How did we get here?

[Guest Wieghortsnut]

Scottish football got completely monopolised in the early nineties by Rangers and when Celtic got their act together when they stopped 10iar it was curtains for anyone other than them ever wining this league. 

English football started using American sports as a template with the premiership and the team that has capitalised the most and I personally blame for the way that football is now is Man Utd. They are everything that is wrong with football imo, they ripped football away from the working man.

 

Prawn sandwich munching c***s

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Scottish football got completely monopolised in the early nineties by Rangers and when Celtic got their act together when they stopped 10iar it was curtains for anyone other than them ever wining this league. 
English football started using American sports as a template with the premiership and the team that has capitalised the most and I personally blame for the way that football is now is Man Utd. They are everything that is wrong with football imo, they ripped football away from the working man.
 
Prawn sandwich munching c***s

They’ve even got a depiction of the devil on their shirts

Could they be any more obvious

[Ross.]

Failure to adapt to technological trends has also had an impact on the Scottish game, mostly from it being a missed opportunity to level the field somewhat. Quite why there still isn’t a league wide streaming app showing all the games not picked up by Sky is beyond me.

[Kyle Reese]

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

In which case no it wouldn't

Basically the whole fallacy started surfacing 1997/98 the season where Hearts got 1 point out or 12 against Rangers and two against Celtic but that was the exception rather than the rule.

Generally if you're good enough to get title contender results against everybody else then you're probably good enough to get decent results against the other contender(s).

When Hearts took the title to the last day in '86 they did it having beaten Celtic once and drawing the other 3. Dundee United won the title by a point over Celtic after beating them once and losing once When Rangers denied Aberdeen the title on the final day in 1991 they were squaring the series at one win each and two draws. Ferguson's Aberdeen managed to win the league while coming out behind against Celtic and Celtic managed to win the league while coming out behind Aberdeen. The 1994 season when Aberdeen and Motherwell finished relatively close saw them both break even against Rangers.  The 2006 Hearts side pipped Rangers to 2nd before we went to Ibrox because we'd already beat them and drawn twice
 

 

I’m sorry TC, but that’s all fine, and your opinion. You’re a smart guy, and I always consider what you say when you post, whether I agree with it or not. My opinion on this differs to yours however. Neither opinion is fallacy however.

[Kyle Reese]

18 minutes ago, Wieghortsnut said:

Scottish football got completely monopolised in the early nineties by Rangers and when Celtic got their act together when they stopped 10iar it was curtains for anyone other than them ever wining this league. 

English football started using American sports as a template with the premiership and the team that has capitalised the most and I personally blame for the way that football is now is Man Utd. They are everything that is wrong with football imo, they ripped football away from the working man.

 

Prawn sandwich munching c***s

Man U just happened to be the team that used the system best. They aren’t to blame for the system. Before them it was Liverpool, but the system was different. 

[coprolite]

10 hours ago, Luddite said:

 

This is the strangest response I’ve read, if you can explain ways in which teams outside the Old Firm contributed to the neoliberalization of Scottish football I would genuinely like to read it. 

 

We offered Charlie Nicholas more money than Arsenal did and generally spent well beyond our means throughout the 90s in a bid to initially keep up with Rangers then just to spunk money for a laugh. 

We blazed a trail for Dundee (Ravanelli and Caniggia ffs) and Motherwell to follow, and others to lesser extents. 

We were also AIM listed for a while. 

The other clubs outside the establishment clique all voted for a quick buck over long term security to go for setanta. 

Then there's the LSC being bankrolled by pensions stolen by a bond baddie. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I’m sorry TC, but that’s all fine, and your opinion. You’re a smart guy, and I always consider what you say when you post, whether I agree with it or not. My opinion on this differs to yours however. Neither opinion is fallacy however.

Well I hope someone else appreciates the work I put in to testing your hypothesis

[Kyle Reese]

32 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Failure to adapt to technological trends has also had an impact on the Scottish game, mostly from it being a missed opportunity to level the field somewhat. Quite why there still isn’t a league wide streaming app showing all the games not picked up by Sky is beyond me.

Yep. It’s all in place, just needs linked together.

[DA Baracus]

6 hours ago, TheScarf said:

Even if the 11-1 changed to 8-4 or something, league reconstruction would never happen as the top flight clubs budget on at least 3 visits of the old firm every season.  4 if they finish in the top 6 frequently (Aberdeen/Hearts/Hibs).

Having a 18 or 20 team top flight would be brilliant, lots of intriguing games, but it would never happen because clubs would lose half the gate money the old firm bring, and this fucking weird obsession of having no dead rubbers, something that is unavoidable in a league format of any amount of teams.

