Scotland in Europe

[SilverWolfe]

So, with the BBC documentary about to hit our screens and expected to give us the usual nonsense about the decline of Scottish football and how terrible we are in Europe, I thought I would check out the actual facts regarding our teams performances in Europe since Celtic lifted the European Cup in 1967.

Not really surprising to me but I found that since 1967 we perform in cycles and if dotted on a graph it would look like this

It throws up some interesting conclusions

We peak, then for around 3-5 years we stay steady, then we spend around 9-11 years in total decline followed by a 5 year period rising sharply again before repeating the process.

In terms of years we see

Peak 1967, steady until 1970, decline before hitting rock bottom in 1979, rise sharply reaching our top point in 1984, steady until 1987, decline until 1998, rise until 2003, steady until 2008, decline until 2016.

Does this surprise many people?

Looks to me like we are about to end the decline and by around 2022/2023 will be back in the top 20% of nations in Europe where we will stay for around 3-5 years before we all get depressed again.

My overall conclusion, we are not in a 50 year decline, we are merely at the tail end of the current cycle.

ETA: I don't know how to add the graph but it basically looks like Nessy with 3 humps

[Ross.]

People also have a tendency to ignore or forget a lot of other factors that have affected other nations and led to us appearing to fall back a bit.

Professionalism and full time football came much later to a lot of countries, the break up of the USSR and Yugoslavia added a lot more countries, and obviously the TV money revolution that hasn't hit Scotland to the same extent as most of our peers.

We do well when looked at for what we are. If anything we have massively outperformed ourselves.

[sjc]

15 minutes ago, Ross. said:

People also have a tendency to ignore or forget a lot of other factors that have affected other nations and led to us appearing to fall back a bit.

Professionalism and full time football came much later to a lot of countries, the break up of the USSR and Yugoslavia added a lot more countries, and obviously the TV money revolution that hasn't hit Scotland to the same extent as most of our peers.

We do well when looked at for what we are. If anything we have massively outperformed ourselves.

Agree with that. Also think other Countries are producing more technical players than us.......and I say "us" I'd include the other UK Nations in that also.

[shootingboots]

1 hour ago, Tartantony said:

So, with the BBC documentary about to hit our screens and expected to give us the usual nonsense about the decline of Scottish football and how terrible we are in Europe, I thought I would check out the actual facts regarding our teams performances in Europe since Celtic lifted the European Cup in 1967.

Not really surprising to me but I found that since 1967 we perform in cycles and if dotted on a graph it would look like this

It throws up some interesting conclusions

We peak, then for around 3-5 years we stay steady, then we spend around 9-11 years in total decline followed by a 5 year period rising sharply again before repeating the process.

In terms of years we see

Peak 1967, steady until 1970, decline before hitting rock bottom in 1979, rise sharply reaching our top point in 1984, steady until 1987, decline until 1998, rise until 2003, steady until 2008, decline until 2016.

Does this surprise many people?

Looks to me like we are about to end the decline and by around 2022/2023 will be back in the top 20% of nations in Europe where we will stay for around 3-5 years before we all get depressed again.

My overall conclusion, we are not in a 50 year decline, we are merely at the tail end of the current cycle.

ETA: I don't know how to add the graph but it basically looks like Nessy with 3 humps

3

The cycle is bust.

Money is the root cause. 

There also must be another 20 odd countries playing European football compared to even 40 years ago. 

[SilverWolfe]

7 minutes ago, shootingboots said:

The cycle is bust.

Money is the root cause. 

There also must be another 20 odd countries playing European football compared to even 40 years ago. 

The 20 other countries has been taken into consideration when looking at the cycle. I have calculated the cycle based on the % of nations we were/are above in the rankings in any given year. So current day 26th place is equivalent to 1970s 16th place for example.

The money only makes the nations in the top 10 - 15% bigger, while the rest of us are pretty much in the same boat. Scotland reaching a peak of around 12th in the coefficient is entirely possible and is the equivalent of us being around 7th in the 70s and 80s.

[sjc]

16 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

The 20 other countries has been taken into consideration when looking at the cycle. I have calculated the cycle based on the % of nations we were/are above in the rankings in any given year. So current day 26th place is equivalent to 1970s 16th place for example.

The money only makes the nations in the top 10 - 15% bigger, while the rest of us are pretty much in the same boat. Scotland reaching a peak of around 12th in the coefficient is entirely possible and is the equivalent of us being around 7th in the 70s and 80s.

Have you considered how many of the non "money" Nations have two disproportionately bigger Clubs like Scotland have? I know you have the likes of Ajax, PSV, Rosenberg and Basel etc but even they aren't 5,6,7 times the turnover of their nearest competitors........That's not pinning all the blame on the OF btw....just makes our league harder to sell as a "competition".

[Ross.]

18 minutes ago, sjc said:

Have you considered how many of the non "money" Nations have two disproportionately bigger Clubs like Scotland have? I know you have the likes of Ajax, PSV, Rosenberg and Basel etc but even they aren't 5,6,7 times the turnover of their nearest competitors........That's not pinning all the blame on the OF btw....just makes our league harder to sell as a "competition".

