|
|
Topic Originator: WoodmillKirky
Date: Mon 13 Oct 18:12
Once again being discussed. “ league of 10” being mooted for top tier in Scottish league. 🙄
It’s been a rollercoaster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wetherby
Date: Mon 13 Oct 18:46
Completely the wrong direction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Mon 13 Oct 19:04
Will never get go ahead they way voting is done. You’ll need 11 votes in top flight, so essentially either 3 would be relegated and one promoted, or 2 relegated and no championship promotion. No team normally in bottom 6 of top flight
Going to risk that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 13 Oct 19:38
Quote:
dafc, Mon 13 Oct 19:04
Will never get go ahead they way voting is done. You’ll need 11 votes in top flight, so essentially either 3 would be relegated and one promoted, or 2 relegated and no championship promotion. No team normally in bottom 6 of top flight
Going to risk that.
Rangers might not even vote for it then 😉
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 13 Oct 20:45
It`s genuinely distressing how shortsighted those involved in leading football in this country are. Are people genuinely that interested in watching Celtic play Rangers 4 or 5 (sometimes 6) times a season?
Get it so people play each other twice (home and away) in an 18 or 20 team league. Job done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pars4life1
Date: Mon 13 Oct 20:49
" play each other twice (home and away) in an 18 or 20 team league. Job done."
Yeah job done in making the league boring as **** for most clubs, including us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GJS93
Date: Mon 13 Oct 21:03
no talk of this in the media or forums, sure this isnt old news from April when it came out then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Mon 13 Oct 21:21
Nobody wants a top flight of 10 teams. Anyone that does wants to Scottish football go backwards.
The OF will dictate the future of our game, which is a joke. No b*lls in our game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Mon 13 Oct 21:40
18 or 20, more teams, more players, better share of wealth, more scots, better national team
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 13 Oct 22:07
One thing forgotten is that it isn’t the Neil Doncaster’s who decide but club owners.
4 games a season means more revenue for the smaller teams from the big city teams but I’d dispute that isn’t such a big deal these days.
When Rangers went burst it was interesting to note that clubs were wavering to plant the new team in the premier league instead of the bottom tier.
Wasn’t until the fan bases started rebelling that they realised the game was up.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Mon 13 Oct 22:24
I think 18 or 20 is too big. We don’t have enough full time clubs to facilitate 20 clubs in the top division and it would throw out the setup of the leagues below to much IMO.
The overall prize money doesn’t get any bigger so there’s still going to be a drop off somewhere. If you increase the money for the clubs that would be joining the top flight from the championship, you’d have to decrease the money to the clubs in the leagues below. It would further increase the disparity between the clubs in the top league and the ones below. Relegation would financially catastrophic.
I think a 16 team league would suit better. Would still mean we’d need some sort of playoffs or something to make enough league games per season but it would keep league games to within 2 against most clubs and 3 games against clubs similarly placed in the league.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Back_oh_the_net
Date: Mon 13 Oct 22:39
Quote:
thebear, Mon 13 Oct 21:40
18 or 20, more teams, more players, better share of wealth, more scots, better national team
Only way to get a better national team is to produce better players I’ll probably get dugs abuse for what I’m about to say but fk it
Football at grassroots level in this country needs a complete overhaul to much focus is put on how many goals per game kids can bang in and not enough goes on their actual ability as a whole what happens to the kids that don’t score for fun? Are they left behind with no prospect of progression up through the age groups?
Same goes for every kid from every team getting a medal or a trophy just for taking part get it in the bin it’s a recipe for breeding soft as **** players who are happy to accept second best up until the point where they get older and discover that you get feck all like that as you get older
Rewarding kids just for turning up doesn’t breed winners it’s the complete opposite in short if your not good enough to get to the final and actually be in with a chance of winning it then you should nothing other than a better luck next time
I laugh when I hear people saying winning isn’t everything sorry but that’s p!sh winning in football is all that matters sorry if this upsets anyone but I’m just fed up seeing the so called golden generation seemingly going backwards again with no sign of it getting any better
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: coventrypar
Date: Mon 13 Oct 23:08
I`m old enough to remember the two league system in the late 60`s/ (early 70`s for me)
We were a yoyo club even then
When we weren`t, the issue was boring games mid table nothing to play for
The argument was you could blood your fringe players
We now have loans and bounce games
Clearly its about the money so sort the split of that ( and not 80/90% to the bigot brothers) and then we may have a consensus
"If you have no kind words to say you should say nothing more at all"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 14 Oct 08:13
We currently have 12 teams in the Premier League. There are 10 teams in the Championship. Last season the top 6 of them had between 2 and 6k average attendances, with the top 2 clubs having HIGHER attendances than the bottom 2-3 in the Premier. Those clubs didn`t have their attendances skewed by large away supports from the likes of Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee Utd, Hearts, Hibs and Rangers.
