Our Competitive League

[Monkey Tennis]

54 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Without sounding too tinfoil hat you can see that people are now just conditioned to the sky sports version of football. Devaluing the product, whatever that means is deemed more important than an actual competition breaking out. 

Oh and @AJF we’ve all heard the ‘a competitive league would be great but…’ speech from OF fans before. 

I think that's true.  

There's been close to thirty years of this type of propaganda now and it's clearly had an effect.  You often see on here that when any of us pipe up about the extent of the inequality being a bad thing, we're genuinely treated by some as having utterly wacky, out there opinions.  

As for the AJF line, the unwritten end to that sentence is invariably '...I don't really want one'.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

I decided to read your post again based on your reply.

And the conclusion I came to was it’s still moonhowling pish. 

That honestly won't trouble me.

We have very different views on how football should be organised.

[AJF]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

Without sounding too tinfoil hat you can see that people are now just conditioned to the sky sports version of football. Devaluing the product, whatever that means is deemed more important than an actual competition breaking out. 

Oh and @AJF we’ve all heard the ‘a competitive league would be great but…’ speech from OF fans before. 

It wasn’t me that introduced the devaluing the product phrase or suggestion. I simply replied to that specific point to suggest that I don’t imagine many clubs voting for a scenario that hit them in the pocket, as suggested by Monkey Tennis.

That is not to say I don’t believe that there are valid suggestions out there that could somewhat mitigate the current imbalance, just not that particular one.

Edited December 24, 2022 by AJF

[hk blues]

11 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Fair enough.

For me, it's identical in terms of where the title goes.  They're essentially the same thing.

I agree, at least in terms of the outcome, but pushing aside our feelings towards the OF (we can't) I just can't see how 1 team being a shoe-in for the title in August is preferable to some kind of competitiveness even if it's just for a few months (like this season).

I'm not trying to big up either of the OF, really I'm not, but there are all sorts of reasons why a competitive league is advantageous to all - even if it's just 2 teams and over by Christmas.  Goes without saying it would be fantastic if those 2 weren't either/both members of the OF. As a Dundee fan the emergence of the New Firm wasn't my happiest time in football but I can see why others would've loved it. With the money in the game through the European games now a thing it's hard to see how the OF can fall to the levels they did which allowed the New Firm to prosper (IMO). 

[hk blues]

10 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Spot on.

hk blues just doesn't seem to get the 'arms race' angle.   It's the fact that there's two of them that sustains the model by creating an illusion of competition.  The point seems to escape him.  

if we didn't have two such big clubs, we wouldn't have one.  Recent history tells us that.

I do get the 'arms race' angle but I don't think it trumps the Monopoly v duopoly argument - it doesn't have to be black and white.

I will take exception to your "illusion of competition" though - there is no illusion, it exists. Unless you're lumping the 2 of them together as 1, which doesn't make sense outside of a very, very simplistic concept that it's US against THEM. 

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

I agree, at least in terms of the outcome, but pushing aside our feelings towards the OF (we can't) I just can't see how 1 team being a shoe-in for the title in August is preferable to some kind of competitiveness even if it's just for a few months (like this season).

I'm not trying to big up either of the OF, really I'm not, but there are all sorts of reasons why a competitive league is advantageous to all - even if it's just 2 teams and over by Christmas.  

Can you list some of these reasons please?

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, AJF said:

It wasn’t me that introduced the devaluing the product phrase or suggestion. I simply replied to that specific point to suggest that I don’t imagine many clubs voting for a scenario that hit them in the pocket, as suggested by Monkey Tennis.

That is not to say I don’t believe that there are valid suggestions out there that could somewhat mitigate the current imbalance, just not that particular one.

I conceded throughout that no such thing would happen, so your scoffing 'point' was pretty redundant.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

I do get the 'arms race' angle but I don't think it trumps the Monopoly v duopoly argument - it doesn't have to be black and white.

I will take exception to your "illusion of competition" though - there is no illusion, it exists. Unless you're lumping the 2 of them together as 1, which doesn't make sense outside of a very, very simplistic concept that it's US against THEM. 

That's not simplistic at all.  It's how it should be seen.

The idea of a league competition between lots of sides is illusory.  The idea that it's genuinely competitive to line teams up against each other in the same division of the league with such vastly different resources, is indeed illusory.

