How did we get here?

[Arch Stanton]

On 01/02/2022 at 17:02, Luddite said:

...Hearts’ hearts broken by events at Love Street...

Nope, Dens Park. It didn't matter a fuck what happened at Love St, all Hearts had to do was avoid defeat in Dundee.

[coprolite]

1 minute ago, Kyle Reese said:

Unfortunately we currently have a situation where some clubs are answerable to the supporters of other clubs. That is one of the first things that needs to change. You cannot have clubs making decisions based on the continued mass attendance of supporters of a rival club four times a season.

Who cares if they go to church? 

[Kyle Reese]

1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Celtic was very successful before the 80's,when the landscape changed or the system as you put it,
Socialism is Capitalism's ugly sister M8. 

Not quite what I meant. I’m referring to how you feel about seeing your club Cherry-pick players from other Scottish clubs, stopping them from keeping the band together. Do you lament them not having the chance to show what they could have done as a crop? Or do you just shrug and down a few pints celebrating the part they played in another trophy?
 

Even before the 80s, where were the maroon-clad trophies held aloft by Willie Wallace, John Greig, Sandy Jardine or Graeme Souness?

[Kyle Reese]

4 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Who cares if they go to church? 

Decent.

[Dons_1988]

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

True but ultimately the league is driven by it's members and the more of those members are answerable to supporters the better

But a club that is not run to necessarily make a profit may still vote for things that promote those inequalities. 

For example, would a fan owned hearts board vote for a tv deal that was significantly less money but was committed to promoting all clubs, and putting fans of Scottish clubs first (more likely an SPL tv type scenario than any broadcaster paying for this) rather than a deal from sky that is cash rich but punts two teams because that’s the only two that people in England are interested in?

Easy to say yes but in reality when the financial impact of that becomes clear would they do it?

 

[Kyle Reese]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

But a club that is not run to necessarily make a profit may still vote for things that promote those inequalities. 

For example, would a fan owned hearts board vote for a tv deal that was significantly less money but was committed to promoting all clubs, and putting fans of Scottish clubs first (more likely an SPL tv type scenario than any broadcaster paying for this) rather than a deal from sky that is cash rich but punts two teams because that’s the only two that people in England are interested in?

Easy to say yes but in reality when the financial impact of that becomes clear would they do it?

 

Good point. I think on this particular topic though, Hearts voted for SPL TV and it was Aberdeen amongst others who didn’t. Thankfully both clubs are part of the working group trying to tackle the lack of league investment now.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Kyle Reese said:

Good point. I think on this particular topic though, Hearts voted for SPL TV and it was Aberdeen amongst others who didn’t. Thankfully both clubs are part of the working group trying to tackle the lack of league investment now.

The point was a broader one really in that if collectively as a league we want to pursue the current model that relies on tv income then individual clubs not being run for the financial gain of owners would do little to change the direction the game as a whole goes in. 

[wastecoatwilly]

12 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said:

Not quite what I meant. I’m referring to how you feel about seeing your club Cherry-pick players from other Scottish clubs, stopping them from keeping the band together. Do you lament them not having the chance to show what they could have done as a crop? Or do you just shrug and down a few pints celebrating the part they played in another trophy?
 

Even before the 80s, where were the maroon-clad trophies held aloft by Willie Wallace, John Greig, Sandy Jardine or Graeme Souness?

It's not about my club it's about the mindset of the players to keep the band together.

[Kyle Reese]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

The point was a broader one really in that if collectively as a league we want to pursue the current model that relies on tv income then individual clubs not being run for the financial gain of owners would do little to change the direction the game as a whole goes in. 

Then I accept your broader point… although I’m not keen on how that reads back. 

[Luddite]

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

Nope, Dens Park. It didn't matter a f**k what happened at Love St, all Hearts had to do was avoid defeat in Dundee.

What if Celtic had only won 1-0?

[Luddite]

