How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[Otis Blue]

15 hours ago, Stag Nation said:

What evidence is there that QOS are "aspirational"?

Well ... these things are highly subjective aren't they?  I could say that they've been pretty much a fixture in the Championship for the past 20 or so years, that they've maintained their full-time status despite dropping to L1 in the hope of speeding up a return to the Championship.  It could also be argued that they were unlucky to finish only 4th in the 2014/15 Championship with Hearts, Hibs and Rangers taking the three places above (hardly aspirational diddy teams - so a very tough league that season).

Not exactly related, but I think its also good for the game here that there is a decent geographical spread across our leagues - in the same way I thought it was good for the highland sides to come into our senior leagues, I think its good for the game that the south of the country and Dumfries as one of the larger provincial towns (and some 8 times the size of Dingwall according to Wiki - yes, I know ...) is well represented.

Were money-man McGregor to pull out of County, do you think County would be as "aspirational" as at present?

[ArabFC]

The inherent problem with our league is that it can only be won by two teams.

That will never change (in lieu of a billionaire investor) without reforms that Scottish Fitba has always been too timid to implement. Think the Old Firm veto etc.

Personally, I'd go the whole hog and rip up our whole league system and replace it with a playoff format where the top 4/6 teams go at it for a Superbowl type finale (you see it in rugby too).

A Hearts/Hibs/Aberdeen etc will never win a 34/36/38 game season but they could win 2 or 3 in a row. It may seem 'unfair' but fcuk it, we've got nowhere else to go now.

[bendan]

17 hours ago, David1979 said:

I'm not sure that's the case to be honest. The gulf between Celtic primarily, and Rangers to a lesser extent, compared to the rest of Scottish football is huge. I'm sure I read that of 17 other leagues compared, only France had a larger spread between the top and the bottom.

Back in 2018, a report on the subject concluded, which should put the whole thing into context...

"There is considerably less of a resource gulf between Celtic and reigning Premier League champions Manchester City than between Celtic and most clubs in their own division."

"Using our GSSS numbers from this report, City players earn ‘only’ seven times as much as those at Celtic, who in turn earn around 20 times the basic paid at Motherwell, Hamilton and St Johnstone."

So I think any attempts to split the top tow or better would require gargantuan financial input of some sort.

There's a lot of cherry picking going on there.

Is the average salary at Celtic and Rangers anything close to 20 times the average at Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs? Nope - not by a long shot.

I'm not suggesting it's easy for those clubs to do better than one or both of the OF pair in a particular season but I think they have underperformed. Look at the signings they've made over the last few years. Really not much better than the clubs below them with much smaller budgets. And the managers?

Why is it clubs like Bodo Glimt can come along and pump Celtic home and away, yet it's perennially beyond the ability of Hearts?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 hour ago, ArabFC said:

The inherent problem with our league is that it can only be won by two teams.

You've not been paying attention.

@Otis Blue has just explained that the real problem with the Scottish top flight is that teams like Queen of the South can't get into it

Edited June 1, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)

[Dons_1988]

2 hours ago, ArabFC said:

The inherent problem with our league is that it can only be won by two teams.

That will never change (in lieu of a billionaire investor) without reforms that Scottish Fitba has always been too timid to implement. Think the Old Firm veto etc.

Personally, I'd go the whole hog and rip up our whole league system and replace it with a playoff format where the top 4/6 teams go at it for a Superbowl type finale (you see it in rugby too).

A Hearts/Hibs/Aberdeen etc will never win a 34/36/38 game season but they could win 2 or 3 in a row. It may seem 'unfair' but fcuk it, we've got nowhere else to go now.

To quote Neil Doncaster in his most recent interview - “that won’t be much of a vote winner with Celtic and rangers fans!”

Case closed, game over, thanks Neil. 

[Otis Blue]

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

You've not been paying attention.

@Otis Blue has just explained that the real problem with the Scottish top flight is that uber-diddy teams like Queen of the South can't get into it

Fixed that for you ... 

FWIW ... my own personal view of the hierarchy of top league problems would be: (1) The OF duopoly, (2) the fairly effective "closed shop" to keep the pond-life where they belong and (3) the 10 team diddy league sizes that have resulted from the restructuring.  Other than that its fine ... aye?

