Our Competitive League

[tree house tam]

3 hours ago, KirkieRR said:

No it wouldn't. Have you ever been in Perth Station on the morning of days when your club are at home? Try it and count the Evil Twins fans heading for their games, and multiply it appropriately to factor in those going by car or bus. They're everywhere.

Aye but if Glasgow and their clubs are no more then the dilemma for these one brain celled mutants would send them insane. Linfield is just that wee bit far to travel so it's a toss up between their hometown teams and Hearts/Dundee for them and Hibs/United for those.

[Kapowzer]

3 minutes ago, tree house tam said:

Aye but if Glasgow and their clubs are no more then the dilemma for these one brain celled mutants would send them insane. Linfield is just that wee bit far to travel so it's a toss up between their hometown teams and Hearts/Dundee for them and Hibs/United for those.

Maybe the other 40 could chip in for Partick Thistle to build a underground bunker …. A true solidarity payment.

I don’t think we’ve prepared for the prospect of a 100ft tall radioactive Joe Hart cutting about with a Ready Brek glow.

[Eder]

As long as Celtic and Rangers are in the Scottish League we are going to have the huge gap.

I would have two top leagues of ten.  Called them whatever you want and market them as a package.

The 10 team league structure in Scotland works throughout the divisions. I know it is despised by many but look at the Championship as a good example rather the the Premiership.

Two top leagues of ten would increase crowds as the appeal would be greater and also get rid of the split which every season challenges sporting integrity because of the uneven fixture schedule 33 + 5.

The TV and prize money would need to be spread more evenly among the 20 clubs.

I think Hearts could challenge but have shot themselves in the foot by creating a stadium with a capacity of only 20,000.

Unfortunately we don't have many clubs with good potential so we need play to our strengths.

Also further down the pyramid it doesn't help when clubs come in to league two with little facilities like Bonnyrigg Rose.  There should be a set  and achievable criteria as much for supporters as the clubs.

You did ask.

 

[ahemps]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

If you mean emptying the OF then, as mentioned above, we will just end up with another duopoly, or worse, monopoly, due to the money involved in European qualification.  There just isn't enough money in the game in Scotland to ensure 6 or 7 teams could have a fair shot at the title consistently.  

We're stuck with a league which is uncompetitive in terms of the title.

I don't think this is a guarantee although most leagues around Europe are now dominated by the 1-3 regulars who make European football but there are outliers. The Swedish league has seen 10 different winners since 2000, 2 teams winning their 1st ever league title.

You could redistribute prize money, stop giving more money to the teams finishing at the top end. 

Clubs qualifying for Europe could give more solidarity payments than UEFA dictate (another thing UEFA have done is cut the percentage of the prize money being redistributed to the rest of the league).

[The Saintee]

It makes it all the sweeter when a wee club wins a cup or two.

[tree house tam]

20 minutes ago, The Saintee said:

It makes it all the sweeter when a wee club wins a cup or two.

We just need those yo yo clubs like Hearts and United and perennial underachievers like Aberdeen to put up more of a fight. 

[Menga Bus]

The championship while it can be exciting and close, also has the ability to incredibly repetitive and tedious. I think the season we got promoted we played Falkirk 7 times because of cup games and replays. A 10 team league is not the right structure for the top flight.

[Kyle Reese]

4 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

When is the report commissioned by the "Big 6" due?

Good question.

[HibeeJibee]

3 hours ago, Eder said:

I would have two top leagues of ten.  Called them whatever you want and market them as a package.

The 10 team league structure in Scotland works throughout the divisions. I know it is despised by many but look at the Championship as a good example rather the the Premiership.

Two top leagues of ten would increase crowds as the appeal would be greater and also get rid of the split which every season challenges sporting integrity because of the uneven fixture schedule 33 + 5

....

I think Hearts could challenge but have shot themselves in the foot by creating a stadium with a capacity of only 20,000.

...

Also further down the pyramid it doesn't help when clubs come in to league two with little facilities like Bonnyrigg Rose.  There should be a set  and achievable criteria as much for supporters as the clubs.

Like hunting the skirting board for ants, while the room is full of elephants.

