How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[HibeeJibee]

5 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

Go full sicko mode & do whatever the hell Argentina is doing:









(the league is downsizing in 2026 albeit only to 22)

Do they not also run relegation on an average of last 3 years to stop 'big' clubs having 1 bad season from going down? (Gordon Strachan wet dream basically).

They're no crazy horse Belgians tbh.

[DiegoDiego]

2 hours ago, GNU_Linux said:

Go full sicko mode & do whatever the hell Argentina is doing:









(the league is downsizing in 2026 albeit only to 22)

Imagine if there were a 28 team top fight in Scotland. What would Kelty's goal difference be after 27 games? Not -30, that's for fucking sure.

Maybe the solution to the nonsense UEFA money fucking up domestic leagues is to move to CONMEBOL?

[Sergeant Wilson]

11 hours ago, GNU_Linux said:

Go full sicko mode & do whatever the hell Argentina is doing:









(the league is downsizing in 2026 albeit only to 22)

Colon and Arsenal being at the bottom is very fitting.

[ahemps]

14 hours ago, Rustybadge said:

I'm not sure if this would be a business model attractive enough for investors ... BUT... the Ugly Sisters are both being left behind the Tier 1 European Teams because of the financial gulf; this means they are only able to sign 2nd and 3rd rate talent these days....

... with that in mind, I don't think it would take tooooo much investment to bring a Hearts or Aberdeen up to a standard where they could win the Scottish Premier League. If that resulted in a few sustained European tours then they might be able to consistently compete with Rangers / Celtic levels fairly soon. Ah dunno.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really a fan of the idea of uber-rich profiles (sheiks et al) taking over clubs, but it might be a profitable venture quite quickly for the modest investment speculator. 

 

It would never be profitable but it would be affordable to a sheikh or uber rich person.

Wages have the biggest influence on league positions. The OF are paying around £50-£60m a season, Hearts are paying around £6m. You would need to go above their wages to be beating them and it would take a few years to build this team so you are looking at an outlay of £150m-£200m. This is a huge loss and even more if you don't get CL group stages. UEFA would ban Hearts after 3yrs of making such a loss.

This could be worth losing if you were a Hearts supporting billionaire but why would a random American or Saudi want to do this?

Buying Bournemouth or Notts Forest guarantees you games against Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea etc. which you can bring friends and business partners over to watch and these games have a bit of glamour to it, as much as people on here dismiss the EPL it is the place to be in football.

Hearts winning the league would be a good story in Scotland but the romance of it would be lost if it was done in such a manner.

 

[GNU_Linux]

6 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Colon and Arsenal being at the bottom is very fitting.

Ever more fitting both got flushed down the lavvie.

[Kev]

In my own humble opinion there's only 2 real ways Scottish football becomes more competitive:

1. The OF f**k off to another league (which will never happen)

Or 2.  We bin this everyone play each other 4 times a season nonsense and increase the league size which is far more likely and would genuinely make things more interesting. 

You just have to look at the Premiership right now.  Rangers have the upper hand in the league for now but still have to play Celtic twice which could turn things around and leave Rangers 4 points adrift.  Can you imagine how more exciting everything would be knowing that there was only 1 more OF game in the season?  It would also give added importance to just about every fixture in future seasons.  Title battles could end up with a 3rd team involved (Hearts current form could see them up there).  Battles for European spots and relegation have added drama as teams in those positions only have 2 matches to see each other off. 

It would also certainly have a positive effect on attendances.  Someone noted earlier some Championship games are now higher attended than some Premiership games including ones involving the OF ffs, so the reliance on OF away attendance is clearly on the decline.

[RandomGuy.]

16 minutes ago, Kev said:

Title battles could end up with a 3rd team involved.

This gets repeated a lot when discussing expanding the league and ive no idea why. Why would playing 2 games against Ayr and Morton be more beneficial to Hearts than Rangers?

As for the rest. Does Raith v Dundee United sell out if theyre fighting to avoid the relegation play off and theyve won 3 games all season?

[Dons_1988]

15 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

This gets repeated a lot when discussing expanding the league and ive no idea why. Why would playing 2 games against Ayr and Morton be more beneficial to Hearts than Rangers?

As for the rest. Does Raith v Dundee United sell out if theyre fighting to avoid the relegation play off and theyve won 3 games all season?

Yeah it’s a myth that’s snowballed for years. I don’t know why so many think it’s a silver bullet. 

