How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[Jacksgranda]

12 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's Brother, Brother.

Which lodge was he in LOL 1798 Rising Sons of Hibernian Martyrs?

Edited August 28, 2022 by Jacksgranda

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Trying to somehow engineer a balanced top flight in a country with only 4 actual cities is a quixotic endeavour in the first place.
 

if your team is based in a one horse town like Perth, Kilmarnock or Inverness then blaming the league structure might be missing the point 

but given that this thread seems to be for hare brained schemes and blue sky thinking

If you could find some way of splitting the two Glasgow heavyweights into four Glasgow middleweights then you’d be improving things somewhat 

I’m envisaging some kind of schism between a “Sectarian lite” and a “sectarian max”  version of each brand

 

 

 

 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Trying to somehow engineer a balanced top flight in a country with only 4 actual cities is a quixotic endeavour in the first place.
 

if your team is based in a one horse town like Perth, Kilmarnock or Inverness then blaming the league structure might be missing the point 

but given that this thread seems to be for hare brained schemes and blue sky thinking

If you could find some way of splitting the two Glasgow heavyweights into four Glasgow middleweights then you’d be improving things somewhat 

I’m envisaging some kind of schism between a “Sectarian lite” and a “sectarian max”  version of each brand

 

 

 

 

If their support came purely from the greater Glasgow area then they would still be the biggest clubs, but not out of proportion like they are now. They should be roughly twice the size of Hearts and Hibs given the population difference. but they're more like 4 or 5 times the size once you count the large TV audience. 

They are misfits because their support comes from all across Scotland and further, no other club really has this on any kind of scale. 

[CambieBud]

The population of Edinburgh is only about 80000 less than Glasgow these days. The Glasgow clubs draw support from every cesspit in both Scotland and Ireland and we all know why. 
By allowing The Rangers to reform in 2012, allowing them to steal the identity of their Ibrox predecessor as if nothing had happened, was the lost opportunity to reconstruct Scottish football. There is now absolutely no hope for the future of our game.

[Florentine_Pogen]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Trying to somehow engineer a balanced top flight in a country with only 4 actual cities is a quixotic endeavour in the first place.
 

if your team is based in a one horse town like Perth, Kilmarnock or Inverness then blaming the league structure might be missing the point 

but given that this thread seems to be for hare brained schemes and blue sky thinking

If you could find some way of splitting the two Glasgow heavyweights into four Glasgow middleweights then you’d be improving things somewhat 

I’m envisaging some kind of schism between a “Sectarian lite” and a “sectarian max”  version of each brand

 

Johnny Adair Athletic / Black n' Tan Thistle

Torquemada Tallies / Karol Wojtyla Utd.

Might work......................

[HibeeJibee]

Celtic and Rangers home games accounted for 17% of Scottish League crowds in 1951-52.

That rose to 26% in 1961-62 and 27% in 1971-72.

It rose again to 30% in 1981-82.

It rose again to 36% in 1991-92.

It rose again to 46% in 2001-02.

It rose again to 49% in 2011-12 and 50% last season,

This is against a background of attendances at other clubs actually being pretty high in historical terms; and there are now 40 other clubs up from 30 in 1950s, 35 in 1960s and 1970s and 36 in 1980s and 1990s. Celtic and Rangers must also account for a very large proportion of away supports (i.e. appearing under other clubs crowds) - probably as large a portion as has ever been.

Leaving questions of CL money completely aside: when 2 clubs' apparent share of support has risen from 1/6 to 1/4 to 1/3 and now 1/2 we've really answered the question. It's that you cannot solve it.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

2 hours ago, CambieBud said:

The population of Edinburgh is only about 80000 less than Glasgow these days. The Glasgow clubs draw support from every cesspit in both Scotland and Ireland and we all know why. 
By allowing The Rangers to reform in 2012, allowing them to steal the identity of their Ibrox predecessor as if nothing had happened, was the lost opportunity to reconstruct Scottish football. There is now absolutely no hope for the future of our game.

It's easy to blame that for everything, but i actually don't think religion is a big factor in choosing a football team for any significant number of the population in 2022. I would even go as far to say that even the singing of certain songs is just a really, really pish attempt at banter. Genuine sectarianism and religious bigotry has been in decline for a while now. 

But back to the point, - most people simply support the team that their dad supported

[Monkey Tennis]

29 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

 

But back to the point, - most people simply support the team that their dad supported

If that was the case, we wouldn't have seen the massive proportionate swing towards the OF that HJ highlighted.  

I just think that in an age of televised games and easy transport, clubs that nearly always win because of the stacked deck, are incredibly attractive to a type of person of whom we've many.  It's a problem that perpetuates itself.  The more it happens, the more it happens.

[Monkey Tennis]

37 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Leaving questions of CL money completely aside: when 2 clubs' apparent share of support has risen from 1/6 to 1/4 to 1/3 and now 1/2 we've really answered the question. It's that you cannot solve it.