Cutting a couple of clubs and a couple of games out of Premiership is not going to make any difference... bigger stadiums isn't going to make any difference... shafting little clubs out of the lower levels sure as hell isn't.

Give yourself a shake.

[Kapowzer]

Maybe a handicap of a points deduction would make things more interesting but would upset the fair play purists and doesn't do much to improve the standard throughout the league.

First and easiest thing the authorities could do is police the youth teams tapping, issue big fines or penalties, kids travelling from Livingston to Murray Park a few times a week over staying local is better all round for the kid, parents and outlier clubs.

Considering the facilities available now, are we really seeing an improvement in the quality or number or graduates than 30 years ago? Granted 30 years ago few clubs had those curved ping pong tables to play head tennis with and they make a massive difference.

[Junior_Arab]

Honestly, I took a while to get into the World Cup for a variety of reasons, but having watched that final and the quality of play generally the thought of watching Scottish football again just leaves me utterly cold. I haven’t been tempted for a moment to watch even the briefest highlights of any of the games since the restart. Just the thought of having absolutely mediocre Old Firm teams rammed down my throat by the media as though they’re anywhere near “decent” never mind “elite”… no thanks. 

[Eder]

4 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Like hunting the skirting board for ants, while the room is full of elephants.

Cutting a couple of clubs and a couple of games out of Premiership is not going to make any difference... bigger stadiums isn't going to make any difference... shafting little clubs out of the lower levels sure as hell isn't.

Give yourself a shake.

Is that you in the wee photo - a good day for you!

Only mentioned a bigger stadium in relation to Hearts. And bigger stadiums do make a difference if Fergus McCann had built a 40,000 seat stadium rather 60,000 we would still be  trailing the big bad rangers.

The only lower league clubs being shifted are ones replaced in Div 2 like poor Berwick by clubs with little or no stadium facilities and putting all their resources into their first team giving them an unfair advantage.  There should be a balance.

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2022 by Eder

[ConcernedReferee]

3 hours ago, Junior_Arab said:

Honestly, I took a while to get into the World Cup for a variety of reasons, but having watched that final and the quality of play generally the thought of watching Scottish football again just leaves me utterly cold. I haven’t been tempted for a moment to watch even the briefest highlights of any of the games since the restart. Just the thought of having absolutely mediocre Old Firm teams rammed down my throat by the media as though they’re anywhere near “decent” never mind “elite”… no thanks. 

I have never been drawn to Scottish football for its's quality

[Kapowzer]

42 minutes ago, ConcernedReferee said:

I have never been drawn to Scottish football for its's quality

Bigotry and winning 9 out of every 10 do it for you?

[Dunfermline Don]

In the first 20 years after WW2 up to 1965 seven different teams won the league. In the next 20 years that was down to four and since 1985 only two teams have won it.  Only twice, 86 and 91 has there been a challenge coming from outside Glasgow lasting till the end of the season. 
 

It is the same down south except the money in the league means they have more than two teams that can challenge though you wouldn’t see teams like Derby, Forest or Ipswich challenging like they did back in the 70s unless they were given backing by some Middle Eastern country. 
 

I don’t know what the solution is, but I find it very difficult to get any enthusiasm for top flight football in this country. The media doesn’t help with their infatuation with two sides.

 I much prefer going to watch my local side that my boys support or going to watch the national team at Hampden nowadays than paying £28 for a premiership match. 

[hk blues]

17 hours ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

I think you are being very generous to Rangers in calling our present a duopoly tbh. Of the last 33 domestic trophies on offer, Celtic have won 21 and have the biggest transfer budget by a country mile. What we have just now is a monopoly as Celtic are totally and utterly dominant.

I’m not sure what the answer is tbh. Celtic are currently dominant with a coach in Postecoglu that lost 22 games across his last 2 seasons in the J League and the league has also been won by Gerrard and Lennon in the 3 seasons previous to this so it’s not as if Celtic, or indeed Rangers are hiring elite coaches. They just have more money.

I’d be very surprised if over the next 5 seasons Celtic don’t win it and Rangers don’t finish 2nd every year.

It's not a short-term problem we're looking at - it's been a problem for as long as I can remember it's been a duopoly for as long as I can remember as well.  