There is no way of addressing competitiveness without addressing the underlying issue. And that is either they leave or all income/resources are shared evenly. Thats the only way it happens. 

[Galajambo]

Rangers taking no chances for Saturday by appointing Nick Walsh as referee 

[VincentGuerin]

2 hours ago, Kev said:

In my own humble opinion there's only 2 real ways Scottish football becomes more competitive:

1. The OF f**k off to another league (which will never happen)

Or 2.  We bin this everyone play each other 4 times a season nonsense and increase the league size which is far more likely and would genuinely make things more interesting. 

You just have to look at the Premiership right now.  Rangers have the upper hand in the league for now but still have to play Celtic twice which could turn things around and leave Rangers 4 points adrift.  Can you imagine how more exciting everything would be knowing that there was only 1 more OF game in the season?  It would also give added importance to just about every fixture in future seasons.  Title battles could end up with a 3rd team involved (Hearts current form could see them up there).  Battles for European spots and relegation have added drama as teams in those positions only have 2 matches to see each other off. 

It would also certainly have a positive effect on attendances.  Someone noted earlier some Championship games are now higher attended than some Premiership games including ones involving the OF ffs, so the reliance on OF away attendance is clearly on the decline.

Hearts' form this season would not see us up there. We're one win and one defeat to Celtic, breaking even against them so far, and we're still ten points behind them because we lost at home to Motherwell, drew at home to Killie, lost at Dens etc. It's a complete fantasy that putting more cannon fodder from the Championship into the division would help us catch the OF. We'd drop points to the new shite teams in the league much more often than the OF would.

Stop and consider what you're actually proposing. You're proposing cutting the number of big games in the league, and you're claiming that would make the division more exciting. Stop and think that through.

It would almost definitely have a negative impact on attendance, as the removal of big games would lead to a lot of fixtures that nobody can be arsed with. No offence, I get why fans of some smaller clubs look on this favourably, but fans of the bigger clubs (as far as I'm aware) do not want to replace fixtures against each other with games against the likes of ICT and Morton. I'd want a considerable discount on my season ticket for that.

And as for these big attendances we see when the smaller clubs meet each other in League One or the Championship, those will become a thing of the past as these games will simply have less riding on them and fewer people will give a f**k. Forget getting them on the telly, too. Attendances in the Championship being good is a sign that the current system is good. We would be mad to change it.

Big league, bad idea. The only winners would be smaller clubs who generally fail to make the Premiership and want a slice of the action.

Edited February 21 by VincentGuerin

[Kev]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

Hearts' form this season would not see us up there. We're one win and one defeat to Celtic, breaking even against them so far, and we're still ten points behind them because we lost at home to Motherwell, drew at home to Killie, lost at Dens etc. It's a complete fantasy that putting more cannon fodder from the Championship into the division would help us catch the OF. We'd drop points to the new shite teams in the league much more often than the OF would.

Stop and consider what you're actually proposing. You're proposing cutting the number of big games in the league, and you're claiming that would make the division more exciting. Stop and think that through.

It would almost definitely have a negative impact on attendance, as the removal of big games would lead to a lot of fixtures that nobody can be arsed with. No offence, I get why fans of some smaller clubs look on this favourably, but fans of the bigger clubs (as far as I'm aware) do not want to replace fixtures against each other with games against the likes of ICT and Morton. I'd want a considerable discount on my season ticket for that.

And as for these big attendances we see when the smaller clubs meet each other in League One or the Championship, those will become a thing of the past as these games will simply have less riding on them and fewer people will give a f**k. Forget getting them on the telly, too.

Big leage, bad idea.

Fair enough point if you're basing it on your form over this whole season but my exact words were "Hearts current form could see them up there". 

My point, which I maybe didn't put forward particularly well, wasn't that for non OF teams would get an more an advantage playing Ayr or Morton twice a season than OF teams.  It was that non OF teams could, potentially only drop say 2, 3 or 4 points (maximum of 6 rather than 12) against the one of OF by only playing them twice, especially if one of them are in bad form and you actually had a go at them.  You're far less likely to drop as many points to Morton and Ayr twice than Rangers and Celtic 4 times.

Let me get this right, you would rather play the OF 8 times a season, likely losing all of them in a normal situation, rather than playing against smaller teams who you would likely beat instead?  Yes I know that also means 4 games against Hibs, which is exciting for you guys, but no one else outside your fan base gives a shit.  With the exception of maybe Aberdeen, I wouldn't class any of your other fixtures as "big".