It was only a few seasons ago when Partick Thistle were in tears because they had one less visit from Sevco/Celtic than some other teams, and were wailing that this was unfair and put them at a disadvantage. 

That's the sort of shite we have to deal with in boardrooms across the country.

[Chefki Kuqi]

If we're doing fantasy formats I'd go 16/14/12, with a split in the top flight after a home/away fixture against each team as I quite like the split. 

[Guest Wieghortsnut]

3 hours ago, Kyle Reese said:

Man U just happened to be the team that used the system best. They aren’t to blame for the system. Before them it was Liverpool, but the system was different. 

See i dont think Liverpool used a system before Man Utd, Liverpool built an ethos and a team from the 70s to the 80s. There wasn't the money to make a difference like Man Utd did. Yes Liverpool dominated the 80s but that wasn't through money

[Luddite]

9 hours ago, coprolite said:

We offered Charlie Nicholas more money than Arsenal did and generally spent well beyond our means throughout the 90s in a bid to initially keep up with Rangers then just to spunk money for a laugh. 

We blazed a trail for Dundee (Ravanelli and Caniggia ffs) and Motherwell to follow, and others to lesser extents. 

We were also AIM listed for a while. 

The other clubs outside the establishment clique all voted for a quick buck over long term security to go for setanta. 

Then there's the LSC being bankrolled by pensions stolen by a bond baddie. 

Good info, from that stance I guess my post was a bit OF-centric, although my interest is more in how the environment was created for the acceptance of neoliberalization, rather than all the examples of clubs and individuals jumping diving in after it had taken place.

As a citizen and football fan I have to accept that I happily gave up some of the “boring” old-fashioned stabilities of life for a more exciting and “glamorous” football “product”, buying into the  “brand” of a big club and it’s “success”, mindlessly consuming all the shiny distractions and luxuries of the marketplace without considering the hidden cost and how I might be contributing to the message being sent to our political leaders and great captains of industry that we really didn’t care about the things we were losing in return.

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Luddite

[Luddite]

6 hours ago, Wieghortsnut said:

See i dont think Liverpool used a system before Man Utd, Liverpool built an ethos and a team from the 70s to the 80s. There wasn't the money to make a difference like Man Utd did. Yes Liverpool dominated the 80s but that wasn't through money

Agreed

Liverpool had numerous, real challengers throughout the 70s and 80s. Yes, in “The Prem” Man United had a couple of rando challengers for the first few years, but it is generally true that it came down to how much money a club spent each year, and it wasn’t long before The Premier League and it’s hideous trophy became synonymous with Manchester United, it was their’s to lose each season.

Looking at United in the Premier League 1993-2013 and Liverpool in the First Division 1972 -1992, it’s not just that United won more titles over the same number of campaigns (13 out of 21 to Liverpool’s 11 out of 21), you look at the other challengers and title winners from those seasons.  1972-1992 you had Derby, Leeds, Forest, Villa, Everton and Arsenal all winning the league, and the likes of QPR, Ipswich, Man City, West Brom, Sheffield Wednesday, West Ham, Crystal Palace, Watford and Southampton in 2nd or 3rd place. 

Early on (94-97) United had Blackburn and Newcastle to contend with, but it very soon became restricted to the favored nations of Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool (and later Man City) separating themselves from the riff-raff.

As someone else mentioned previously, with the old First Division literally any team could come out of nowhere with some salt-of-the-earth manager gelling a group of lads together to have a couple of good seasons challenging for and winning the league/cups and competing well in Europe.

Comparing Liverpool in the First Division to United’s Nietzschean Will-To-Power dominance of the Premier League is apples to Yubari Melons.

It really did become a Whole New Ball Game ©

Edited February 4, 2022 by Luddite

[Kyle Reese]

2 hours ago, Luddite said:

Good info, from that stance I guess my post was a bit OF-centric, although my interest is more in how the environment was created for the acceptance of neoliberalization, rather than all the examples of clubs and individuals jumping diving in after it had taken place.

As a citizen and football fan I have to accept that I happily gave up some of the “boring” old-fashioned stabilities of life for a more exciting and “glamorous” football “product”, buying into the  “brand” of a big club and it’s “success”, mindlessly consuming all the shiny distractions and luxuries of the marketplace without considering the hidden cost and how I might be contributing to the message being sent to our political leaders and great captains of industry that we really didn’t care about the things we were losing in return.