[hk blues]

17 hours ago, Charles Stiles said:

It makes absolutely no difference if it's duopoly or a monopoly but the latter would be better instead of worse. At least with only one club dominant it allows others to make finals, win more prize money and it's fewer games you're subjected to the sectarian onslaught the suits ignore. 

I'm struggling with the logic in your post - you start by saying it makes no difference then follow up by saying one is better.

I cannot for the life of me imagine how a monopoly would be better than a duopoly - they are equally bad unless you think a few scraps thrown to the rest of us is a good thing. 

[Kapowzer]

Money is obviously the root of the gap. Fill your squad with 11 £2k a week players and you'll be just about keeping your head above water in this league. A £8k a week that Aberdeen or Edinburgh clubs can afford doesn't get you 4x the player, just a quarter of a seconds thinking time and an OK first touch. A £30k a week player the OF can afford gets you a half second, an increase in footballing instinct and a can kill a bullet drilled at them. Of course exceptions to every rule.

The good point made that if the OF were papped the first team to win the league in their absence if they got direct entry to or managed to playoff themselves in the Champions League would be set to dominate due to that 1 season +£20m windfall.

The only solution I could see would be UEFA saying from now on all monies collected from TV and sponsorship are distributed to the national associations. The teams keep gate receipts, hospitality and ancillary sales which would be substantial (at least £6.5m in Govan and £8m at Parkhead - based on 50k/62k paying £120 for three matches). So it wouldn't address things here immediately but it would be a step in the right direction.

It would then be up to the SFA to distribute accordingly whether a evenly to all 42 clubs, pro rata payment made to each based on season ticket holders or average attendance, or something else.

The alternative would be to purely put it into grassroots (grass pitches, 5 a side encolures, coaches, improving and expanding existing or newly created academies that are geographically located so they have roughly the same population catchment per centre).

1./ UEFA shat the bed with the proposed superleague and is conscious of the threat they agreed to change the UCL to a format from next year to keep the big 12 happy. Money was the root of them wishing to break away and therefore to suggest reducing income would make them vomit.

2./ Many will argue its verging on communist. UEFA also seems just as corrupt as FIFA so it will never happen.

3./ Here at home you're relying on the SFA/SPFL to act transparently and without bias.

4./ A influx of cash at all levels could lead to a general increase in inflation throughout the game, hence why coaching for kids for the longterm betterment would be preferred.

5./ The benefit is the billion pound pot UEFA divvies out every season no longer only lines the super rich clubs pockets, it is exposed to a population of over 700m from the Azores to Armenia, Iceland to Israel.

6./ The whole continent see the fruition in 10-15 years time and in theory it would be spread evenly throughout the continent.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

I'm struggling with the logic in your post - you start by saying it makes no difference then follow up by saying one is better.

I cannot for the life of me imagine how a monopoly would be better than a duopoly - they are equally bad unless you think a few scraps thrown to the rest of us is a good thing. 

The logic for a monopoly being better could not be clearer.

Without Rangers in the picture, Cups were shared around.  Celtic also got shit and came back closer to the pack.

The fact we have two such clubs, rather than just one, is hugely significant.

[Dons_1988]

17 hours ago, Eder said:

As long as Celtic and Rangers are in the Scottish League we are going to have the huge gap.

I would have two top leagues of ten.  Called them whatever you want and market them as a package.

The 10 team league structure in Scotland works throughout the divisions. I know it is despised by many but look at the Championship as a good example rather the the Premiership.

Two top leagues of ten would increase crowds as the appeal would be greater and also get rid of the split which every season challenges sporting integrity because of the uneven fixture schedule 33 + 5.

The TV and prize money would need to be spread more evenly among the 20 clubs.

I think Hearts could challenge but have shot themselves in the foot by creating a stadium with a capacity of only 20,000.

Unfortunately we don't have many clubs with good potential so we need play to our strengths.

Also further down the pyramid it doesn't help when clubs come in to league two with little facilities like Bonnyrigg Rose.  There should be a set  and achievable criteria as much for supporters as the clubs.

You did ask.

 

Well done on missing the fundamental point. Manufacturing an alternative winner based on number of fans doesnt make a competitive league. 

It’s exactly that situation of no. Of fans = expected league position that needs to be removed.