Next non-Old Firm title winner

[Doctor Sanchez]

1 hour ago, big al said:

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.

Was it not only 2 points for a win back then? 

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Doctor Sanchez said:

Was it not only 2 points for a win back then? 

86 is what it would’ve been under 3 points for a win. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

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). 

Those Aberdeen sides had pretty good competition from Dundee Utd and Celtic in those days. Certainly far more competitive than the league Deila's sides competed in imo

[Buckets]

12 hours ago, Merkland Red said:

 

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

Are Hearts not more likely than Aberdeen? They get bigger crowds and sellouts and are in a city that's population is growing. 

Hearts would need to expand their stadium to establish themselves as the 3rd biggest club and get first pick on players in the rest of the league. Even if they do get third place for the next 5 years it would only earn them about 25 million which wouldn't be enough to make changes to their stadium capacity. It won't happen. 

The best hope is a Super League happens and the big 5 leagues breakaway. Scotland is currently 4th best outside the big 5 leagues so might get 3 group spots in a revised Champions League access list. If a third club was consistently getting 15 million a season they would probably challenge the top 2.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Are Hearts not more likely than Aberdeen? They get bigger crowds and sellouts and are in a city that's population is growing. 
 

If we’re looking at it that way then it
probably depends on the oil price

Amidst all the reporting of the situation in Ukraine the long term impact on football in Scotland is often overlooked

[DukDukGoose]

2 hours ago, Buckets said:

Are Hearts not more likely than Aberdeen? They get bigger crowds and sellouts and are in a city that's population is growing. 

Hearts would need to expand their stadium to establish themselves as the 3rd biggest club and get first pick on players in the rest of the league. Even if they do get third place for the next 5 years it would only earn them about 25 million which wouldn't be enough to make changes to their stadium capacity. It won't happen. 

The best hope is a Super League happens and the big 5 leagues breakaway. Scotland is currently 4th best outside the big 5 leagues so might get 3 group spots in a revised Champions League access list. If a third club was consistently getting 15 million a season they would probably challenge the top 2.

 

Not if our wage budget is higher. 

If Hearts have a higher wage budget after this summer then they'd be most likely.

[Henrik's tongue]

Has anyone mentioned it’s already happened with New Rangers winning it last year? 
 

The grave robbing c***s that they are.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

On 20/02/2022 at 15:24, VincentGuerin said:

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.

It would help because any challenge is far more likely when you're only having to play the two massively better resourced teams twice each rather than 4 times.

It's entirely possible someone could get off to a flyer and beat both the OF in a first round of fixtures.  If anyone has taken more than half points over both in a season since Souness came on board I'd be amazed. 

[VincentGuerin]

35 minutes ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

It would help because any challenge is far more likely when you're only having to play the two massively better resourced teams twice each rather than 4 times.

It's entirely possible someone could get off to a flyer and beat both the OF in a first round of fixtures.  If anyone has taken more than half points over both in a season since Souness came on board I'd be amazed. 

But where do the OF drop points if they constantly play games against weaker sides?

[ahemps]

19 hours ago, Kapowzer said:

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

The new loan rules are barely going to impact the corrupt loan system. Clubs can loan out 8 international players over the age of 21 but homegrown and under 21 have no limitations.

The OF could still hoover up the best young Scottish talent.

The likes of Man City, Juventus and Chelsea will just have to be a wee bit smarter. I think they have loaned over 40 players at the one time before but how many were international and over 21? They will just keep the ones they see as having the most potential. It will stop bizarre loans like Batshuayi and Victor Moses who spent 7yrs out on loan while a Chelsea player.

Patrick Roberts spent 6yrs on loan while a City player even though a blind man could see he wasn't at their level but was he homegrown, would he have even counted?

To be fair I don't think this is something the OF are that bad at. Yes they hoover up Scottish talent that we can all see won't be good enough for them so it stifles the players development and makes the other teams slightly weaker therefore making the league slightly weaker ie Hastie, Wright, Bain etc.

[craigkillie]

Scott Bain was Hibs sub keeper after falling out with McCann at Dundee, he hardly counts as a promising player stolen away.

Edited March 9, 2022 by craigkillie

[DukDukGoose]

28 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Scott Bain was Hibs sub keeper after falling out with Hartley at Dundee, he hardly counts as a promising player stolen away.

