Nightmare
-
Posts
6,527 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Nightmare
-
-
15 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
I think that was a different vote, the one on 19 teams. After they had originally okay'd Celtic and Rangers to continue. Only for Hearts to apply as well.
17/04/2023
https://www.caledonianbraves.com/news/fans-vote-on-b-team-inclusion
They then announced on how they voted 'No' 18/04/2023
https://www.caledonianbraves.com/news/club-statement-b-teams-in-slfl
This most recent vote they never went public on how they voted 18/12/2023.
https://www.caledonianbraves.com/news/vote-on-the-inclusion-of-b-teams
Fair enough, cheers.
Forgot there was a Conference League vote in addition to the many B team-related votes as well, and the former might be the one I was thinking of when remembering that the Braves had at one point been on the ‘good guys’ list.
0 -
12 hours ago, To B or not B said:
Caledonian Braves voted for the B teams, according to the LL forum Broomhill were the other team to vote against.
I thought that Caledonian Braves took a fan poll (yeah, that joke writes itself) and based off the results of that, voted against the B teams.
It sticks out in my mind because I’m sure people were surprised that they voted this way, with everyone just assuming they would choose to take the B team cash. Happy to be proven wrong, but that’s my recollection of it.
0 -
On 21/04/2024 at 23:32, 2426255 said:
Anyone know what's going wrong at Sassuolo? I assume there must be issues behind the scenes. Josh Doig must wish he'd joined Marseille or just stayed at Verona.
No idea what's going on there, but hoping Doig has a relegation release clause to get out of it.
0 -
On 22/04/2024 at 09:29, TheScarf said:
Surely Brechin going from the Championship in 2017-18 to the Highland League in 2021-22 will never be beaten? A highly impressive feat.
In terms of Scottish football, it's a wild fall which is probably unlikely to be replicated barring a team getting into financial difficulty which renders them uncompetitive over numerous seasons.
The case of Paderborn in Germany in the past decade is the most extreme example of the antithesis of this thread:
13/14 - 2nd in 2.Bundesliga, promoted
14/15 - 18th in Bundesliga, relegated
15/16 - 18th in 2.Bundesliga, relegated
16/17 - 18th in 3.Liga - should have been relegated but saved on a technicality because 1860 Munich lost their license and were demoted
17/18 - 2nd in 3.Liga, promoted
18/19 - 2nd in 2.Bundesliga, promoted
19/20 - 18th in Bundesliga, relegatedSo not only a mad fall from grace between 13/14 and 16/17, but then back to back promotions to follow it (and then another relegation). They've finally calmed the f**k down and settled in the 2nd tier for the last 4 seasons.
2 -
1 minute ago, The Moonster said:
You might struggle to maintain an interest but fans are still turning out for games in Scotland more than they are in any other country in Europe (per capita). If fans don't like the set up the simple solution is to stop going and change will happen. Keep turning up and you'll be served the same fare.
Fans would go to games whatever the setup is, imo.
Attendances in the second tier have remained broadly similar* in the SPFL era (since the playoffs were introduced) to what they were in the 00s when the First Division had 'one up, one down' and where there were far more so-called meaningless games for teams in the top-half/middle of the table.
*notable exceptions to the rule being when various combinations of Rangers, Hearts and Hibs were playing at this level
0 -
1 hour ago, G_H said:
My problem with the current setup is how often the same teams play each other, over and over and over and over.
You can potentially play another team:
4x in the league
2x in playoffs
1x in League cup
1x in Scottish cup
1x in Challenge cup
More in the cups in the event that those teams meet again beyond the group stages.That's an extreme of 9+ times. A quarter of a team's games in a season And I've probably forgotten about things like replays as I can't be bothered to go and check where those come into play.
I certainly struggle to maintain interest mid-season in particular, because I know there are plenty more fixtures against the same teams to repeat (plus the weather is generally crap around those months to sit around outside in). So I suppose my position would be that it's a poor structure for fans - if not clubs out to protect standing and bank balances - and that its up to the league and its members to put out an entertaining product, which I don't think the current league structure accommodates.
