Jump to content

Post split fixtures


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 557
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Bohemian said:

This whole episode kinda puts the we don't want the old firm or f**k the old firm out the window... Sad really

The sad part of this whole affair is that while the rest of Scottish football cant stand either of them, we are stuck with them.

The only thing they are good for is generating a bit of money for the rest of us when their subhuman hordes descend on our towns.

Once the smashed shop windows have been boarded up and the broken seats replaced, there is usually a wee bit of their filthy money  left to take to the bank.

Doesn't mean we actually want them tho',

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye, no need for a statement, as we all kind of anticipated the fixtures turning out like that.

That said, while the first half of this sentence is just naw...

Quote

"While an additional visit by Rangers would naturally provide a boost in terms of income, the passion, ambition and focus of everyone at the club remains on continuing to grow our home crowds."

...I'm more inclined to believe the second half now that Johnston has scuttled off into the shadows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'While an additional visit by Rangers would naturally provide a boost in terms of income and morale, the passion, ambition and focus of everyone at the club remains on continuing to grow our home crowds.'

Tin pot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll lose some money on not getting our 19 home games but as far as I'm concerned, we've got f**k all to play for as it is so I can't say I'm overly bothered.

IMO on the split, as much as I used to like it for giving teams in the middle something to play for, I could take it or leave it as to me it's no less underwhelming in a season like this one as an example, than an alledged nothing to play for game in the middle of a bigger league.

I find myself warming towards the idea of an expanded league. 16 wouldn't be enough with 30 games, but 18 would. Quite frankly I think the schedule before and after the winter shutdown is too intense as it is with clubs playing 4-5 games inside three weeks either side of the shutdown.

I also find playing the same teams 3-4 times a season quite stale now. I'd much rather get a trip to Palmerston or East End rather than Fir Park/Rugby Park potentially twice a season. I don't buy into the narrative that the 4 OF games a season are as big a draw as they were with audiences apparently around half (the football life blog for evidence) what they used to be 10 years ago, thanks to apathy and scheduling the games along with the English premier league.

I don't think we should just accept whatever the TV companies throw at us, shortchanged as we might be by what we're offered, obviously taking into account that the short term consequences might be too great, but I truly believe with the way internet streaming is going, we really should be looking to do it our own way, take a chance on a subscriptive service, and if it doesn't work, then at least we can say we've tried it rather than disregard it altogether.

I honestly think you'd have a better chance any of the other top six sides having a better shot at the title than having to play each other four times to do it, Aberdeen in particular. You could also argue that when the pyramid below the SPFL starts to mature, the ex-junior sides will probably contribute followings towards a strong enough second tier below an 18 Premier so that the vacuum of the six sides in the championship are filled sufficiently

Quite frankly, it will take more than  idealistic opinions like mine against the parochial backwater that is Scottish fitba and this is probably just another non-statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mention anything bigger than a 12 team league and almost everybody panics or just comes out with the "you're deluded, blah, blah, blah. It would never work, etc, etc."

But it would work. It would find its level and that would be that. Just the same as it found its level after 2012 and 'armageddon' etc. It would continue down its path. Wherever that'll take us :) 

FWIW I would like 18 team league. Play each other twice. The end. 

Look! Another nothing post :rolleyes:

Carry on. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JamesM82 said:

We had an 18-team league until 1975. We got rid of it because attendance was declining due to there being far too many meaningless games.

And no meaningless games nowadays of course? That was 40 years ago. Things are a wee bit different now I'd say.  Attitudes, expectations, tv coverage for starters. 

I know it'll never happen. I accept that but do you think what we have today is the best solution. I think it's a bit pish personally. 

I imagine it's been discussed to death elsewhere so I'll say no more :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the jambo-rocker said:

We'll lose some money on not getting our 19 home games but as far as I'm concerned, we've got f**k all to play for as it is so I can't say I'm overly bothered.

IMO on the split, as much as I used to like it for giving teams in the middle something to play for, I could take it or leave it as to me it's no less underwhelming in a season like this one as an example, than an alledged nothing to play for game in the middle of a bigger league.

I find myself warming towards the idea of an expanded league. 16 wouldn't be enough with 30 games, but 18 would. Quite frankly I think the schedule before and after the winter shutdown is too intense as it is with clubs playing 4-5 games inside three weeks either side of the shutdown.