[RB-Scotland]

 That was my question on the podcast regarding how to make Scottish football more competitive. I was fully expecting a copout non-answer, but what he said was even worse than I anticipated.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

14 hours ago, Otis Blue said:

Fixed that for you ... 

FWIW ... my own personal view of the hierarchy of top league problems would be: (1) The OF duopoly, (2) the fairly effective "closed shop" to keep the pond-life where they belong and (3) the 10 team diddy league sizes that have resulted from the restructuring.  Other than that its fine ... aye?

I was joking

But hopefully also illustrating the point that there really isn't much consensus as to precisely what the problems with Scottish football are and certainly not what the priorities are. 

For instance I don't really see a problem with a 10 team division and would probably, on balance, go for a 10 team top flight with no split but that's a subjective preference just like yours.

 

 

[Otis Blue]

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

I was joking

But hopefully also illustrating the point that there really isn't much consensus as to precisely what the problems with Scottish football are and certainly not what the priorities are. 

For instance I don't really see a problem with a 10 team division and would probably, on balance, go for a 10 team top flight with no split but that's a subjective preference just like yours.

It's fine, I knew you were ... the fitba should never be taken too seriously ...

Absolutely, these things are very subjective and the view from upstairs is always going to be different from the view from the basement.

I get all the arguments about 10 team leagues avoiding many meaningless games.  I'm just saying that having watched them for plenty of years now, playing the same teams over and over again is just tedious in the extreme, and I think that its maybe because old gits like me remember the larger leagues with more variety and 2 games per season against each club.  But I get that my view is just one view amongst many - and their certainly isn't a consensus amongst us diddy clubs on this point.

Our big problem is that with well over >50% of the attending/viewing public being OF, Doncaster is never in a million years going to listen to any other views.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

21 minutes ago, Otis Blue said:

It's fine, I knew you were ... the fitba should never be taken too seriously ...

Absolutely, these things are very subjective and the view from upstairs is always going to be different from the view from the basement.

It's not even necessarily about which level you're club is operating at

Amongst Hearts Fans, for example, the ones who go home and away seem to be more likely to complain about a league where we play each other up to four times than the bulk  of us who really only see each opponent twice. 

I suspect this pattern exists elsewhere

 

[MacDonald Jardine]

39 minutes ago, Otis Blue said:

It's fine, I knew you were ... the fitba should never be taken too seriously ...

Absolutely, these things are very subjective and the view from upstairs is always going to be different from the view from the basement.

I get all the arguments about 10 team leagues avoiding many meaningless games.  I'm just saying that having watched them for plenty of years now, playing the same teams over and over again is just tedious in the extreme, and I think that its maybe because old gits like me remember the larger leagues with more variety and 2 games per season against each club.  But I get that my view is just one view amongst many - and their certainly isn't a consensus amongst us diddy clubs on this point.

Our big problem is that with well over >50% of the attending/viewing public being OF, Doncaster is never in a million years going to listen to any other views.

I started going when we had the two leagues.

It didn't help we were shite at the time but bar a cup run the season was over by January when we sat somewhere between 7th and 10th.

I hated the Premier League when it meant relegation (3 times) but it did mean the season lasted a season, apart from 80/81 when we were all but down in January.

 

[MacDonald Jardine]

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

It's not even necessarily about which level you're club is operating at

Amongst Hearts Fans, for example, the ones who go home and away seem to be more likely to complain about a league where we play each other up to four times than the bulk  of us who really only see each opponent twice. 

I suspect this pattern exists elsewhere

 

I suspect the novelty of seeing the likes of Arbroath, Raith or even QOS once or twice a season instead of games against Hibs or Aberdeen would soon wear off.

[Otis Blue]

13 hours ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

I started going when we had the two leagues.

It didn't help we were shite at the time but bar a cup run the season was over by January when we sat somewhere between 7th and 10th.

I hated the Premier League when it meant relegation (3 times) but it did mean the season lasted a season, apart from 80/81 when we were all but down in January.

I get that argument too and I know that differing views will be out there, and that's fine.  However, I think for me, I don't see these individual points each necessarily in isolation (ie the OF duopoly, the top league "closed shop" and the small leagues) ... it's more a case of cumulatively, having watched from the perspective of a provincial diddy club trying its best (and rarely succeeding to any great extent) for several decades, the whole structure just gets me down.