At the core of it, this is my main problem with our current setup. The fact that it's technically possible for a Championship club to play another Championship club 10 (TEN) times in the space of a season is absurd. The problem isn't quite so extreme for the Premiership where teams can't meet in the playoffs or the Challenge Cup, and so where the maximum is only 7 - which is still far too high a number, but anyway.
The suggestion mentioned above of 12-18-18 would be fine. Just like all the other proposals mentioned, it's never going to get past the voting structure because it would mean there are more league clubs needing a split of the SPFL cash, but I would much rather an 18-team league where my club gets a wee bit less cash and plays some "meaningless" (they're never really meaningless, though, as covered previously) games than I have to watch Thistle play Airdrie, Queen's Park or whoever 7 times a season.
0 -
Just now, RandomGuy. said:
I don't understand why someone who's mewling that they play teams so much wants the best part of a season, the end, to be spent playing the same 3 teams twice over the course of a month.
It's the opposite of what should be suggested by someone with that complaint.
Not sure if you're just being deliberately obtuse at this point or are too thick to understand something that's really, really not that difficult.
Either way, cba. Congratulations, you've bored someone else into submission.
1 -
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
Fair enough, just a moron then.
The irony considering you've spent the last hour or so flailing around failing to comprehend a relatively basic suggestion.
0 -
4 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
Can you not just admit you want bigger tiers because you're sick of Partick being out the top tier, instead of convulting dogshit ideas that would ruined it for everyone instead.
The current set up in terms of sizes is perfect IMO. They just need to figure out promotion/relegation better.
Another swing and a miss from P&B's resident bore.
I've already said in a previous league reconstruction thread that I wouldn't expect the top flight to change any time soon for a variety of self-serving reasons, but if we could at least expand the lower tiers then I would be happy with that.
What league my team is in is completely irrelevant to any of this, which has been my stance for as long as I can remember (including our years in the Premiership).
0 -
1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:
Fair enough. We all know this is just opinion and personal wish lists, but that would be a seriously hard sell.
You're, effectively, ending those team's season's weeks early. That's before you consider the wasteland the lower divisions will become.
Yep, it's all just hypothetical (and yes I'll admit, very unlikely) but I genuinely don't think the meaningless games argument holds as much weight as people often suggest in these conversations.
Crowds in our game haven't changed too much since the years before the lower league playoffs were introduced. The old First Division used to see one club promoted to the top flight, and if a team ran away with the league there were often teams with nothing to play for for large parts of the season. People still attended, you still got good games and bad games, ultimately I don't think too much changed suddenly when all the games started "meaning something".
Regardless, I'm not exclusively stuck on 16 teams with a 4x4x4x4 split system anyway - it wasn't even my suggestion originally. I just feel like the leagues need to be bigger because I'm sick of playing teams 6+ times a season.
0 -
1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:
What about the third group?
Mentioned in the second paragraph.
0 -
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
There would be 8 teams, with more often than not nothing to play for, playing the same 3 sides twice over 4/5 weeks.
That would be horrendous for half the league and far worse in every way then the way things are.
Nice deflection from your 'teams playing each other too much' comment before.
The only section that would potentially have "nothing to play for" would be the 9-12 portion of the league. Which is a flaw, yes, but I've already indicated that no split system is without flaws, including in the current Scottish football setup.
The section with teams 1-4 would be involved in the title race, 5-8 would battle for a European place in the top flight/for a potential promotion playoff opportunity in the lower leagues, and 13-16 are battling relegation.
So to suggest that the majority of the league would have nothing to play for after the first 30 games is, yet again, nonsense.
0 -
Just now, RandomGuy. said:
Are you being sarcastic?
What would make you think any part of that post is sarcastic?
Please explain why you think that option proposed is a bigger issue in terms of playing opponents too many times than our current setup. Because there's absolutely zero logic in what you said in your previous post.
0 -
33 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
Are you suggesting that teams split into sections of 4, and then play the same three teams twice over the course of 6 games?