Making it 20 may be a stretch, but 18 would be more than manageable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: shellypar
Date: Tue 14 Oct 10:55
Personally i think 16 is ideal
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Tue 14 Oct 12:45
Quote:
shellypar, Tue 14 Oct 10:55
Personally i think 16 is ideal
Me as well to be honest.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JnrB
Date: Tue 14 Oct 12:49
I agree with 16, play each other twice then have a split which would equate to 37 games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Tue 14 Oct 13:06
3 leagues of 16 teams, home and away each, winter break in Jan/early Feb, ditch the split.
Will never happen though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: SusieQ
Date: Tue 14 Oct 13:11
What Dave said plus 2 up / 2 down - scrap the play offs!
COME ON YE PARS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bovril Man
Date: Tue 14 Oct 13:16
Quote:
JnrB, Tue 14 Oct 12:49
I agree with 16, play each other twice then have a split which would equate to 37 games.
Spot on.
Post Edited (Tue 14 Oct 13:16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parfect69
Date: Tue 14 Oct 15:43
With Sky involved, unfortunately it will never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: John-Boy
Date: Tue 14 Oct 16:18
30 games a season is a non-starter. Reducing home games reduces income.
If 16 (plus a split) was to progress, I’d like to see the team finishing top of the bottom half entered into a semi-final with the 5th, 6th and 7th placed team for entry into Europe.
Would also need 2 automatic relegations plus a play off to avoid meaningless games in the bottom half.
Would mean you’d always be close to a position of interest ie sitting 10th, you are close to that play off European spot.
As a side note - I’d also remove European Qualification from Scottish Cup Final appearance.
And of course, the standard of the referees, pricing, alcohol, kick off times - all these need to be thrown into the conversation if we are ever serious about improving the experience.
Do you think I'm the man?
A) Yes, B) A or C) B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: vasco
Date: Tue 14 Oct 17:16
John-Boy sums it up nicely
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Jock Par36
Date: Tue 14 Oct 20:01
A Premiership with 18 teams, playing each other twice
a season. Then a Championship the same. Also a league
one north and a league one south. Top team in each league being
promoted and both 2cd tops into a play off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: nick_dafc1
Date: Wed 15 Oct 09:41
Quote:
Jock Par36, Tue 14 Oct 20:01
A Premiership with 18 teams, playing each other twice
a season. Then a Championship the same. Also a league
one north and a league one south. Top team in each league being
promoted and both 2cd tops into a play off.
Before anyone suggests a set up, it must include 4 x old firm league matches per season or will be a non starter for the provider of all the tv money
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Wed 15 Oct 10:28
Someone better alert The Rangers of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal rights and justice in this time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 15 Oct 11:09
Quote:
DA-go Par Adonis, Wed 15 Oct 10:28
Someone better alert The Rangers of that.
They`ll suddenly be in favour of it if their league position doesn`t improve considerably 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Playup_Pompey
Date: Wed 15 Oct 13:19
sure the 5 way agreement will prevent anything significant happening
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Wed 15 Oct 15:09
It’s only been discussed on here. Nothing in the media like GJS says.
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 15 Oct 15:21
14 team league is the only thing that’s been taken seriously in the past couple of years and with a 6/8 split would mean the bigot brothers and most likely the Edinburgh teams would get their precious 4 games to satisfy SKY but the opposition to that was the bottom 8 playing more games than the rest.
Nothings going to happen until a new TV deal is in place that would satisfy 3 derby games a season.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Wed 15 Oct 17:47
"As a side note - I’d also remove European Qualification from Scottish Cup Final appearance."
