Our Competitive League

[Monkey Tennis]

On 22/12/2022 at 14:11, Eder said:

 

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.

 

What contemptible shit.

How on earth does the presence at the bottom end of the structure of sides with limited facilities, impact on whether clubs can challenge the OF in the top flight?

 

Seriously, explain that one.

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[hk blues]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

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.

That would be during the 9 in-a-row times? Aye, great times indeed.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, ConcernedReferee said:

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

It certainly wasn't because of its equality.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, hk blues said:

That would be during the 9 in-a-row times? Aye, great times indeed.

Much, much better times.

It was actually part of the 37 in a row era that's still extending.  The Cups went round better though.  That 'monopoly' was better.  It's undeniable.

[hk blues]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Much, much better times.

It was actually part of the 37 in a row era that's still extending.  The Cups went round better though.  That 'monopoly' was better.  It's undeniable.

Less shite maybe.  As I said, scraps in the cups every 10 years or so isn't really something we should be aiming for.  Personally, much as we may or may not dislike the OF at least the competition between them is surely better than one team starting the season 100% sure they will win the league and ALL the others 100% sure they won't.

For me anyway.

 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

3 hours ago, hk blues said:

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.  

I agree 100% - all I’m saying is it’s generous to Rangers saying it’s a duopoly at present given the stats I mentioned.

It’s very close to being a monopoly. Celtic have won 64% of the trophies over the last 11 seasons - at what point do we call it a monopoly ?

[DA Baracus]

The 'duopoly' is simply the same monopoly, as Celtic/Sevco are interchangeable. The competition between them means nothing to most fans who don't support them, so either of them winning it is just the same thing.

 

 

[hk blues]

4 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

I agree 100% - all I’m saying is it’s generous to Rangers saying it’s a duopoly at present given the stats I mentioned.

It’s very close to being a monopoly. Celtic have won 64% of the trophies over the last 11 seasons - at what point do we call it a monopoly ?

Understood, I was taking a longer-term view.  I genuinely don't see it as a monopoly though, at least Rangers start the season with some hope of winning the league.  Also, for a significant part of those 11 years Rangers weren't in the same division.  And, if we step back from the trophies won aspect, I'd say both are equally "powerful" in the game.

Anyhow, let's not get hung up on the issue of whether a duopoly is better than a monopoly for our game or not - either is clearly not healthy.  

 

[Dons_1988]

32 minutes ago, hk blues said:

Understood, I was taking a longer-term view.  I genuinely don't see it as a monopoly though, at least Rangers start the season with some hope of winning the league.  Also, for a significant part of those 11 years Rangers weren't in the same division.  And, if we step back from the trophies won aspect, I'd say both are equally "powerful" in the game.

Anyhow, let's not get hung up on the issue of whether a duopoly is better than a monopoly for our game or not - either is clearly not healthy.  

 

Duopoly vs monopoly is quite key though. 

The duopoly condemns us to this shit forever. They push each other in this ridiculous arms race to forever outdo each other. They couldn’t care less if they beat the other diddies 10-0 every week because it’s just part of them competing together. 

Yes, Celtic won all the league titles in the 2012-2016 period but they regressed at a rate of knots and would likely have continued to if it was a permanent feature. It is no coincidence that their ‘invincible’ season was the season they had their best mates back. 

[hk blues]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Duopoly vs monopoly is quite key though. 

The duopoly condemns us to this shit forever. They push each other in this ridiculous arms race to forever outdo each other. They couldn’t care less if they beat the other diddies 10-0 every week because it’s just part of them competing together. 

Yes, Celtic won all the league titles in the 2012-2016 period but they regressed at a rate of knots and would likely have continued to if it was a permanent feature. It is no coincidence that their ‘invincible’ season was the season they had their best mates back. 

I don't see it as key in terms of making the league more competitive.  As noted above, whether it's Celtic and Rangers fighting it out or either of them walking away with it alone it doesn't actually matter to the rest of us.  

If I understand you correctly, you feel it's better than one or other of them are out on their own. But, how will that help the rest of the teams ?  Again, I repeat that if we're all interested in the few scraps a monopoly throws us then fair enough but is that really what we would want if we're dreaming big (let's be honest, we're just pissing in the wind here as it isn't changing anytime soon so we may as well dream big)   For sure, it's better than we've had but it's just degrees of s***e IMO.

[Jacksgranda]

20 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.

 

You didn't have to answer...

[Dons_1988]

18 minutes ago, hk blues said:

I don't see it as key in terms of making the league more competitive.  As noted above, whether it's Celtic and Rangers fighting it out or either of them walking away with it alone it doesn't actually matter to the rest of us.  

If I understand you correctly, you feel it's better than one or other of them are out on their own. But, how will that help the rest of the teams ?  Again, I repeat that if we're all interested in the few scraps a monopoly throws us then fair enough but is that really what we would want if we're dreaming big (let's be honest, we're just pissing in the wind here as it isn't changing anytime soon so we may as well dream big)   For sure, it's better than we've had but it's just degrees of s***e IMO.

I’m not sure you read my post. 

[VincentGuerin]

8 hours ago, Dunfermline Don said:

 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. 