You genuinely think that's a good idea when people already complain about playing sides too much?
In that type of setup, the majority of the 16 teams in the league would only play each other twice over the course of the season. Only in each section of 4 would you play three opponents 4 times.
That suggestion is clearly an improvement on the 'playing sides too much' argument that we have in our current league setup.
2 -
9 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
Only one automatically down from a 16 team league would be absolutely shite.
Aye, if it’s a 16 team division you need 2 down automatically. And possibly 14th going into a playoff with 3rd place in the tier below as well.
16 would definitely be my preferred size of division, though. Not too fussed about which one of the many potential split structures is selected, but just getting a wider variety of opponents each season and greater movement between the tiers would be a big improvement in our game imo.
0 -
31 minutes ago, Rb123 said:
Wouldn't be at all surprised if Bryden starts RM
Yes i know..
Need someone who's going to track back and help Stanger from the onslaught of Lawless or Fitzpatrick which Chalmers isn't going to do, Amartay might do it but not convinced it would be well enough to Brown's liking.
Lawless is out for the best part of a year with a ruptured achilles.
1 -
26 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
I have genuinely no idea who Rhys Armstrong is, but Luke McBeth made a far bigger step up and looks great so f**k it.
Our title winning team at this level in 2012/13 had plenty of players who we signed from way down the pyramid. From memory I can think of Doolan, Erskine, Craigen, Muirhead and Taylor-Sinclair who had all been signed from League Two or below. There might be others I’m forgetting as well.
I also have no idea about Armstrong, but seems the exact sort of market we should be shopping in for cheap squad depth. Especially given that we seem to have a pretty good record of finding gems at these types of level.
2 -
19 minutes ago, TxRover said:
Perhaps. The reality is 12 with a 6/6 split was chosen betting that the OF would always both be top 6…in a 14 or 16 league with a multiple split you potentially run a higher risk of one or the other dropping too far. It’s extremely unlikely, but TV likes to deal in assurances, and anything that weakened that assurance would also weaken the payment.
The structure of the game makes more than 40 games at the top unwelcome/unfeasible, and it’s only accommodated with late entry to various competitions now anyway. For instance, 14 team league generally requires either a 6/8 split or a 7/7, both of which introduce unwelcome elements…and often result in an unmanageable 44 to 46 games unless the split occurs after 26 games…which robs nearly half the teams of a big payday and overpays the others.
Excluding the anomaly of Rangers (RIP) being in the lower leagues, the OF haven’t finished outside the top 4 of Scottish football since the 1980s. And the financial disparity between those two and the rest of the league is far bigger now than it was back then. Any split would get 4x OF games, whether it was a top 4 or top 6, so I’m not buying that as a reason TV companies wouldn’t back a larger league.
There are unwelcome elements in any split, including the setup we currently have. More unwelcome for me is the nonsense scenario in Scottish football right now where you can play the same team 6, 7 or even more than that times per season. It’s just very dull.
The bolded at the end is ultimately why league expansion won’t happen any time soon, though. Because of the pathetic self-serving mentality of clubs in Scottish football who are so dependent on a couple more home games where they can cram a few thousand bigots into their ground and make some extra cash. I thought this kind of outlook might have changed after our clubs (correctly) voted not to allow Rangers back into the top flight following their liquidation, and where it was proven that we didn’t need the OF to have a strong, successful Scottish football. But unfortunately there are still clubs in the top tier who will refuse to change the current setup out of pure selfishness and greed.
0 -
1 hour ago, TxRover said:
The problem is a different format for the playoffs at this level vs those below. The genesis is 12/10/10/10. The solutions generally aren’t practical due to scheduling and monetary considerations…except automatic promotion/relegation, which is considered unacceptable, or 14/14/14, which is considered too crowded due to OFx4 requirements.
You can have 4 OF games in a 14 team league, or indeed a 16 team league. It all depends on how you structure the split(s).
0 -
Unreal save, that.
0 -
The PFA team just announced. Not drastically different to many of the (sensible) team selections in this thread.
