basically told that money isn't an advantage and it is down to the fact they simply spend their money better as well.

Indeed. Utter deluded OF horseshit.

Last season's 'debacle' still managed to see them easily into second place and a Champion's League qualifying place. 

I'll never forget when wee fergus was taking over at Parkheid, they had a voxpop of the usual suspects who hang about the gates on such occasions. I think Thewtic hadn't won a trophy for about 5 years?

"Pleath Ferguth", breathed one, weepily, "end thith thuffering"

My flatmate and I couldn't speak for tears of laughter for about half an hour

Oh, the entitlement....

[Kapowzer]

Best chance of a non OF winner since the early 80's was when The Rangers were consigned to the lower leagues for 4 years and Celtic had Ronny Deila. However during that period the three teams with the next best budgets all failed to capitalise. Aberdeen had Mutley, Hearts were going through their admin issues and Hibs, succession of turmoil and poor appointments. So even a limping Celtic (if you look at Strachan and St Brendan either side) were not punished and cruised it.

The last time the league was 16-18 clubs only income was ticket sales with the odd transfer (modest by today's standards). TV merch and hospitality were virtually unknown. As a result the playing field was much more level than it is today where the financial disparity is huge.

In this country the solution is see them leave for greener pastures which will never happen, UEFA and FIFA will never continence it.

A way to address it is to limit OF clubs hoovering up youth players, papping them out on loan in the hope one or two of them turn out OK and return to the parent club with a chance of playing. All that does is limits the rest of the clubs building up their own talent and making in-roads via player sales and having a decent prospect in your first team for a year or two (Turnbull is a prime example).

FIFA are looking at limiting clubs using this, Man City and Chelsea are the prime culprits and get the headlines but on a smaller scale the OF do this in Scotland

[VincentGuerin]

16 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

Best chance of a non OF winner since the early 80's was when The Rangers were consigned to the lower leagues for 4 years and Celtic had Ronny Deila.

Completely disagree with this. Celtic were the only team who were ever winning those leagues, regardless of Hearts' and Hibs' issues, and Aberdeen's perceived failings or otherwise.

They were playing whole seasons against sides whose budgets they hugely overwhelm. The idea that someone else would win was a fairytale. No other team has the budget to be as consistent as required. For all that Deila wasn't the best, he won by 17 and 15 points, with points totals of 92 and 86. Nobody was going to catch that.

And anyway, Aberdeen 91 and Hearts 98 have both been seasons with a much better chance of a non-OF winner since the 80s.

Unlikely to ever happen again, but this is modern fitba.

Edited March 8, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Well, yeah.
But it also mentioned Leicester, which folk in here claimed was less possible than a diddy winning the league.

With hindsight my brief summary may have been a little too brief

[Kapowzer]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

Completely disagree with this. Celtic were the only team who were ever winning those leagues, regardless of Hearts' and Hibs' issues, and Aberdeen's perceived failings or otherwise.

They were playing whole seasons against sides whose budgets they hugely overwhelm. The idea that someone else would win was a fairytale. No other team has the budget to be as consistent as required. For all that Deila wasn't the best, he won by 17 and 15 points, with points totals of 92 and 86. Nobody was going to catch that.

That's why I was careful to put "best chance".

Maybe you also missed the "So even a limping Celtic (if you look at Strachan and St Brendan either side) were not punished and cruised it."

[VincentGuerin]

15 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

That's why I was careful to put "best chance".

Maybe you also missed the "So even a limping Celtic (if you look at Strachan and St Brendan either side) were not punished and cruised it."

It wasn't the best chance though. There are at least two better that I mentioned.

Nobody was ever going to 'punish' them. You'd have needed a club to achieve a level of consistency non-OF clubs never do and Celtic to somehow fail to win as often despite having an easier fixture list than they historically have had.

It sounds like an opportunity until you think it through. Celtic couldn't fail.

[10menwent2mow]

I've said it many times on here but the Deila sides were not as bad as everyone makes out. They finished with 92 and 86 points which is still very consistent. The 83-84 and 84-85 dons would've finished with 82 and 86 under 3pts for a win (36 game season). 

[big al]

57 minutes ago, 10menwent2mow said:

I've said it many times on here but the Deila sides were not as bad as everyone makes out. They finished with 92 and 86 points which is still very consistent. The 83-84 and 84-85 dons would've finished with 82 and 86 under 3pts for a win (36 game season). 

Hmmm. Aberdeen gaining 86 points in 83 is a far better achievement than Celtic getting 86 under Delia, mainly because it was a far more even playing field in those days than the ridiculous advantage Delias Celtic had over the rest.

Edited March 8, 2022 by big al

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Hmmm. Aberdeen gaining 86 points in 83 is a far better achievement than Celtic getting 86 under Delia, mainly because it was a far more even playing field in those days than the ridiculous advantage Delias Celtic had over the rest.

True although there’s a big window between “not as bad as everyone makes out” and “as good as Alex Ferguson”

So you two might not need to argue

[Chefki Kuqi]

Having more big towns engaged in the Scottish top flight is a good thing. There are communities with football teams languishing in the second tier, probably on merit, that might be rejuvenated by coming to the top flight. 

That's my principal motivation, make it easier for teams to get into and stay in top flight football and the game becomes more enjoyable.

Or if you disagree with me then it doesn't, there's no right or wrong answer, I just think the current format is lame and arguing about reduced price money is bald men arguing over a comb.