Sorry to tell you this but unfortunately due to our game being marketed but utterly incompetent arseholes, there's really only 4 big games a season.  

And as for meaningless games, have you looked at the league table recently?  You guys have sewn up 3rd, the top and bottom 6 are pretty much a given barring Aberdeen and Hibs actually start playing football again or Dundee and St Mirren shit the bed, and only a miracle of biblical proportions is saving either Livi or Ross County.  We're already well into meaningless territory.

But sure, you guys keep doing the same thing and expect different results, think Einstein had a quote about that.  Who knows, maybe the old firm will inexplicably get bored with winning, become charitable and decide splitting money evenly with everyone is the best idea and that gap between 2nd and 3rd magically shortens.  Meanwhile I'll keep watching my wee team in an actual league that's entertaining and has some real drama and excitement.

Edited February 21 by Kev

[VincentGuerin]

25 minutes ago, Kev said:

Fair enough point if you're basing it on your form over this whole season but my exact words were "Hearts current form could see them up there". 

My point, which I maybe didn't put forward particularly well, wasn't that for non OF teams would get an more an advantage playing Ayr or Morton twice a season than OF teams.  It was that non OF teams could, potentially only drop say 2, 3 or 4 points (maximum of 6 rather than 12) against the one of OF by only playing them twice, especially if one of them are in bad form and you actually had a go at them.  You're far less likely to drop as many points to Morton and Ayr twice than Rangers and Celtic 4 times.

Let me get this right, you would rather play the OF 8 times a season, likely losing all of them in a normal situation, rather than playing against smaller teams who you would likely beat instead?  Yes I know that also means 4 games against Hibs, which is exciting for you guys, but no one else outside your fan base gives a shit.  With the exception of maybe Aberdeen, I wouldn't class any of your other fixtures as "big".

Sorry to tell you this but unfortunately due to our game being marketed but utterly incompetent arseholes, there's really only 4 big games a season.  

And as for meaningless games, have you looked at the league table recently?  You guys have sewn up 3rd, the top and bottom 6 are pretty much a given barring Aberdeen and Hibs actually start playing football again or Dundee and St Mirren shit the bed, and only a miracle of biblical proportions is saving either Livi or Ross County.  We're already well into meaningless territory.

But sure, you guys keep doing the same thing and expect different results, think Einstein had a quote about that.  Who knows, maybe the old firm will inexplicably get bored with winning, become charitable and decide splitting money evenly with everyone is the best idea and that gap between 2nd and 3rd magically shortens.  Meanwhile I'll keep watching my wee team in an actual league that's entertaining and has some real drama and excitement.

No offence, but a lot of this is demonstrably wrong.

Every team in the league is currently playing for something. No team in the Championship is currently certain which division they'll be in next season. Of the 42 clubs in the SPFL, there are very few whose seasons are over, and it's almost the end of February.

You want to change that so that we can have some more of the smaller teams in the top flight?

The clear question is Why? And you haven't provided a single compelling argument for it. This stuff about another team being able to challenge with a bigger league is mince, and it's been explained why loads of times.

You say nobody cares about Hearts - Hibs games. Ok, while I don't think that's strictly true, do you think more or fewer people would care about the Hearts -Morton game you want to replace it with? Do you think the crowd gets bigger? Do you think it suddenly makes the league more competitive? I think the answers to those questions in order are fewer, no, and no. I'd love to see your working for a disagreement.

Yout final point sums this up. The whole Scottish league system at the moment works quite well. The divisions are competitive and exciting in their own ways. By making the leagues bigger you lose that and still don't solve the problem of the OF having a fucking pile more money than anyone else.

It's a daft idea and it'll never happen.

[RandomGuy.]

54 minutes ago, Kev said:

Meanwhile I'll keep watching my wee team in an actual league that's entertaining and has some real drama and excitement.

I mean, why gloat about this when yiure advocating ending that?

A bigger league and you likely spend every year floating around relegation but avoiding it.

[kennie makevin]

2 hours ago, Kev said:

Fair enough point if you're basing it on your form over this whole season but my exact words were "Hearts current form could see them up there". 