Basel are probably the closest thing to the Old Firm in terms of their economic strength and complete dominance of the domestic league. For as long as they get automatic qualification it is very difficult to see anyone coming close to them in the league. Their fan base and infrastructure is streets ahead of anyone else as it is and the CL money makes that gap insurmountable.

[sjc]

Just now, Ross. said:

Basel are probably the closest thing to the Old Firm in terms of their economic strength and complete dominance of the domestic league. For as long as they get automatic qualification it is very difficult to see anyone coming close to them in the league. Their fan base and infrastructure is streets ahead of anyone else as it is and the CL money makes that gap insurmountable.

That's the real problem. There's always been money leagues but with unrestricted movement of players (it used to be 2/3/4 foreign players per team only) and the prize money on offer in the UCL it further destabilises domestic leagues like Scotland, Switzerland and the like.

[SilverWolfe]

14 minutes ago, sjc said:

Have you considered how many of the non "money" Nations have two disproportionately bigger Clubs like Scotland have? I know you have the likes of Ajax, PSV, Rosenberg and Basel etc but even they aren't 5,6,7 times the turnover of their nearest competitors........That's not pinning all the blame on the OF btw....just makes our league harder to sell as a "competition".

To be honest Its hard to get exact figures to be certain. Just a quick nothing point here but at the end of the 2015 season Celtic were only 4X Aberdeen's Turnover, its not as big a gap as everyone seems to think it is, although still big enough.

It seems easy for non OF fans to just keep putting it down to a lack of competition due to money or fan base or whatever excuse seems to work.

AZ Alkmaar have a stadium that holds 17,000 and need to compete with 3 giants in Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord. They won the Dutch League in 2009. Now I don't have exact figures here but not including transfer fee income I believe in 2009 that Ajax will have had at least 4X the revenue of AZ Alkmaar and PSV and Feyenoord would have had considerably higher revenue as well.

Leicester make around 3X less than Chelsea and won the EPL

If teams hire the correct management team and are run well and can fill their stadium then anything can happen.

Looking at solely Aberdeen here (and im going to do a Davie Bhoy) maybe instead of blaming Celtic and Rangers, try do something to attract some of the 40,000 fans that turned up to a cup final and fill Pittodrie. Revenue goes way up, better players can come in and you can get closer to the OF. Just seems to easy to keep blaming everyone else bar your own clubs for not being able to achieve success.

[Ross.]

The average standard in the Netherlands and in England is far higher than in Scotland. The resource gap may be similar but in terms of ability there is less of a gap between Ajax and the rest in the Netherlands and Leicester and the rest in England. I would say it is easier to spring a surprise in those leagues than in Scotland.

[sjc]

The TV Deals in both England (obviously) and the Netherlands negates the fan income of Clubs far more than in Scotland.......I'm sure Dutch Clubs share something like 100mEuros each season......compare and contrast that with the lousy £17m we share!

Also, the figure you talk of for Celtic are off the back of the failing to qualify for the UCL in successive seasons and the loss of the biggest rivals (huge drop in crowds at Parkhead)........all that saw them fall back towards the pack but still far enough ahead to maintain dominance though.

I agree though......other Clubs have to nurture a mindset that says "f**k it, we can beat that lot" akin to that of SAF and Jim McLean.

[SilverWolfe]

7 minutes ago, sjc said:

The TV Deals in both England (obviously) and the Netherlands negates the fan income of Clubs far more than in Scotland.......I'm sure Dutch Clubs share something like 100mEuros each season......compare and contrast that with the lousy £17m we share!

Also, the figure you talk of for Celtic are off the back of the failing to qualify for the UCL in successive seasons and the loss of the biggest rivals (huge drop in crowds at Parkhead)........all that saw them fall back towards the pack but still far enough ahead to maintain dominance though.

I agree though......other Clubs have to nurture a mindset that says "f**k it, we can beat that lot" akin to that of SAF and Jim McLean.

Absolutely SJC, for me a big part of it is belief and mind set.

Just want to point out though that Rangers being away for 4 years did not impact our Turnover at all. In 2011 we made £52m, 2012 it was £51m and 2015 it was still £51m and I suspect when the 2016 accounts are released we will see around £50m again. Facts also show that when we make the Champions League we do not spend anymore on transfer fees and we do not increase our standard wage budget. We do pay more on bonuses in the year we make the Champs League but the actual wage bill remains roughly the same.

The reason the gap is closing is because Aberdeen are far better off financially than they were 10 years ago (as are Hearts), not that we are making any less than we were before.

If Aberdeen could find another 5,000 fans (which are out there) then that's going to be roughly £1.5m to £2m more in revenue a season, that's a good signing or two. Their first home game of the League campaign this season against Hearts (the 3rd and 4th biggest clubs in the Country playing at 3pm on a Saturday) saw Pittodrie sitting with about 35% of its seats empty. That's actually ridiculous and they have no one to blame other than themselves.