That`s been the case for quite some time now. You have to win the cup to get the European spot. The only slight change I think is that the cup winners have a higher "rank" than teams finishing third so enter a round later, meaning for the last few seasons they have had guaranteed group stage football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BlackLight
Date: Thu 16 Oct 05:25
How about we settle on a 16 or 18 team structure (whatever works best) and then have a Glasgow Cup competition, in which all teams compete over multiple home and away legs? The two cheeks can play each other 127 times per season and the rest of us can enjoy a bit more variety in the fixture list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MinnesotaAndy
Date: Thu 16 Oct 10:14
Larger leagues would support more variety in the fixture list and allow traditional, one time home & away fixtures. IMO these are very strong positives.
If more games are needed, a split would do the job. But maybe more games could come about with a rethink of the structure of the league cup. A larger group stage (which involves all the clubs) with the top two progressing to the knock-out phase might work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Thu 16 Oct 11:46
We talk about league reconstruction but I would really like to know the model of full and part time funding. There is no club in the championship that has the ability to sustain full time football under the current structure without outside support. That is the elephant in the room when these discussions come up.
If the Premier League were so concerned about competitiveness then they would have to address this elephant in a reasonable manner.
So any fiddling with the league structure, the specific aims and goals of doing the change would have to be clear to all stakeholders because a change requested by ever present Premiership teams stinks to high heaven for me.
Post Edited (Thu 16 Oct 11:46)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 16 Oct 20:32
Quote:
thebear, Mon 13 Oct 21:40
18 or 20, more teams, more players, better share of wealth, more scots, better national team
It was that model back in the era before reconstruction in the mid 1970s that caused the move to the then 3 divisions.
Going back to 18 team club divisions doesn’t make sense IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Thu 16 Oct 22:09
Quote:
JnrB, Tue 14 Oct 12:49
I agree with 16, play each other twice then have a split which would equate to 37 games.
Not by my arithmetic. 15 x 2 =30 surely ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 16 Oct 22:22
Quote:
veteraneastender, Thu 16 Oct 22:09
Quote:
JnrB, Tue 14 Oct 12:49
I agree with 16, play each other twice then have a split which would equate to 37 games.
Not by my arithmetic. 15 x 2 =30 surely ?
Think it’s meant to include post split games.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Thu 16 Oct 22:24
Quote:
veteraneastender, Thu 16 Oct 20:32
It was that model back in the era before reconstruction in the mid 1970s that caused the move to the then 3 divisions.
Going back to 18 team club divisions doesn’t make sense IMO.
That terrible era where in the previous 10 years, Celtic won the European cup (1967) and lost in the final (1970), Rangers won the CWC (1972) and lost in the final (1967) even Dunfermline got to the CWC semi (1969), as well as Kilmarnock Fairs cup semi (1967), Dundee Utd beating Barcelona home and away (1967)
Would be terrible to go back to that…
Post Edited (Thu 16 Oct 22:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Thu 16 Oct 22:39
Ultimately how is this decided, who gets a vote
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar1
Date: Fri 17 Oct 06:21
Ultimately in my view league reconstruction needs to benefit all Scottish clubs in some way and encourage grass roots football at a local level. Yesterday`s solutions are today`s problems. The decisions of the past have in many ways led to the problems that exist in the Scottish game today. Small leagues leave little room for error, makes football competitive but boring, thus the dwindling crowds and lack of interest in the game amongst the general public. With foreign investment into the game and a fresh perspective, I would hope that sensible decisions would prevail and a way forward determined that is to the benefit of the game in Scotland. For too many years there has been a reliance on the loyalty of supporters to turn out every week despite the football on offer. Decisions need to present purposeful solutions to the problems in the game. These should be around the game in general and not about the needs of a small group of clubs or companies. The game needs to stand on its own two feet as a national sport. In reality a town the size of dunfermline should be able to fill the stadium week in week out. It`s down to developing support and interest in the game where you can go and support a team and be entertained. I agree with NL in that it is performance first as exciting football brings the fans in. Dwindling crowds in football should be a red flag for those decision makers in the Scottish game.
G Wardrope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Pars11
Date: Fri 17 Oct 07:47
India par 1, Dunfermline made a huge mistake by redvelopeing East End Park to a large capacity stadium. If we had a smaller stadium we would all but sell out the home end for most games. Fans of other teams look at our ground as a huge upgrade to what their own club gives as the away fan experience is so much better, especially if a good support. Follows them. We should have demolished our whole ground and built a 10000 seater on the site with better access created by turning the pitch to a north/south position and creating a wrap round stadium similar to Livingston did. Look at Ross County, a very small town of less than their 6541 stadium, it generates a decent matchday experience. East End Park could easily have been more intimidating for away teams by a different design. As said yesterday`s solutions can be today`s problems. We do not need the large space wasting design we have. It could be argued we took a cheaper option.