I also find playing the same teams 3-4 times a season quite stale now. I'd much rather get a trip to Palmerston or East End rather than Fir Park/Rugby Park potentially twice a season. I don't buy into the narrative that the 4 OF games a season are as big a draw as they were with audiences apparently around half (the football life blog for evidence) what they used to be 10 years ago, thanks to apathy and scheduling the games along with the English premier league.

I don't think we should just accept whatever the TV companies throw at us, shortchanged as we might be by what we're offered, obviously taking into account that the short term consequences might be too great, but I truly believe with the way internet streaming is going, we really should be looking to do it our own way, take a chance on a subscriptive service, and if it doesn't work, then at least we can say we've tried it rather than disregard it altogether.

I honestly think you'd have a better chance any of the other top six sides having a better shot at the title than having to play each other four times to do it, Aberdeen in particular. You could also argue that when the pyramid below the SPFL starts to mature, the ex-junior sides will probably contribute followings towards a strong enough second tier below an 18 Premier so that the vacuum of the six sides in the championship are filled sufficiently

Quite frankly, it will take more than  idealistic opinions like mine against the parochial backwater that is Scottish fitba and this is probably just another non-statement.

Couldn't agree more with this idea. It is getting boring now playing the same teams 3/4 times over a season and maybe more due to cup fixtures etc. Aberdeen will play Motherwell for the 5th time on Saturday and they didn't make the top six. They are also due to play Kilmarnock for a 6th time this season post split.

We are at a stage where we have clubs in the league below who would benefit massively by a promotion to a larger premiership. Also even smaller part time clubs further down the line getting more potential for promotion and a crack at the big boys. It would share the wealth to all clubs in the country and hopefully boost the game as a whole.

It is a selfish perspective that the current crop of so called top clubs would rather have the extra games against the old firm, Aberdeen, hearts & hibs to generate revenue but in hindsight this season has proven too many fixtures against the top clubs has hampered a team like Aberdeen from really challenging for the league. Your Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts and even Rangers now should be looking at it as a better chance of toppling a financially dominate celtic from the top of the table.  These teams are taking too many points off each other and really hampering there chances of challenging celtic.

It all comes down to the issue of meaningless fixtures in mid table and low attendances for these games come the end of the season. I had an idea previously which could incorporate the majority of clubs having something to play for throughout the full season. It is a similar set up to the dutch league.

Basically 1st place are champions and would qualify for the champions league as normal.

2nd place would also gain the Europa league spot as normal.

3rd,4th,5th & 6th would play a play off competition to determine the final spot in Europe. It would be similar to the lower leagues play off system just now to favour the highest ranked team. So 5th vs 6th two legs, winner plays 4th over two legs and then the winner plays 3rd over two legs. I understand the only issue being that come the final of that play off both teams may qualify due to the Scottish cup place but again the prize money would still be higher for the winner of that competition and the potential to enter the Europa league at a later round.

Then to the other end of the table. You would have two automatic relegation places and then again you would have 3rd bottom entering a play off in the same format as it is just now but just from lower positions from the league below as two would be automatically promoted.

Out of a sixteen team league you would have 9 places within the league that would mean something come the end of the season. The top 6 and three relegation places. You would like to think that most teams would be involved in either challenging the top six or fighting out of relegation at the bottom.

We need to look at our whole game and we have some clubs right down to the lowland league who could comfortably make a step up to the lower leagues. We also need to avoid teams like cowdenbeath looking like they could go under if they are relegated to the lowland league.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need Sevco they said.
We demand another home game against sevco!!!!
 


Show me where anyone has demanded a game against Sevco? Have we lodged an appeal with the SPFL that I’ve missed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bennett said:

We don't need Sevco they said.

We demand another home game against sevco!!!!

 

Was that tongue in cheek?

They really dont need you, if you have a good look the almost universal uplift in crowds over the last few years, it has not been to do with Rangers, rather increases in most other teams home supports.

In the case at hand - for Hibs, Hearts and Killie, the argument was about sporting fairness - i.e. that its not fair in a competition sense to force a third match at Ibrox.

Because it has notionally worked out for my team doesnt mean I think its in any way right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Green Day said:

Was that tongue in cheek?

They really dont need you, if you have a good look the almost universal uplift in crowds over the last few years, it has not been to do with Rangers, rather increases in most other teams home supports.

In the case at hand - for Hibs, Hearts and Killie, the argument was about sporting fairness - i.e. that its not fair in a competition sense to force a third match at Ibrox.

Because it has notionally worked out for my team doesnt mean I think its in any way right.

Kilmarnocks statement says it all

...and sporting fairness:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...