I thought it was McCann but your point still stands.

[ahemps]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Scott Bain was Hibs sub keeper after falling out with Hartley at Dundee, he hardly counts as a promising player stolen away.

I never realised that. However he was Dundee's 1st choice keeper until he fell out with the manager so it wasn't based on footballing ability.

My point is the OF take players we all know aren't at their level but they take the gamble on them anyway as it is no loss to them if they ultimately don't cut it but they are good enough for the team they are at therefore weakening that team and the league. Maybe my examples weren't the best, I'm sure most non OF fans could come up with a few more but they were the ones that sprung to mind.

And saying he wasn't promising kind of proves my point. The OF taking Turnbull or Stuart Armstrong makes sense, taking Bain or Hastie doesn't.

 

[craigkillie]

58 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I thought it was McCann but your point still stands.

Aye it was McCann actually.

[ahemps]

4 hours ago, ahemps said:

To be fair I don't think this is something the OF are that bad at. Yes they hoover up Scottish talent that we can all see won't be good enough for them so it stifles the players development and makes the other teams slightly weaker therefore making the league slightly weaker ie Hastie, Wright, Bain etc.

3 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Scott Bain was Hibs sub keeper after falling out with Hartley at Dundee, he hardly counts as a promising player stolen away.

Not good enough = promising???????

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

17 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

But where do the OF drop points if they constantly play games against weaker sides?

You're no going to win the league by relying on them dropping loads of points.  But if you could win 1 and draw 1 against both of them in a 34 game league that's already a good head start.  We took 4 points from the first two OF games this season but we've subsequently lost all 4.

Would they still win most games, obviously.  But I'd fancy our chances more of running them closer by replacing 2 trips to Glasgow, ER, Pittodrie with 4 away games in Fife, Inverness and Kilmarnock on a one off basis.

[DukDukGoose]

18 hours ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

You're no going to win the league by relying on them dropping loads of points.  But if you could win 1 and draw 1 against both of them in a 34 game league that's already a good head start.  We took 4 points from the first two OF games this season but we've subsequently lost all 4.

Would they still win most games, obviously.  But I'd fancy our chances more of running them closer by replacing 2 trips to Glasgow, ER, Pittodrie with 4 away games in Fife, Inverness and Kilmarnock on a one off basis.

Ys you are.

[Trackdaybob]

They will always drop points. However under the current model they effectively 'get them back' two, three times over. Take that away and all of a sudden things will tighten up. It's as plain as day. I'm struggling to see why people can't realise that. 

[VincentGuerin]

2 hours ago, Trackdaybob said:

They will always drop points. However under the current model they effectively 'get them back' two, three times over. Take that away and all of a sudden things will tighten up. It's as plain as day. I'm struggling to see why people can't realise that. 

I don't think it would play out quite as people imagine.

Take my club as an example. In this 18-team scenario, we'd still be budgeting on a pretty similar level to Hibs and Aberdeen. We'd still be paying more than clubs like Motherwell and St Mirren, but not so much more that we'd beat them all the time. We'd still be dropping points on a regular basis.

The Old Firm already routinely cuff the sides they play against, and we'd just be removing some difficult games for them to give them near enough banker wins.

I fully understand that Hearts might end up picking up more points on average. But I think the gap to the OF would get bigger, not smaller. They'd win pretty much every week while the potential challengers still cut each others' throats.

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

4 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I don't think it would play out quite as people imagine.

Take my club as an example. In this 18-team scenario, we'd still be budgeting on a pretty similar level to Hibs and Aberdeen. We'd still be paying more than clubs like Motherwell and St Mirren, but not so much more that we'd beat them all the time. We'd still be dropping points on a regular basis.

The Old Firm already routinely cuff the sides they play against, and we'd just be removing some difficult games for them to give them near enough banker wins.

I fully understand that Hearts might end up picking up more points on average. But I think the gap to the OF would get bigger, not smaller. They'd win pretty much every week while the potential challengers still cut each others' throats.

I think you're getting mixed up between the chance of regularly pushing them, and having at least an outside chance of catching them out during a good season.

No matter the format they'd be massive favourites, but having to play  more than 1/5th of your games against the two biggest teams as opposed to just over 1/10th is absolutely not helping any remote prospect of anyone else ever winning it.