This is where I am. I've still got my Hearts ST and i still go regularly, but I think this is the last season for that, to be honest. I'm not even forty, so it's not like I don't have the health to go etc, it's just that I'm finding it hard to justify.

It's fucking expensive to watch the Scottish Premiership, and there's a lot more to fitba. I'll always be a Hearts supporter, but I have pretty much made up my mind that from next season I'll be going to non-league and lower league fitba more often than Hearts. Planning to pick and choose Hearts games to see my mates.

VAR was the final straw, to be honest. But it's all just daft. Of the hundreds of fitba clubs in this country, we have two that can win and that will never change.

No meaningful change will ever be allowed, and we'll just keep having the same conversations over and over again. Honestly, I'm just bored with the whole set-up.

[VincentGuerin]

No way to say this without sounding like my grandad, but money has simply killed what made fitba good. A lot of people don't seem to have had that penny drop yet.

We'll never have a competitive league again because fitba has become all about money at the top level and that filters down.

The European Cup used to be great, now it exists purely for teams from five leagues because of money. The UEFA Cup was great. Now it's derided and a sad imitation of what it once was. Because of money. Domestic leagues have been strangled by the drip down of money. So, our clubs need more money. So, I pay thirty quid to go to Pittodrie for a shite view of a poor game in a crumbling wreck to watch a competition we all know neither of these teams will ever win again.

Fitba is a great social thing. I love going to the game with my mates. But as an actual competitive thing for people who support clubs like most of us on this thread, it's finished. You just need to accept that. Go if you like going, stop going if you don't. But there is no solution to Scottish fitba's competitiveness problem. This is fitba now.

[Richey Edwards]

2 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

No way to say this without sounding like my grandad, but money has simply killed what made fitba good. A lot of people don't seem to have had that penny drop yet.

We'll never have a competitive league again because fitba has become all about money at the top level and that filters down.

The European Cup used to be great, now it exists purely for teams from five leagues because of money. The UEFA Cup was great. Now it's derided and a sad imitation of what it once was. Because of money. Domestic leagues have been strangled by the drip down of money. So, our clubs need more money. So, I pay thirty quid to go to Pittodrie for a shite view of a poor game in a crumbling wreck to watch a competition we all know neither of these teams will ever win again.

Fitba is a great social thing. I love going to the game with my mates. But as an actual competitive thing for people who support clubs like most of us on this thread, it's finished. You just need to accept that. Go if you like going, stop going if you don't. But there is no solution to Scottish fitba's competitiveness problem. This is fitba now.

Football is now as fake as wrestling is, which is sad.

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

No way to say this without sounding like my grandad, but money has simply killed what made fitba good. A lot of people don't seem to have had that penny drop yet.

We'll never have a competitive league again because fitba has become all about money at the top level and that filters down.

The European Cup used to be great, now it exists purely for teams from five leagues because of money. The UEFA Cup was great. Now it's derided and a sad imitation of what it once was. Because of money. Domestic leagues have been strangled by the drip down of money. So, our clubs need more money. So, I pay thirty quid to go to Pittodrie for a shite view of a poor game in a crumbling wreck to watch a competition we all know neither of these teams will ever win again.

Fitba is a great social thing. I love going to the game with my mates. But as an actual competitive thing for people who support clubs like most of us on this thread, it's finished. You just need to accept that. Go if you like going, stop going if you don't. But there is no solution to Scottish fitba's competitiveness problem. This is fitba now.

Pretty much. The business of football has killed football the sport at the professional level. 

people deride international football but I still enjoy it as it’s not quite as ruined by money as club football (money still significant as a country’s resources can dictate their ability to develop players, but France can’t go and spend £150m on haaland because they got beat by Argentina). 

But ultimately your post is correct - the business model is to maximise revenue, not competition. That means elevating the elite clubs as high as possible to maximise the mass market potential. Then there’s various tiers of clubs below that and that’s where our league comes in - we push our best clubs to compete in Europe to grab the scraps from the elite table. 

Every single club in Scotland is comfortable with this business model and are just trying to find ways to get people to still attend games in spite of it. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

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.

I'd  go further. Life would better without Rangers,  never mind football.

[Charles Stiles]

6 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. 

Ok, I could have phrased it a bit better but others knew what I meant/have the same opinion and have basically explained it since that post. 

[ConcernedReferee]

It's just the nature of our population that has created a imbalanced league with only 2 realistic winners, I can understand peoples dislike with it given how long its been the norm but would it really be a better product if every one of the twelve teams was a realistic champion? It might but that might be uniquely boring, as a Celtic fan I don't think theirs any worse feeling than any of the less fancied teams taking 3 points from you and I would presume that works in the other direction too. That wouldn't exist if we somehow had a league where East Fife were as realistic to win as Celtic. 

[Ranaldo Bairn]

2 minutes ago, ConcernedReferee said:

It's just the nature of our population that has created a imbalanced league with only 2 realistic winners, I can understand peoples dislike with it given how long its been the norm but would it really be a better product if every one of the twelve teams was a realistic champion? It might but that might be uniquely boring, as a Celtic fan I don't think theirs any worse feeling than any of the less fancied teams taking 3 points from you and I would presume that works in the other direction too. That wouldn't exist if we somehow had a league where East Fife were as realistic to win as Celtic. 

Literally doesn't understand sport type post.