Bluebell Polka
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 17 Oct 09:32
Quote:
Luxembourg Par, Thu 16 Oct 22:24
Quote:
veteraneastender, Thu 16 Oct 20:32
It was that model back in the era before reconstruction in the mid 1970s that caused the move to the then 3 divisions.
Going back to 18 team club divisions doesn’t make sense IMO.
That terrible era where in the previous 10 years, Celtic won the European cup (1967) and lost in the final (1970), Rangers won the CWC (1972) and lost in the final (1967) even Dunfermline got to the CWC semi (1969), as well as Kilmarnock Fairs cup semi (1967), Dundee Utd beating Barcelona home and away (1967)
Would be terrible to go back to that…
If you think reverting to an 18 team division is going to bring back those days you are on a nostalgia run. Things have changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Row_ZZ
Date: Fri 17 Oct 10:44
Whilst cockwomble Doncaster is in charge, it will never change. It can 100% be changed to 16 team league. Top 4 splitting in to a champions group, next 4 a European group and bottom 8 relegation group, playing 6 games in total after the splits.. This means 36 games in total, with Sky getting their precious 4 old firms, and not playing the every single team almost 4 times a season. Can also result in Falkirk/Pars matches, Pars Raith matches which would be good for sky, more chance of Dundee derbies, Morton/St Mirren as well in the top flight ...Or am I talking too much sense here?
"A smile might be good!"
"Nothing to smile about in my life"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 17 Oct 10:59
A bottom eight relegation group? How does that give 36 games?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis
Date: Fri 17 Oct 11:11
Quote:
Row_ZZ, Fri 17 Oct 10:44
Whilst cockwomble Doncaster is in charge, it will never change. It can 100% be changed to 16 team league. Top 4 splitting in to a champions group, next 4 a European group and bottom 8 relegation group, playing 6 games in total after the splits.. This means 36 games in total, with Sky getting their precious 4 old firms, and not playing the every single team almost 4 times a season. Can also result in Falkirk/Pars matches, Pars Raith matches which would be good for sky, more chance of Dundee derbies, Morton/St Mirren as well in the top flight ...Or am I talking too much sense here?
I don`t mind that idea at all - at least to try it out for a couple of seasons. Needs us to have 5 clubs qualifying for Europe, though, which is in jeopardy.
Also, Doncaster has no say one way or another, so his existence in the job is irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal rights and justice in this time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 17 Oct 11:50
"This means 36 games in total, with Sky getting their precious 4 old firms, and not playing the every single team almost 4 times a season. Can also result in Falkirk/Pars matches, Pars Raith matches which would be good for sky, more chance of Dundee derbies, Morton/St Mirren as well in the top flight ...Or am I talking too much sense here?"
Why would SKY be interested in Falkirk or Raith Rovers games against Dunfermline, for example ?
For the UK domestic market their very mainly English audience is focused on big matches down south.
They wouldn`t look at anything outside the Scottish Premiership - and even then it`s the usual suspects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 17 Oct 12:11
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 17 Oct 11:50
"This means 36 games in total, with Sky getting their precious 4 old firms, and not playing the every single team almost 4 times a season. Can also result in Falkirk/Pars matches, Pars Raith matches which would be good for sky, more chance of Dundee derbies, Morton/St Mirren as well in the top flight ...Or am I talking too much sense here?"
Why would SKY be interested in Falkirk or Raith Rovers games against Dunfermline, for example ?
For the UK domestic market their very mainly English audience is focused on big matches down south.
They wouldn`t look at anything outside the Scottish Premiership - and even then it`s the usual suspects.
Why would anyone outside Rangers and Celtic fans be that interested in their games? People watch football because it`s on. The best games are the ones when you can see that fierce rivalry. I always think more could be done to market the Scottish game abroad though. How many people in the USA and Canada with Scottish roots? Same with Australia. Billions of people in China and India to market too.