2 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The reason I didn't post was because I knew it would turn into a Celtic and rangers bashing session,pointing the finger at the most successful clubs.
Letting the thread breath a bit and hopefully get rid of the small country small mentality brigade who play the blame game without really having the knowledge or remember the last 30-40 years.
Fans have their own misconceptions and their own perceptions of what happened for me it started in the 80's because I don't remember what happened before that.
From the 1980 Scottish cup final riot to the Hillborough disaster in 1989 football needed to get it's house in order.
The ban on alcohol to this day has treated football fans as second class citizens because we can't be trusted to act like fecking normal human beings yet we do it every day in our working life and family life.
When Politics step in to fix the historical problems there was no turning back the clock and it didn't matter what side you sat on.
By the time we got to the end of the 80's and Hillborough the game was up,the health and safety of every fan was at risk, I enjoyed getting a lift over at the turnstiles but we all knew there was no regulations on the size of the crowds.
New stadiums had to be built and the people that ran the football clubs fitted the bill so they changed the landscapes.
As we moved into the 90's the mindset of the football players where changing, the Bosman ruling was on going even thou the tribunal process was in place from the early 80's.
The clubs had no hold over their players any more,players had no loyalty to their clubs,for the 15 or 20 years in the game players relies their own talent.
Fergie's Man Utd also relies what was happening and the class of 92 was born (You can never win anything with kids)it's also easier to keep them at a club like Man Utd.
The Hibs golden generation of Brown,Thomson,O'Connor,Riordan,Whittaker and Fletcher had no chance of staying together in this new landscape Fletcher's trophies are Lamborghini's not silverware.
Fan will always go to the games like the roman's did for the gladiators.
Scotland has always been a socialist country the difference between socialism and internationalism is Greed.
 

Glad you contributed willy. You made some really good points there.

[Luddite]

1 hour ago, Kyle Reese said:

 I’m referring to how you feel about seeing your club Cherry-pick players from other Scottish clubs, stopping them from keeping the band together. Do you lament them not having the chance to show what they could have done as a crop? Or do you just shrug and down a few pints celebrating the part they played in another trophy?
 

Spot on

[Arch Stanton]

1 hour ago, Luddite said:

What if Celtic had only won 1-0?

Had Hearts avoided defeat at Dens then Sellick could have won 105-0 and it would have made no difference. 

[Luddite]

41 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:

Had Hearts avoided defeat at Dens then Sellick could have won 105-0 and it would have made no difference. 

We could go through a whole bunch of hypotheticals, but as Hearts didn’t avoid defeat it absolutely did matter what happened at Love Street, and what happened at Love Street is Celtic overtook Hearts on goal difference to win the league. Much like Celtic were no doubt overjoyed by events at Dens Park. 
 

Not sure why this has become a contentious statement.

[HibeeJibee]

9 hours ago, kennie makevin said:

I just never get this 'split' business. What does it achieve ? Artificially created so called 'meaningful' games whose psuedo tension stifles creative football and the blooding of young players and another chance for one final lick at the Old Firm testicle ? Utter nonsense from the 'Richard Gordon fascinating set of fixtures' school of delusion.

 

8 hours ago, Kyle Reese said:

Yep. Get it straight in the bin.

 

6 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I quite like the split

For teams in the middle it’s like a promotion/relegation battle but you only live with the consequences for five games

 

6 hours ago, coprolite said:

You know that the whole game and leagues etc are all artificially created, right? 

 

6 hours ago, velo army said:

The split is good when you're 7th or 8th and are safe. Not so great when you finish in the top 6 and then spend the last 5 games being utterly ridden.

Smashing thread this. I love looking at football from an anthropological and psychological view, and I value the contributions of older posters to provide context through their own experience, so I've been enjoying this.

It's a myth the 'split' was invented to artificially produce excitement.

It was invented to get around a simple problem: as well as having agreed to stay in the League Cup and pay an annual index-linked settlement to SFL, the founding SPL clubs had also agreed to return the top division from 10 to 12 teams (which it had been until a few years earlier) after 2yrs - in return for being able to resign immediately, not having to serve 2/3 years notice.

Due to the expanding European and international calendars it was no longer possible to play 44 league games. Accordingly the 'split' was devised to play 38 games, which was near enough to 36 games as 10 had entailed.


However in practice 'splits' are now widespread... Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Rep, Denmark, Finland, Gibraltar, Greece, Israel, Malta, Northern Ireland, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia and Wales all use them. You could say we trailblazed. Most of the rest have 8 or 10 playing each other 4 times, or 12 playing each other 3 times (i.e. 33 games).


What people fail to realise is that 12-10-10-10 has now become *the* most enduring format in Scottish football history. Indeed even looking at 12-club top division with a 'split' -  it is currently enjoying its 22nd year which surpasses any previous format. Note the supposedly utopian 16 only existed 1905-06 and 1946-47 to 1954-55:

1890-91 to 2021-22
10     (18 games)         1 year
12     (22 games)         1 year
10     (18 games)         8 years
11     (20 games)         1 year
10     (18 games)         1 year
12     (22 games)         1 year
14     (26 games)         2 years
16     (30 games)         1 year
18     (34 games)         7 years
20     (38 games)         4 years
18     (34 games)         2 years
22     (42 games)         3 years
20     (38 games)     18 years
regional leagues       6 years
16     (30 games)        9 years
18     (34 games)     20 years
10     (36 games)     11 years
12     (44 games)        2 years
10     (36 games)        3 years
12     (44 games)        3 years
10     (36 games)        6 years
12     (38 games)     22 years and counting


Scottish football has developed a love affair with its small divisions and 'split'.