Honestly, it would be less unfair to balance the wealth, yet make some clubs play with ten men.

You clearly get something you've not identified, from battles between the OF.  I don't and I think buying into it fuels the problem.

[Dons_1988]

6 hours ago, AJF said:

It wasn’t me that introduced the devaluing the product phrase or suggestion. I simply replied to that specific point to suggest that I don’t imagine many clubs voting for a scenario that hit them in the pocket, as suggested by Monkey Tennis.

That is not to say I don’t believe that there are valid suggestions out there that could somewhat mitigate the current imbalance, just not that particular one.

What do you think are valid suggestions? 

[Guest]

The two cheeks swear they're complete opposites and different but they're quick enough to team up when it's pointed out our league is shite and uncompetitive due to two teams.

[Grangemouth Bairn]

5 hours ago, hk blues said:

I do get the 'arms race' angle but I don't think it trumps the Monopoly v duopoly argument - it doesn't have to be black and white.

I will take exception to your "illusion of competition" though - there is no illusion, it exists. Unless you're lumping the 2 of them together as 1, which doesn't make sense outside of a very, very simplistic concept that it's US against THEM. 

It’s not an argument - it’s a fact. For over 100 years we’ve had a duopoly, for the last 10 years or so, we’ve had a monopoly and that’s how it’ll likely continue for a while.

When one team has such a big financial advantage it’s difficult to end a monopoly. Look at Scotland, France and Germany for examples of this. In the last 11 seasons, 3 teams have won 28 from 33 league titles. You don’t break dominance like that overnight.

[Trackdaybob]

The most obvious indication that there's no competition is the green half 'winning' all the time. And yet they seem to think its some sort of achievement. Whether the blue half win it is irrelevant. The same applies. 

What the answer is? No idea. Kinda past caring too sadly

I do know that playing more than two league fixtures certainly contributes to a bigger gap opening up. A 10 team league (playing each other four times) would only exaggerate that further. 

It'll carry on as it is so let's just enjoy the odd cup run and watching them getting papped in Europe then crying about no domestic competition and financial disadvantage. Both of which they're responsible for. 

I do find it odd these days that the modern folk haven't got them cancelled yet. They need to try harder there I feel. 

[VincentGuerin]

15 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Evidence shows that wouldn't happen sadly.

Firstly there were long periods of OF dominance under old system e.g. every title bar 1 from 1904-51, and again from 1962-75.

Secondly the reality is your principal non-OF clubs already drop more points v each other and smaller teams than OF do, so playing them more and OF less wouldn't eliminate gap... if anything you could argue that playing OF more often gives more opportunity to makeup difference.

Thirdly and most vitally: financial impact on likes of Hearts/Hibs/Aberdeen would be considerable and more acute than on OF.

I come back to this point a lot, but as it stands a Hearts season ticket holder can expect around 8 of the home games in a season to be against the OF, Hibs, Aberdeen. All big games.

With no disrespect intended, how much would Hearts have to drop prices by if four of those are replaced by games against Ayr, Thistle, Dundee, and Inverness?

It's one of these ideas that sounds sensible, but as you point out, it wouldn't make much difference competitively and it would cost the medium-sized clubs money.

Edited December 24, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Dons_1988]

I have found myself wondering if the European super league idea might have been the triggering event for a more competitive league had it gone ahead. 

Don’t get me wrong, it was a horrendous idea displaying all of what is wrong with football now but if the top 7 or 8 teams had actually pulled up the drawbridge and excluded themselves from uefa competition then that whole champions league, europa league model collapses. 

In that event, domestic leagues would stop designing their leagues based on competing in Europe and maybe, just maybe things might change. 

I doubt it but it needs something seismic for anything to really change. 

[VincentGuerin]

Things like the size of the league etc are just window dressing. The bottom line is that wage bills win you leagues, and when the disparity between clubs is as large as it is in Scotland, it makes no difference whether the league has 12 teams, 4 teams, 100 teams, the OF will win. The league model was created for a different time, a different world. As it exists now, it's fucking pointless.

There are things that could make our league competitive. For example:

End of season play-offs to decide the champions like the US model. - Culturally, fitba people just aren't prepared to have this in Europe.

Points handicaps based on your wage-bill. - The OF simply won't have that. Again, also cultural problems probably.