If more interest might be to know how much a middle of the road team like Motherwell or Kilmarnock have received via Sky and how much did their gate receipts reduce when these games were shown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar1
Date: Fri 17 Oct 12:16
I think that the changes made in the past along with other aspects have resulted in a dwindling of crowds and a poorer product on the park. Internationally we will drift along as a second rate team unable to compete at the top level. It needs a fresh perspective. Things change over time so whoever the decision makers are they should be looking at the landscape every 3-5 years. Whether they are capable of making the necessary changes, I have no idea. I`m sure there are vested interests at play that don`t necessarily work for the lower clubs.
G Wardrope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 17 Oct 13:45
Sky didn’t care about the Edinburgh derby last year - pretty sure 3 of the games weren’t even on the telly last season.
Holding on to this crumb that Scottish football is all about the Glasgow 2 is what is killing our game. We have the highest attendances per capita in Europe by some distance yet hold on to the belief that its all about 2 clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 17 Oct 16:18
Quote:
Dave_1885, Fri 17 Oct 13:45
Sky didn’t care about the Edinburgh derby last year - pretty sure 3 of the games weren’t even on the telly last season.
Holding on to this crumb that Scottish football is all about the Glasgow 2 is what is killing our game. We have the highest attendances per capita in Europe by some distance yet hold on to the belief that its all about 2 clubs.
Unfortunately, Celtic and Rangers have consistently called the tune in Scottish football and all the major clubs have sold their souls for TV money. I can`t see them ever getting over this dependency. 😔
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: RhinoPars
Date: Fri 17 Oct 16:28
As I have written before on some other threads Scotland should look at the South African Professional Soccer League model. Here we have a 16 team top league each playing each other twice with the Top8 teams at the end of the season going into a prestigious Top8 knockout cup early the next season. The bottom team is automatically relegated and the 2nd bottom goes into mini league with 2nd and 3rd teams from league below. Thus, there is not as much pressure to stay in the league as there is with a 10 or 12 team league. The top 4 teams qualify for the two African club competitions. Thus towards the end of the season teams are usually either trying to win the league, qualify for African competitions or to qualify for the Top8 cup the next season or trying to avoid relegation or relegation playoffs. Thus there is usually something to play for all teams late into the season. Middle table teams will be striving to get into the Top8 and not get sucked into the relegation zone. The two biggest supported clubs also have an annual pre-season match for a cup. There is the equivalent of the Scottish Cup but this starts with only 32 teams - the 16 top PSL teams + 8 of the 16 second tier league teams (following a qualifying round) plus another 8 qualifiers from the lower leagues. There is another knockout cup but this is only for the 16 teams in the top league. The division of money from the league is more equitable with a sizeable proportion of the money being given to all teams as an equal monthly grant (helps with cash flow) and the remainder is based on league position. The distribution of money (when one includes the grants all clubs get) is a bit more evenly distributed than would be the case in Scotland.
Post Edited (Fri 17 Oct 16:31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 17 Oct 16:28
"We have the highest attendances per capita in Europe by some distance yet hold on to the belief that its all about 2 clubs."
Statistics need to be studied in more depth to reach conclusions.
Weekly attendances in Scotland are skewed by 50,000(ish) at either Parkhead or Ibrox, except when they meet - the other better supported sides don`t come near that.
Average attendances would be a more accurate figure surely ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Fri 17 Oct 17:00
I don’t understand why folk think EEP is “too big”. Let’s say we only built a 7,000 seater-how many times would it have been sold out? Fkn loads 🤷🏻♂️
As it is, we never need to worry about getting a ticket, when big matches come round we’ve got the facilities to sell what we need and we’ve got space to grow.
Both Falkirk and St Mirren are looking into how to increase the capacity of their stadiums because they haven’t built it big enough.
We’re getting 5,000ish every week in the championship. We can probably say we’d get 6,000 plus from Motherwell/Dundee Utd/Dundee
8,000 from hearts/hibs/dons
Only Fans sisters will be sell outs.
That’s all cash into the club.
Honestly, for looking into the future, if our owners are serious about getting into prem and growing - we’ve got a good sized stadium to work with.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Fri 17 Oct 17:04
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 17 Oct 16:28
"We have the highest attendances per capita in Europe by some distance yet hold on to the belief that its all about 2 clubs."
Statistics need to be studied in more depth to reach conclusions.
Weekly attendances in Scotland are skewed by 50,000(ish) at either Parkhead or Ibrox, except when they meet - the other better supported sides don`t come near that.
Average attendances would be a more accurate figure surely ?
Even when you remove the ugly sisters we are still top of the league table.
Can’t remember figures exactly but I’ll see if I can dig them out.