Edited February 4, 2022 by HibeeJibee

[Monkey Tennis]

19 hours ago, Luddite said:

Glad you contributed willy. You made some really good points there.

...said nobody in human history.

[VincentGuerin]

16 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

It's a myth the 'split' was invented to artificially produce excitement.

It was invented to get around a simple problem:

I'm aware that's why it happened. The issue of fixture numbers looms over every reconstruction argument.

But it's still quite good. I think it's a big positive that teams battling relegation, challenging for Europe, or trying to win the league have to play the teams around them in the run-in.

A relegation battle loses some of its fizz if one team has to play much harder fixtures in the run-in, for example. We could be on for a belter this year.

I wouldn't change it.

[Squonk]

16 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Scottish football has developed a love affair with its small divisions and 'split'.

More accurately, the Scottish football authorities and club chairmen have developed a love affair with small divisions and 'split.'

The average fan, ie the paying customer, has no say whatsoever. Football would comfortably survive without the suits, but it couldn't survive without the fans.

[Monkey Tennis]

HJ is of course right about the split.  It doesn't exist to spice up the competition itself.  It exists to allow the top flight to have 12 sides and a manageable number of matches.  That's really all there is to it.  And he's also right to highlight that most smallish countries have small divisions that often feature splits.  I think there's a belief that we do these things uniquely wackily here and it's just not the case.

On the wider debate, I find myself giving greenies to both Luddite and Kyle Rees, even though they're apparently arguing with each other.  I feel like that character in The Fast Show who just agreed with whoever was speaking.  They're both talking sense though.

No, we can't return to how things were and in some respects, that picture is indeed idealised anyway.  In terms of football being competitive and accessible though, it has markedly got worse.  It didn't need to become so lopsided.

The trouble is though, that while that makes the whole thing much, much less appealing for me and others on this thread, it's not made it that way for the general population.  

Those with most power already, sculpted things to suit them, making their power all the greater.  I get quite depressed about it.  I'm genuinely grateful that I'm old enough to have seen sides from outside Glasgow win our league.  I really cannot see a way to that happening again though.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[Kyle Reese]

17 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

 

 

 

 

It's a myth the 'split' was invented to artificially produce excitement.

It was invented to get around a simple problem: as well as having agreed to stay in the League Cup and pay an annual index-linked settlement to SFL, the founding SPL clubs had also agreed to return the top division from 10 to 12 teams (which it had been until a few years earlier) after 2yrs - in return for being able to resign immediately, not having to serve 2/3 years notice.

Due to the expanding European and international calendars it was no longer possible to play 44 league games. Accordingly the 'split' was devised to play 38 games, which was near enough to 36 games as 10 had entailed.


However in practice 'splits' are now widespread... Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Rep, Denmark, Finland, Gibraltar, Greece, Israel, Malta, Northern Ireland, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia and Wales all use them. You could say we trailblazed. Most of the rest have 8 or 10 playing each other 4 times, or 12 playing each other 3 times (i.e. 33 games).


What people fail to realise is that 12-10-10-10 has now become *the* most enduring format in Scottish football history. Indeed even looking at 12-club top division with a 'split' -  it is currently enjoying its 22nd year which surpasses any previous format. Note the supposedly utopian 16 only existed 1905-06 and 1946-47 to 1954-55:

1890-91 to 2021-22
10     (18 games)         1 year
12     (22 games)         1 year
10     (18 games)         8 years
11     (20 games)         1 year
10     (18 games)         1 year
12     (22 games)         1 year
14     (26 games)         2 years
16     (30 games)         1 year
18     (34 games)         7 years
20     (38 games)         4 years
18     (34 games)         2 years
22     (42 games)         3 years
20     (38 games)     18 years
regional leagues       6 years
16     (30 games)        9 years
18     (34 games)     20 years
10     (36 games)     11 years
12     (44 games)        2 years
10     (36 games)        3 years
12     (44 games)        3 years
10     (36 games)        6 years
12     (38 games)     22 years and counting


Scottish football has developed a love affair with its small divisions and 'split'.

The thing is, I know and understand all that you have posted there, but none of it makes me think it’s a good format, and I would rather see us go to a 16 or 18 team division.