And just to add I do believe there to be 2 managers in this League that could improve Aberdeen and Hearts and take them to a better level than they are now. And those managers are not DM or RN

[sjc]

8 minutes ago, Tartantony said:

Absolutely SJC, for me a big part of it is belief and mind set.

Just want to point out though that Rangers being away for 4 years did not impact our Turnover at all. In 2011 we made £52m, 2012 it was £51m and 2015 it was still £51m and I suspect when the 2016 accounts are released we will see around £50m again. Facts also show that when we make the Champions League we do not spend anymore on transfer fees and we do not increase our standard wage budget. We do pay more on bonuses in the year we make the Champs League but the actual wage bill remains roughly the same.

The reason the gap is closing is because Aberdeen are far better off financially than they were 10 years ago (as are Hearts), not that we are making any less than we were before.

If Aberdeen could find another 5,000 fans (which are out there) then that's going to be roughly £1.5m to £2m more in revenue a season, that's a good signing or two. Their first home game of the League campaign this season against Hearts (the 3rd and 4th biggest clubs in the Country playing at 3pm on a Saturday) saw Pittodrie sitting with about 35% of its seats empty. That's actually ridiculous and they have no one to blame other than themselves.

And just to add I do believe there to be 2 managers in this League that could improve Aberdeen and Hearts and take them to a better level than they are now. And those managers are not DM or RN

Which two managers are you referring too? Tommy Wright and?

[SilverWolfe]

11 minutes ago, sjc said:

Which two managers are you referring too? Tommy Wright and?

Paul Hartley

[SilverWolfe]

Should just point out as well that last season even with our allocation cut to 2000 at Pittodrie, the attendances were 19,000 and 20,000 roughly. That in my opinion played a massive part in Aberdeen beating us twice at Pittodrie. Get that every week and Aberdeen could win every home game and make a lot of money while they're at it.

[sjc]

1 minute ago, Tartantony said:

Paul Hartley

I rate Wright and like Hartley but jury's still out on him (Hartley) for me.

[SilverWolfe]

10 minutes ago, sjc said:

I rate Wright and like Hartley but jury's still out on him (Hartley) for me.

I reckon with the squad Hearts have that Tommy Wright would do amazing things there. I would let Neilson go and go after Wright with everything I had if I was Budge.

Hartley for me should be the next Aberdeen manager. Took a part time team from the 3rd Division to the First division and finished off the job of getting Dundee promoted then made them a mid table club in the top tier. Not really sure why the jury is still out on him to be honest. I think he would take Aberdeen to a level that DM isn't capable of achieving.

[HibeeJibee]

Haven't read all the posts but there are two different effects being identified here.

Firstly - there is a definite cyclical experience for countries like ours due to how the coefficients work. You start out with a few clubs (remember the season's accrued points are divided by the number of teams to give the final total), and they enter early on. They tend to win ties against weaker opposition, they progress through the rounds and the coefficient rises... this continues until you get extra teams, your teams are entering later and against tougher opposition, Point of critical mass is reached as you aren't generating the required points to maintain your position, and you start declining. We've been through it a few times, though my feeling is we've had more "shockers" in recent seasons which haven't helped things.

Secondly - there is no question that football has changed in a way which has inevitably lead to a decline in our 'standing'. Leagues professionalising since 1960s and "catching-up"... collapse of communism, break-up of Czechoslovakia/USSR/Yugoslavia... satellite TV... Bosman... etc. etc.

[BFTD]

Funny how quickly opinions change about managers. It only feels like the other day that Derek McInnes and Jackie McNamara were the second coming. Chances are it'll be the same for Wright and Hartley in a couple of years.

Take a photo of your graph and attach it to a post, Tony. Better yet, give us it in MS Paint.

[HibeeJibee]

Here is a bar display of our all-time league ranking. (Before 1975 it is "unofficial" but calculated on the usual basis - UEFA only introduced their 5-year coefficients in 1979).

Peaks and troughs easily discernible. Obviously the amplification increases, partly as more countries since early 1990s.


'60 - #####
'61 - ######
'62 - #####
'63 - ###
'64 - ###
'65 - ######
'66 - ######
'67 - #####
'68 - #####
'69 - ###
'70 - ###
'71 - ####
'72 - #####
'73 - ######
'74 - ######
'75 - #########
'76 - ###########
'77 - ################
'78 - ###############
'79 - #################
'80 - #############
'81 - ##############
'82 - ##############
'83 - ######
'84 - ####
'85 - ######
'86 - #######
'87 - #####
'88 - #######
'89 - #########
'90 - ##########
'91 - #########
'92 - ############
'93 - ############
'94 - #############
'95 - ###############
'96 - #################
'97 - ###################
'98 - ##########################
'99 - #####################
'00 - ###############
'01 - ################
'02 - ############
'03 - #########
'04 - ###########
'05 - ##########
'06 - ###########
'07 - ##########
'08 - ##########
'09 - #############
'10 - ################
'11 - ###############
'12 - ##################
'13 - ########################
'14 - #######################
'15 - #######################
'16 - #########################