We would still be first with 12.8ish and Netherlands were next on 12.something ish.
However my argument would be that even if you never had those two, the likelihood is a majority of those fans would still be watching football-they’d just be watching it elsewhere.
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 17 Oct 18:06
"Even when you remove the ugly sisters we are still top of the league table."
If you remove 1 x 50,000 plus 1 x the other half at an away match that is going to have a very significant effect on attendance statistics........pro capita and gross.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Fri 17 Oct 18:49
Quote:
veteraneastender, Fri 17 Oct 18:06
"Even when you remove the ugly sisters we are still top of the league table."
If you remove 1 x 50,000 plus 1 x the other half at an away match that is going to have a very significant effect on attendance statistics........pro capita and gross.
It does. We drop from 22ish to 12.8ish. Which was still top of the table but without a 10point gap.
BTW I know it gets updated every year and it was 2/3 year ago I read a thread somewhere about it so numbers may have changed.
I do still think that if they fans weren’t supporting rangers and Celtic-they’d be supporting someone else. Of course your team is your team but you wouldn’t support your team without an interest in football. So to me - saying yes but what about if we didn’t have them two is a bit of 1 whataboutery and 2 a misdirection.
COYP
Post Edited (Fri 17 Oct 18:54)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 17 Oct 19:16
Rangers have Dundee United tomorrow and Celtic go to Dens Park on Sunday - so it`ll be interesting to study crowd sizes at these two games in comparison with aggregated totals of Hibs v Livingston, Motherwell v Falkirk, St.Mirren v Aberdeen and Kilmarnock v Hearts.
My view is that we can`t live with "them" and can`t live without "them" - a classic no win conundrum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sat 18 Oct 21:21
The 50,663 attendance at Ibrox this afternoon was 8884 more than the combined crowd totals at the other four top tier games today........ and that`s without Celtic`s travelling support tomorrow to take into account.
Hibs had an impressive healthy near 18,000 at Easter Road, the only other match to attract five figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Sun 19 Oct 00:12
Part of the reason the OF get bigger attendances is because they have kept everyone else down. If Hearts or hibs had consistent success what attendance would they have, also if OF had less success theirs will drop hugely
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 19 Oct 08:43
Quote:
thebear, Sun 19 Oct 00:12
Part of the reason the OF get bigger attendances is because they have kept everyone else down. If Hearts or hibs had consistent success what attendance would they have, also if OF had less success theirs will drop hugely
Happy to sell shirts to a load of plastic fans in Fife who will never set foot in Celtic Park or Ibrox, put low-ball offers in on opposition players knowing clubs can`t turn them down, take the majority of the money in the league, design the setup so it only suits them...then complain that they aren`t challenged domestically. They`re pricks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sun 19 Oct 20:03
8318 at Dens Park this afternoon, total attendances at all six league games this weekend was 100,760....with a combined 58,981 at Ranger`s and Celtic matches = 58%.
An average of 16,793 - which reflects the questionable reliability of focusing on raw statitics, only the Hibs v Livingston was in that ballpark figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 20 Oct 07:43
Quote:
veteraneastender, Sun 19 Oct 20:03
8318 at Dens Park this afternoon, total attendances at all six league games this weekend was 100,760....with a combined 58,981 at Ranger`s and Celtic matches = 58%.
An average of 16,793 - which reflects the questionable reliability of focusing on raw statitics, only the Hibs v Livingston was in that ballpark figure.
Fantasy scenario - Rangers and Celtic are accepted into the EFL. After a couple of years they`ve made it to the Championship where they`re starting to be able to use some of the TV money but have lost out on Euro money. They`re doing better though, get a few signings in etc. Fans are getting fed up travelling to places like Wrexham so away crowds dwindle. They`re also fed up losing to "tin-pot" teams like Hull. Home crowds are fed up and only playing each other twice is a bore. It looks like one of them might get promoted via the play offs meaning no derbies anymore. More fans are getting fed up and start looking at their local teams instead.
Of course, the alternative is they get to the EPL and become regular middle of the road teams making plenty money but winning nothing. Equally dull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 22 Oct 16:25
My heart sinks when I read about League Reconstruction. I’m never sure what problem it’s designed to solve or whether it has any chance of doing so. There have been many attempts over the last 50 years but I think they’ve tended to make things worse. And then we’ve had the Ernie Walker Think Tank and the Henry McLeish Review. Are we overdue another?