0 -
2 minutes ago, BigMadMental said:
How is it a prolonged rant? Because I am replying to other people who have an opinion on it?
Achillies injuries are commonly caused by overuse. The club were recruiting a lead physio and a sports scientist for months on end to no avail.
I didn’t compliment Graham for playing at a high level. I pointed out that it’s obvious he is putting in extra graft in his own time and perhaps on his own dime while others may not be. Because the club can only offer so much in terms of educating players on how to look after their bodies? Isn’t that a fair point?
I’m not suggesting anything really. But the original point was around our skeleton back room staff and the impact that it has on the players.
Some people have the archaic view that this doesn’t matter and I don’t have that opinion, it’s as simple as that.
Whether we have good players or not - we are skint and it shows.
the actual original discussion was surrounding the fact that because of our lack of funds, and our lack of resources, we struggle to develop players a wee bit due to that. My simple point was that if we had more money available we might be able to invest a bit more in the back room side.
Rant might have been a harsh word. "I'm not suggesting anything really." - fair enough, that's kind of all I was clarifying. Because it feels like this whole thing was going round in circles, and I didn't know if you had an actual suggestion as to how we could make better use of our resources, or if you were just... saying things to say them.
One thing I would argue is that I'm not sure the injury situation is anything other than bad luck. You get injury crises at all levels of football. Dunfermline in our division being a particular example of one this year, but even as far up the food chain as Liverpool. That's a club who I'd assume has a pretty state of the art setup in terms of training, sports science, etc and have still had to field plenty of youth players this season due to injuries. It's not like they have a lack of squad depth either.
So to suggest that Lawless got injured because he was overplayed and Graham is putting in graft in his own time because the club can't afford to train him properly is speculative at best. If we spent an extra £30k or whatever on a sports scientist this season, would it really have changed much? I doubt it.
0 -
42 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:
Is there any data on this effect, either in Scottish football or in general? I'd be quite interested to see if it's a significant effect or if it's just conventional wisdom like "form goes out the window in a derby" which doesn't really hold much water.
I had an idea along these lines ago a few years back when I was more into my gambling; to back teams who 'had to' win (eg. a win would secure a title, survival, European place, whatever) and to bet against teams who were already set in a position (champions, relegated), under the the same assumption above that they would have downed tools.
I was comfortably in profit doing this in continental leagues (Spain, Italy, France, etc) and significantly down in Scotland & England over a period of a few years before I gave it up. This might have been a case of complete luck in the way things fell for me, but I'd suggest that teams with nothing to play for don't take their foot off the gas as much in the UK as they do in other countries. There might be actual studies done which contain data that disproves this over time (I would guess that there's a decent chance it would all balance out given enough variance), but just my take from betting on a roughly similar proposal to the post in question over a few years.
1 -
7 minutes ago, BigMadMental said:
If you sign the best players and don’t have the resources to look after them properly then you run into problems.
Team have struggled to finish 90mins strong all season and several players have pulled up with injuries which are linked to overuse. Lawless being the one who has come out worst.
This is why we can’t get out the championship.
I'm not sure what the overall point to this prolonged rant is. Do you want us to start outspending Dundee United, Dundee or Kilmarnock to try and get out of the division?
You're talking about having a lack of squad depth due to resources, but also appear to also be suggesting that we should be sacrificing the size of squad to sign more coaches and sport scientists so that the players we do have will develop into better players or be less susceptible to injury. This seems a bit of a contradiction.
Now you're saying Lawless got injured due to overuse, but a few posts back you complimented Brian Graham for featuring so much at such a high level this season. Brian Graham is older than Lawless and has played just as many minutes, so what's your point there?
What are you actually suggesting? It feels like you're just howling into the abyss.
5
Trapdoor to Hell
in Scottish League 2 General Chatter
Posted
If a team want to, they can apply for a grace period where they will then be given time to meet the licensing criteria.
Or teams can do a Buckie and essentially forfeit the right to promotion. Which I guess is totally up to them, but it looks very small-time.