 

I admire your romantic vision. Sadly though, it’s a wee bit like Brexit:. The olden days before the “neoliberalism” were not actually as great as people remember them. I only go back as far as 86, but I read a lot about football, and I’m lucky enough to have/have had a lot of football supporters in my family who go back decades. I used to speak to Hibs supporting grandad about these things, and my almost 80 year old step-dad has been going to Tynecastle since just after the Second World War. Within my own timeline even, there was good and bad. There was a lot of violence still, and though some look back all misty eyed about piss running down the steps of school-end just to the side of the crazy corner of the shed, as a kid I thought it was minging. Lot of racism and homophobia too.  There’s more emphasis on athleticism now; so much so, that many a wonderfully skilful player can be neutralised by a fast and strong player. The Aberdeen and United teams of the 80s, the Hearts teams of the 50s and early 60s, or the 70s Hibs teams would struggle against complete monkeys nowadays, purely down to athleticism. If those players were around nowadays and they matched the modern athleticism levels, then they’d be earning hundreds of thousands a week at Manchester City or PSG. Neoliberalism is one thing, raw unfaltering capitalism is another. I guess what I’m trying to say: is you can’t go back. It wouldn’t be the same, no matter how much you would want it to be. It would probably be better in all fairness, if we found a way to rebalance everything, but it would never be the same as folk remember it. That’s partly because people remember it being better than it actually was, and partly because the sport has changed so much since.

What we should be doing, is looking at the current set-up, and the modern football world, and thinking of ways that we can make Scottish football better as a whole. That might mean some individual clubs and people having to take one for the good of the overall game, but any attempt to improve things root and branch would need that to happen. Sadly that’s the exact same reason why nothing like that ever will happen. It’s all about self-interest. The people who could force change, are the same people who don’t want change. 

 

[Luddite]

11 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said:

I admire your romantic vision. Sadly though, it’s a wee bit like Brexit:. The olden days before the “neoliberalism” were not actually as great as people remember them. I only go back as far as 86, but I read a lot about football, and I’m lucky enough to have/have had a lot of football supporters in my family who go back decades. I used to speak to Hibs supporting grandad about these things, and my almost 80 year old step-dad has been going to Tynecastle since just after the Second World War. Within my own timeline even, there was good and bad. There was a lot of violence still, and though some look back all misty eyed about piss running down the steps of school-end just to the side of the crazy corner of the shed, as a kid I thought it was minging. Lot of racism and homophobia too.  There’s more emphasis on athleticism now; so much so, that many a wonderfully skilful player can be neutralised by a fast and strong player. The Aberdeen and United teams of the 80s, the Hearts teams of the 50s and early 60s, or the 70s Hibs teams would struggle against complete monkeys nowadays, purely down to athleticism. If those players were around nowadays and they matched the modern athleticism levels, then they’d be earning hundreds of thousands a week at Manchester City or PSG. Neoliberalism is one thing, raw unfaltering capitalism is another. I guess what I’m trying to say: is you can’t go back. It wouldn’t be the same, no matter how much you would want it to be. It would probably be better in all fairness, if we found a way to rebalance everything, but it would never be the same as folk remember it. That’s partly because people remember it being better than it actually was, and partly because the sport has changed so much since.

What we should be doing, is looking at the current set-up, and the modern football world, and thinking of ways that we can make Scottish football better as a whole. That might mean some individual clubs and people having to take one for the good of the overall game, but any attempt to improve things root and branch would need that to happen. Sadly that’s the exact same reason why nothing like that ever will happen. It’s all about self-interest. The people who could force change, are the same people who don’t want change. 

 

I agree with some of what you say, and though I am “misty-eyed” about the past, I’m under no illusion that it was idyllic. Rather than wishing to go back in time, my negativity comes from considering all the potential futures that were taken from us. We could have improved the match day “experience” without allowing corporate interests to transform the game into what it has become.

To those who say that’s impossible, I would suggest that Thatcher and Blair were successful in shaping, limiting and controlling their imaginations.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Luddite

[Kyle Reese]

7 hours ago, Wieghortsnut said:

See i dont think Liverpool used a system before Man Utd, Liverpool built an ethos and a team from the 70s to the 80s. There wasn't the money to make a difference like Man Utd did. Yes Liverpool dominated the 80s but that wasn't through money

 

1 hour ago, Luddite said:

Agreed

Liverpool had numerous, real challengers throughout the 70s and 80s. Yes, in “The Prem” Man United had a couple of rando challengers for the first few years, but it is generally true that it came down to how much money a club spent each year, and it wasn’t long before The Premier League and it’s hideous trophy became synonymous with Manchester United, it was their’s to lose each season.