My point, which I maybe didn't put forward particularly well, wasn't that for non OF teams would get an more an advantage playing Ayr or Morton twice a season than OF teams.  It was that non OF teams could, potentially only drop say 2, 3 or 4 points (maximum of 6 rather than 12) against the one of OF by only playing them twice, especially if one of them are in bad form and you actually had a go at them.  You're far less likely to drop as many points to Morton and Ayr twice than Rangers and Celtic 4 times.

Let me get this right, you would rather play the OF 8 times a season, likely losing all of them in a normal situation, rather than playing against smaller teams who you would likely beat instead?  Yes I know that also means 4 games against Hibs, which is exciting for you guys, but no one else outside your fan base gives a shit.  With the exception of maybe Aberdeen, I wouldn't class any of your other fixtures as "big".

Sorry to tell you this but unfortunately due to our game being marketed but utterly incompetent arseholes, there's really only 4 big games a season.  

And as for meaningless games, have you looked at the league table recently?  You guys have sewn up 3rd, the top and bottom 6 are pretty much a given barring Aberdeen and Hibs actually start playing football again or Dundee and St Mirren shit the bed, and only a miracle of biblical proportions is saving either Livi or Ross County.  We're already well into meaningless territory.

But sure, you guys keep doing the same thing and expect different results, think Einstein had a quote about that.  Who knows, maybe the old firm will inexplicably get bored with winning, become charitable and decide splitting money evenly with everyone is the best idea and that gap between 2nd and 3rd magically shortens.  Meanwhile I'll keep watching my wee team in an actual league that's entertaining and has some real drama and excitement.

Exactly this. This idea that the most boring and predictable sporting competition on the planet is somehow chock-full of 'big games' is the real nonsense. Four games a season does not work. If it did everyone would do it. 

[RandomGuy.]

This is Scottish footballs biggest problem, for me.

Even Celtic and Rangers seem to lose u16s to English youth sides fairly regularly.

I wonder if theres any way you could enforce a rule where only over 16s, or 18s, can move to another country? Cant imagine it would be widely accepted though. No doubt agents would play that system too so it would be even worse.

Edited February 21 by RandomGuy.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, kennie makevin said:

Exactly this. This idea that the most boring and predictable sporting competition on the planet is somehow chock-full of 'big games' is the real nonsense. Four games a season does not work. If it did everyone would do it. 

That's true, but what will work now? The changes introduced in 1975 triggered the ones that followed, including the voting structure, and we are where we are. The voting structure prevents restructure and any meaningful change like gate sharing.

Some clubs have become reliant on the number of home games they have, others rely on meeting Rangers and Celtic. No-one has made an argument  that sufficient clubs will support.

[VincentGuerin]

36 minutes ago, kennie makevin said:

Exactly this. This idea that the most boring and predictable sporting competition on the planet is somehow chock-full of 'big games' is the real nonsense. Four games a season does not work. If it did everyone would do it. 

It is though, within the context our league exists in.

In Scottish terms, Hearts v Aberdeen is a big game. I would not like to play Aberdeen twice a season and Hibs twice a season and replace those with fixtures against teams currently in the Championship. Nobody's claiming it's Real Madrid v Barcelona, but it's more interesting than Aberdeen v Morton.

There is no evidence Scottish fitba will be improved by putting more smaller clubs into the top flight.

[RandomGuy.]

Scotlands population is ~5.5m, so looking at comparable nations with more than 12 teams and you get...

Norway - 16 team top tier. Play each other twice. 16 team second tier. 3rd tier split into 2 regional divisions.

Finland and Slovakia have 12 teams, and play each 3 times. Both split after 22 games and have 1 further fixture against each other.

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, kennie makevin said:

Four games a season does not work. If it did everyone would do it. 

Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Croatia, Cyrpus, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Wales all have league systems where teams play some or all of their divisional opponents four times per season. It is not remotely unusual. So, going by your logic, it must be a good idea?

Including us, I make that 21 countries, including 4 of UEFA's top-ranked 13.

Still, we definitely need to change it to get ICT and Morton into the top flight. That'll make things much better.

Edited February 21 by VincentGuerin

[VincentGuerin]

9 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Scotlands population is ~5.5m, so looking at comparable nations with more than 12 teams and you get...

Norway - 16 team top tier. Play each other twice. 16 team second tier. 3rd tier split into 2 regional divisions.

Finland and Slovakia have 12 teams, and play each 3 times. Both split after 22 games and have 1 further fixture against each other.

Finland has one post-split game against each opponent, but as of last season Slovakia has two, meaning they play half their opponents 4 times. 32 games for each team.