[Otis Blue]

14 hours ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

I suspect the novelty of seeing the likes of Arbroath, Raith or even QOS once or twice a season instead of games against Hibs or Aberdeen would soon wear off.

True, from the perspective of a Hearts fan (I get this being from originally a Gorgie-based family).  However, with a larger league you'd also have larger not-quite-so-diddy clubs like Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick or Falkirk being more of a consistent feature in the top league (instead of being perennial yo-yos as now) - as well as giving the odd semi-decent diddy clubs like Inverness, Raith, Morton, Ayr and QOS their days in the sun now and then.  If you shut down the opportunity to progress for the "have-nots" then you create a very sterile and stagnant pond, which is basically where we are heading now.

[MacDonald Jardine]

27 minutes ago, Otis Blue said:

True, from the perspective of a Hearts fan (I get this being from originally a Gorgie-based family).  However, with a larger league you'd also have larger not-quite-so-diddy clubs like Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick or Falkirk being more of a consistent feature in the top league (instead of being perennial yo-yos as now) - as well as giving the odd semi-decent diddy clubs like Inverness, Raith, Morton, Ayr and QOS their days in the sun now and then.  If you shut down the opportunity to progress for the "have-nots" then you create a very sterile and stagnant pond, which is basically where we are heading now.

I do get that too. It's striking a balance between meaningful games and reasonable opportunities for teams to progress.

One of the notable features of the last few years is the fall off in crowds for teams like Dunfermline and Partick.

[kennie makevin]

1 hour ago, Otis Blue said:

True, from the perspective of a Hearts fan (I get this being from originally a Gorgie-based family).  However, with a larger league you'd also have larger not-quite-so-diddy clubs like Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick or Falkirk being more of a consistent feature in the top league (instead of being perennial yo-yos as now) - as well as giving the odd semi-decent diddy clubs like Inverness, Raith, Morton, Ayr and QOS their days in the sun now and then.  If you shut down the opportunity to progress for the "have-nots" then you create a very sterile and stagnant pond, which is basically where we are heading now.

I would disagree with that being 'where we are heading now'. I think we already are in 'a very sterile and stagnant pond' and have been for years.

[Captain_Sensible]

 

We should demand that the OF clubs offer to share home gates and give up their champions league and TV money. 
 

If they refuse, then the non OF clubs should resign en masse and start a new league. We can prosper without them, they can’t survive without us.

To make this happen, all non OF fans need to boycott all games until it happens. It’ll happen soon enough if we did that 

Until then, it’s all just talking, life of Brian style 

[RandomGuy.]

2 hours ago, Otis Blue said:

True, from the perspective of a Hearts fan (I get this being from originally a Gorgie-based family).  However, with a larger league you'd also have larger not-quite-so-diddy clubs like Dundee, Dunfermline, Partick or Falkirk being more of a consistent feature in the top league (instead of being perennial yo-yos as now) - as well as giving the odd semi-decent diddy clubs like Inverness, Raith, Morton, Ayr and QOS their days in the sun now and then.  If you shut down the opportunity to progress for the "have-nots" then you create a very sterile and stagnant pond, which is basically where we are heading now.

What are you even trying to argue?

One minute youre claiming "small sides" cant progress up the league as "bigger sides" have the shut the door, the next minute your mewling that "bigger sides" arent in the top flight often enough while "small sides" are and it ruins the top flight.

[Otis Blue]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

What are you even trying to argue?

One minute youre claiming "small sides" cant progress up the league as "bigger sides" have the shut the door, the next minute your mewling that "bigger sides" arent in the top flight often enough while "small sides" are and it ruins the top flight.

When did I say all that?  If it came across that way it wasn't meant.  The intended gist was along the lines of ... the current "closed shop" is designed to minimise upward progress from the leagues below.  Then the league sizes, which if larger would avoid certain larger clubs being perennial yo yos and additionally would also give an opportunity for smaller sides (which currently are effectively shut out).  I also made the point that it was both these things, taken in combination with the OF duopoly that made the whole structure stagnant - which it is - by design.

[HoBNob]

9 hours ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

.

One of the notable features of the last few years is the fall off in crowds for teams like Dunfermline and Partick.

Aye? We had a strong uptrurn in home fans last year.