Looking at United in the Premier League 1993-2013 and Liverpool in the First Division 1972 -1992, it’s not just that United won more titles over the same number of campaigns (13 out of 21 to Liverpool’s 11 out of 21), you look at the other challengers and title winners from those seasons.  1972-1992 you had Derby, Leeds, Forest, Villa, Everton and Arsenal all winning the league, and the likes of QPR, Ipswich, Man City, West Brom, Sheffield Wednesday, West Ham, Crystal Palace, Watford and Southampton in 2nd or 3rd place. 

Early on (94-97) United had Blackburn and Newcastle to contend with, but it very soon became restricted to the favored nations of Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool (and later Man City) separating themselves from the riff-raff.

As someone else mentioned previously, with the old First Division literally any team could come out of nowhere with some salt-of-the-earth manager gelling a group of lads together to have a couple of good seasons challenging for and winning the league/cups and competing well in Europe.

Comparing Liverpool in the First Division to United’s Nietzschean Will-To-Power dominance of the Premier League is apples to Yubari Melons.

It really did become a Whole New Ball Game ©

That’s the thing though. Manchester United didn’t create the system, they were just well placed to capitalise on it. That’s what I was trying to say. We live in a weird footballing world now, where there are Manchester United supporters who say things like “we built that team up from nothing, and stayed at the top. We did it the right way, not like Chelsea and City who just flung billions at it to go straight to the top.” In time, we will probably have to read and hear City and Chelsea supporters whining about how Newcastle did it the wrong way, and that their clubs somehow had more scruples.

[Kyle Reese]

2 minutes ago, Luddite said:

I agree with some of what you say, and though I am “misty-eyed” about the past, I’m under no illusion that it was idyllic. Rather than wishing to go back in time, my negativity comes from considering all the potential futures that were taken from us. We could have improved the match day “experience” without allowing corporate interests to transform the game into what it has become.

To those who say that’s impossible, I would suggest that Thatcher and Blair were successful in reshaping and controlling their imaginations.

I can assure you, I am no fan of Thatcher nor Blair. I recognise what they did. 

I do think it’s impossible to go back to what it was before corporate interest though. The problem with that, is that already exists: Junior Football. It’s just that it exists alongside the behemoth of professional football, so you’d never attract the quality of players to it. You’d need good players to choose to not see it as a job and maximise their earning potential. That will never happen. I love the picture you are painting and would love to see it, I just don’t think it’s possible. It’s the genie out the bottle, imo.

[Luddite]

11 hours ago, Kyle Reese said:

Man U just happened to be the team that used the system best. They aren’t to blame for the system. Before them it was Liverpool, but the system was different. 

 

23 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said:

 

That’s the thing though. Manchester United didn’t create the system, they were just well placed to capitalise on it. That’s what I was trying to say. We live in a weird footballing world now, where there are Manchester United supporters who say things like “we built that team up from nothing, and stayed at the top. We did it the right way, not like Chelsea and City who just flung billions at it to go straight to the top.” In time, we will probably have to read and hear City and Chelsea supporters whining about how Newcastle did it the wrong way, and that their clubs somehow had more scruples.

I agree with your second summarization, but can you explain your first one a bit clearer regarding Liverpool in the 70s/80s?

I think we could all put together a decent explanation of the various factors in the “system” Man Utd were part of creating/using/capitalizing upon in the 90s/2000s in a manner that was different to most of their competitors, but I’m less clear on what “system” Liverpool  used/controlled in a way that all the other teams didn’t. It was a pretty level playing field in the old First Divison, for the most part everyone had access to the same mechanisms. Thats not the case with United in the Premier League.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Luddite

[Luddite]

17 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said:

I can assure you, I am no fan of Thatcher nor Blair. I recognise what they did. 

I do think it’s impossible to go back to what it was before corporate interest though. The problem with that, is that already exists: Junior Football. It’s just that it exists alongside the behemoth of professional football, so you’d never attract the quality of players to it. You’d need good players to choose to not see it as a job and maximise their earning potential. That will never happen. I love the picture you are painting and would love to see it, I just don’t think it’s possible. It’s the genie out the bottle, imo.

We are in complete agreement then. I don’t think it can be fixed either, So I just piss and moan about all that lost potential and worlds that could have been. Modern football really isn’t for me, I don’t watch any of the top European Leagues, not the Champions League nor The World Cup or the Euros. Even the lower leagues have elements of the shit I can’t stand, but there’s enough tradition still there that I can overlook it.

 

On your opening retort about Thatcher/Blair, you don’t need to be a fan of what they did to have acquiesced/succumbed to their ideology.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Luddite

[Luddite]

37 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said:

…..Neoliberalism is one thing, raw unfaltering capitalism is another…

 

That’s a debate all it’s own right there