A hard wage-cap. - Again, the bigger clubs will veto this.

Sharing European revenue equally. - The OF would still have a big advantage, but other clubs would be more stable, and better able to build. However, the OF (and probably Hearts) would never agree to it.

Pooling all revenue. - Why the f**k not? We all play in the same competition. Why not just cut the revenue 42 ways within the SPFL? Gate money, sponsorship, European revenue. But, of course, it won't happen.

There are things that could help. But none of them will ever be done, so discussing the details to intricate levels is pointless. Nothing is going to change. I'm not even 40 and I'll probably end my days never having seen another champion.

[VincentGuerin]

7 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I have found myself wondering if the European super league idea might have been the triggering event for a more competitive league had it gone ahead. 

Don’t get me wrong, it was a horrendous idea displaying all of what is wrong with football now but if the top 7 or 8 teams had actually pulled up the drawbridge and excluded themselves from uefa competition then that whole champions league, europa league model collapses. 

In that event, domestic leagues would stop designing their leagues based on competing in Europe and maybe, just maybe things might change. 

I doubt it but it needs something seismic for anything to really change. 

I wondered about this at the time. it had potential to be very good.

I think there'd probably be a second-level version of this, linked officially or not. The likes of the OF, Anderlecht, Benfica etc would want a piece of that action and would be telling the smaller clubs in their countries to get to f**k. Where that ultimately leads is hard to say, but I wouldn't be against the seismic shock leading to an opportunity. What we have now is fucking pish anyway, nothing to lose.

[AJF]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

What do you think are valid suggestions? 

I think we are at a stage where Celtic and Rangers will always be bigger, more successful clubs no matter what we do. But I think there are some suggestions that could go towards making things more competitive, in all competitions, and reduce the gap somewhat. This could include wage caps, Play-off style leagues to determine the champion, a more strict requirement to have x amount of homegrown players in your match day squad, some form of prize/sponsorship sharing, remove the league format of the league cup and have no seeding in place to determine which round clubs enter (can also be used for the Scottish cup).

Most of those suggestions would require a change to the voting structure or one of Celtic or Rangers to move away from their historic “big two” stance and vote with the other clubs. Rangers being the most likely I’d imagine given Celtic’s relative dominance.

As I said, I don’t think we will ever get to a level playing field, but I believe some of those things would result in there being more occasions of teams being able to challenge.

[Jacksgranda]

9 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I think that's true.  

There's been close to thirty years of this type of propaganda now and it's clearly had an effect.  You often see on here that when any of us pipe up about the extent of the inequality being a bad thing, we're genuinely treated by some as having utterly wacky, out there opinions.  

As for the AJF line, the unwritten end to that sentence is invariably '...I don't really want one'.

What they want is for everyone else to beat the other one...

[Jinky67]

35 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Pooling all revenue. - Why the f**k not? We all play in the same competition. Why not just cut the revenue 42 ways within the SPFL? Gate money, sponsorship, European revenue. But, of course, it won't happen.

Now I don’t know exactly how much revenue comes through Scottish football but let’s for talking sake says it’s around 500 million which is a significant over-estimation

That makes turnover split equally to around 11-12 million each so effectively you bankrupt Celtic and Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen lose a little and everyone else benefits for a couple of seasons

In a season or 2 you lose 150 million from the pot due to you killing your 2 biggest clubs and then that snowballs killing off other clubs season after season as revenue dwindles.

You didn’t think that one through  

Edited December 24, 2022 by Jinky67

[Dons_1988]

9 minutes ago, Jinky67 said:

Now I don’t know exactly how much revenue comes through Scottish football but let’s for talking sake says it’s around 500 million which is a significant over-estimation

That makes turnover split equally to around 11-12 million each so effectively you bankrupt Celtic and Rangers, Hearts and Aberdeen lose a little and everyone else benefits for a couple of seasons

In a season or 2 you lose 150 million from the pot due to you killing your 2 biggest clubs and then that snowballs killing off other clubs season after season as revenue dwindles.

You didn’t think that one through  

Shocked at this intervention from you. 

You can phase these things - for example you say we’re pooling all revenue in 5 years, giving clubs a transitional period to budget and cut their cloth accordingly. 

No one is under any illusion these things will happen but if there was enough will for it then they would. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Dons_1988