You're dead right in what you're saying, but we can't divorce these huge gates from "questions of  CL money".

That money goes a long way to increasing their media profile and enabling them to dominate domestically.  That in turn does much to cement those gates.

The factors which contribute to the absurd scale of the advantage, are all connected to each other.

[HibeeJibee]

25 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You're dead right in what you're saying, but we can't divorce these huge gates from "questions of  CL money".

That money goes a long way to increasing their media profile and enabling them to dominate domestically.  That in turn does much to cement those gates.

The factors which contribute to the absurd scale of the advantage, are all connected to each other.

I appreciate the point but remember Celtic haven't actually played in CL groups since 2017 and Rangers since 2010.

Those half-decade and more than a decade's absence from the table of riches haven't really dented their crowds or dominance (in league terms - cups were shared widely while Rangers remained in lower levels/pre-Celtic's "quadruple treble"/etc.).

Edited August 28, 2022 by HibeeJibee

[pozbaird]

If, for whatever reason, the Champions League was replaced with a genuine European League, of one, two, or even three tiers, then the two big ugly Glasgow kunts would get into that. If there was relegation and promotion between the three new ‘Euro Leagues’, with the current Europa League some sort of pathway to the third tier… then that, in my opinion, is now the only way to change a perennial duopoly in the Scottish top flight.

I do not believe a true European League structure will come about, so sadly, we’re stuck with the kunts.

[Monkey Tennis]

22 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

I appreciate the point but remember Celtic haven't actually played in CL groups since 2017 and Rangers since 2010.

Those half-decade and more than a decade's absence from the table of riches haven't really dented their crowds or dominance (in league terms - cups were shared widely while Rangers remained in lower levels/pre-Celtic's "quadruple treble"/etc.).

Yes, but for a long time there was that income and it helped cement a stature that could even withstand liquidation.

I think all the sources of gross imbalance are connected and feed each other.

[Jinky67]

1 hour ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

It's easy to blame that for everything, but i actually don't think religion is a big factor in choosing a football team for any significant number of the population in 2022. I would even go as far to say that even the singing of certain songs is just a really, really pish attempt at banter. Genuine sectarianism and religious bigotry has been in decline for a while now. 

But back to the point, - most people simply support the team that their dad supported

Pretty much, i think @AyrshireTon made a similar point about his son supporting Morton yet living in Ayrshire.

Both clubs always had a pretty big support however these supporters have kids, the kids grow up supporting the team their dad did however move into other areas for work, get married, have kids who then follow the dad and this cycle repeats itself, it is to be expected and also expected that dads aren't really going to encourage their kids to then support the local team as they enjoy taking their boy to the football like their dad did with them and so on

 

[HailHailHayley]

4 hours ago, CambieBud said:

The population of Edinburgh is only about 80000 less than Glasgow these days.

How much of that population are Americans & Tories though? Not your traditional football fan types.

[KirkieRR]

Looking at the numbers of Scottish players currently featuring for the uglies, especially Sevco, they're not remotely helping the game here.

[CambieBud]

31 minutes ago, KirkieRR said:

Looking at the numbers of Scottish players currently featuring for the uglies, especially Sevco, they're not remotely helping the game here.

Now now KirkieRR! That’s what shoehorning their B Teams into The Lowland League is about. Expect Scotland to win the World Cup in a few years as a result

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Jinky67 said:

Pretty much, i think @AyrshireTon made a similar point about his son supporting Morton yet living in Ayrshire.

Both clubs always had a pretty big support however these supporters have kids, the kids grow up supporting the team their dad did however move into other areas for work, get married, have kids who then follow the dad and this cycle repeats itself, it is to be expected and also expected that dads aren't really going to encourage their kids to then support the local team as they enjoy taking their boy to the football like their dad did with them and so on

 

 

The idea that allegiance is somehow just hereditary, doesn't explain the shifts we know have happened.

In 1947/48, Celtic's average gate was less than twice as big as Queens'.  Now it's 40-50 times as big.

Clearly, not all allegiances are surviving the passing of generations equally well.

[Jinky67]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

 

The idea that allegiance is somehow just hereditary, doesn't explain the shifts we know have happened.

In 1947/48, Celtic's average gate was less than twice as big as Queens'.  Now it's 40-50 times as big.

Clearly, not all allegiances are surviving the passing of generations equally well.

I don’t think it’s just hereditary however but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t the biggest reason for it.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

10 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

I don’t think it’s just hereditary however but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t the biggest reason for it.

 

How come the numbers have significantly increased for some and massively shrunk for others then?

Don't argue your case by simply restating it in the face of challenging evidence.

[Jinky67]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

How come the numbers have significantly increased for some and massively shrunk for others then?

Don't argue your case by simply restating it in the face of challenging evidence.

I’m not arguing a case I’m giving an opinion on what I believe to be most likely based on my own experience and circumstances as to how I became a fan. Can I prove that ? No more than you can prove it wrong.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Jinky67