These proposals seem designed to slice an existing cake in a different way. Which means that if some gain then some lose, and the line between winners and losers can be somewhat random and unfair.
I think the move to the SPL was the most egregious example – there was talk of creating an elite (presumably to hoover up the bulk of the rewards and devil take the hindmost), having fancy grounds and with entry based on arbitrary criteria. And where did that lead? A duff TV deal, white elephant stadia and a string of insolvencies. And clubs are still going bust although Ian Maxwell doesn’t seem to think this is an issue.
One problem is that for all that the regular fan quite enjoys a spin up to Montrose or whatever, boards of directors will probably prefer the mundanity of a midweek match v Motherwell, as that will bring in more income. And though we like to blame Neil Doncaster, it’s the clubs that decide, and they always vote for their short term interests.
Speaking of administrators, I used to wonder whether Stewart Regan came into the SFA thinking that there were 6 problems that needed solving and that he was the man to solve them, only to realise that there were 60 and the clubs and board wouldn’t let him solve any, but that’s just speculation on my part.
Some issues must simply be accidents of history and geography, resulting in a concentration of clubs and population in West Central Scotland. And reconstruction won’t make much difference here. We have two giants, arguably 3 large clubs and a whole host of about two dozen or so middling clubs with potential, and it’s difficult to keep them all happy. A superficial examination suggests it’s mostly about keeping two of them sweet.
In particular I’d be wary of solutions that rely on vast interest elsewhere. Is there really much of a market for ex-Pats? Do people watch the old firm derby for the football or are they hoping for mayhem?
We seem to be in danger of recreating the environment where clubs are spending money they don’t have in an effort to finish third. Does reconstruction solve that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DunfyDave
Date: Wed 22 Oct 18:40
Honestly having a UK league that included Rangers and Celtic and leaving the remaining Scottish leagues to manage themselves is extremely appealing to me 👊
DunfyDave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Wed 22 Oct 18:42
Hamilton hammered again, fine and points deduction!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Thu 23 Oct 10:14
It’s always going to come down to money but 18 is too much. We’re not big enough for that. We’d end up with a bunch of meaningless games padding out a season. As things are, we at least have very little meaningless football. Imagine having to go to Kilmarnock to find out if we’re going to finish 12th 🤷🏻♂️
It goes back to money again though. You can’t have demands clubs meet certain criteria and expect that every club will manage. At the moment, Arbroath, Raith Rovers and Queens Park don’t meet the requirements - just in the championship.
I’ve no doubt the club who wins the premier league deserves the most money but Rangers and Celtic will never compete at the top table of Europe and other clubs could do with more money so actually, redistributing prize money is more important… or switching back to a 50/50 share of ticket sales for games
COYP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kozmasrightfoot
Date: Thu 23 Oct 15:30
If the old firm were ever allowed in the English league they`d possibly eventually challenge for European places. I`m talking 10 - 20 years though, once they start getting the big Sky money and no doubt get taken over by an oil giant or tech billionaire.
Saying that, even if they did get bought by a billionaire, the current psr rules would potentially hold them back.
It`s never gonna happen though unless something drastic changes.
Pars fan.
Magpies fan.
Mens tennis fan.
Alternative rock fan.
Not a fan of much else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: NMCmassive
Date: Thu 23 Oct 22:39
Quote:
kozmasrightfoot, Thu 23 Oct 15:30
If the old firm were ever allowed in the English league they`d possibly eventually challenge for European places. I`m talking 10 - 20 years though, once they start getting the big Sky money and no doubt get taken over by an oil giant or tech billionaire.
Saying that, even if they did get bought by a billionaire, the current psr rules would potentially hold them back.
It`s never gonna happen though unless something drastic changes.
I think it’s more likely the Old Firm join the English League structure than they go back to 50/50 split in ticket sales
Edit : Done a quick search and maybe someone else could say otherwise but I think it was 1981 that clubs kept their own gate receipts rather than splitting 50/50.
1984/85 Aberdeen won the top league. Been OF since.
I don’t know how fair a 50/50 split in ticket sales are but I do think it helped distribute money more evenly between clubs. It would help the clubs with say 10,000 fans (Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs - Dundee Utd maybe?) just keep that little bit closer to the top two.
COYP
Post Edited (Thu 23 Oct 22:47)
|
|
|
|
|
|
