Sportsound Watch

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

It wasn't hatred.

It was just self interest with no sense of solidarity or obligation to other clubs.  The drawbridge was hoisted at a particular moment, an attempt to freeze the snapshot in play at the time.

It didn't represent any sort of response to the CL or Bosman.  How could it?  It was all about greed.  

I could only laugh at the outrage over that proposed European Super League breakaway thing last year.  In character, it differed very little from similar steps in football all over the place in the last three decades.  The creation of the SPL was a relative.

I think this is fairly obvious.

In the two decades before the SPL was created, five Scottish clubs had played in European quarter-finals or better. Things had quickly nose-dived. There's surely no need to explain the impact the CL and Bosman had on the competitiveness of clubs from smaller countries? The evidence is there for all to see and this was widely predicted at the time.

I don't think anybody is claiming the SPL was a well-designed, well-run organisation, but I think you're being overly-dismissive of the situation faced by the top-fights clubs.

Also, while I completely agree about clubs' self-interest, I suspect you'd struggle to find many clubs who would act differently in such a situation.

[Monkey Tennis]

38 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its always "top flight clubs are evil, self interested, monsters" you hear from perennial lower league fans.

Never any mention of how hard the lower league clubs fought, and continue to fight, to prevent those below League Two getting promoted. 

It wont be a true pyramid structure until they have automatic spots at that level.

The difference being the direction of travel at the points being discussed.  

Historically, there wasn't movement between the SFL and other leagues, but now there is.  Arguing about how that operates and its scale, is of course entirely legitimate.

 

The creation of the SPL saw a situation whereby 20% of the top flight were relegated each season, switch to one very soon, whereby just over 8% of the clubs were relegated.  Even then, that only happened if newly introduced stadium criteria were met. 

The SPL was morally bankrupt in both its conception and its operation.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[Monkey Tennis]

8 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think this is fairly obvious.

In the two decades before the SPL was created, five Scottish clubs had played in European quarter-finals or better. Things had quickly nose-dived. There's surely no need to explain the impact the CL and Bosman had on the competitiveness of clubs from smaller countries? The evidence is there for all to see and this was widely predicted at the time.

And depriving Stenhousemuir of a few quid was never going to make our clubs more competitive in Europe.  That ship had long ago set sail.

The only sense in which the creation of the SPL was a response to the emergence of the likes of the EPL and CL was that it involved an eager, opportunistic and shameless mimicking of the exploitation that essentially underpinned each of them.

Don't insult your own intelligence by pretending otherwise.

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

And depriving Stenhousemuir of a few quid was never going to make our clubs more competitive in Europe.  That ship had long ago set sail.

The only sense in which the creation of the SPL was a response to the emergence of the likes of the EPL and CL was that it involved an eager, opportunistic and shameless mimicking of the exploitation that essentially underpinned each of them.

Don't insult your own intelligence by pretending otherwise.

I think you're failing to look at it from the other point of view.

I'm not saying I agree with the SPL clubs' approach, but it's quite clear that they saw the need to maximise their income in order to have any chance of competing in an environment where their income streams were severely challenged by Bosman to the extent that some even questioned the viability of continuing with youth development. This was exacerbated by the access systems to the Champions League, and the emergence of big tv deals elsewhere.

You say 'that ship had sailed', but do you honestly think that's how those clubs saw it at the time? Just throw their hands in the air and give up on any relevance whatsoever? Of course they were going to try and pull any levers they could to have a hope of continuing to compete.

The top-flight Scottish clubs were victims of the system too. Those above us in the pecking order were pulling the strings they could to cut us out of the loop, so the top-flight teams did the same to those below them. As has been pointed out, the lower-league clubs have fought tooth and nail to protect their position when threatened as well.

The system is shite, but all of our clubs are ultimately victims of it.

[Monkey Tennis]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

I think you're failing to look at it from the other point of view.

I'm not saying I agree with the SPL clubs' approach, but it's quite clear that they saw the need to maximise their income in order to have any chance of competing in an environment where their income streams were severely challenged by Bosman to the extent that some even questioned the viability of continuing with youth development. This was exacerbated by the access systems to the Champions League, and the emergence of big tv deals elsewhere.

You say 'that ship had sailed', but do you honestly think that's how those clubs saw it at the time? Just throw their hands in the air and give up on any relevance whatsoever? Of course they were going to try and pull any levers they could to have a hope of continuing to compete.

The top-flight Scottish clubs were victims of the system too. Those above us in the pecking order were pulling the strings they could to cut us out of the loop, so the top-flight teams did the same to those below them. As has been pointed out, the lower-league clubs have fought tooth and nail to protect their position when threatened as well.

The system is shite, but all of our clubs are ultimately victims of it.

I think you're being very naive, probably wilfully so, in seeing this as a Scottish response to a perceived threat.  

Creating the SPL was not a defensive measure in response to developments elsewhere.  Rather, it was an aggressive response to noticing a climate that permitted selfish exploitation of those regarded as weaker.  

Don't kid yourself that this was done reluctantly, or with a heavy heart.  It was instead performed gleefully.  The fact that Roger Mitchell was prominent, was entirely inkeeping with the nature of the project. 

[VincentGuerin]

Just now, Monkey Tennis said:

I think you're being very naive, probably wilfully so, in seeing this as a Scottish response to a perceived threat.  

Creating the SPL was not a defensive measure in response to developments elsewhere.  Rather, it was an aggressive response to noticing a climate that permitted selfish exploitation of those regarded as weaker.  

Don't kid yourself that this was done reluctantly, or with a heavy heart.  It was instead performed gleefully.  The fact that Roger Mitchell was prominent, was entirely inkeeping with the nature of the project. 

I'm not sure why you think I don't understand the self-interest part. I do.

But I think you're ust writing off the influence of external factors. Scottish football does not exist in a vaccum.

Even the cultural shift of their being a big, successful breakaway down south was always going to have an impact. It was daft to buy into it, but our clubs thought they'd get a nice big tv deal from it.

There's more than one side to this. I get your view of it, I just think you're pretending there's only one side to it.

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, VincentGuerin said:

I'm not sure why you think I don't understand the self-interest part. I do.

But I think you're ust writing off the influence of external factors. Scottish football does not exist in a vaccum.

Even the cultural shift of their being a big, successful breakaway down south was always going to have an impact. It was daft to buy into it, but our clubs thought they'd get a nice big tv deal from it.

There's more than one side to this. I get your view of it, I just think you're pretending there's only one side to it.

No I recognise that there are two sides.

I don't accept, however, that they're equally valid. 

 

I think you're being unduly kind to those behind the SPL, citing its creation with 'what else could they do?' resignation.  

Its creation wasn't inevitable - it was a choice, a despicable one.

[craigkillie]

The other context for the creation of the SPL is that the voting structure of the SFL could often lead to a "tail wagging the dog" situation, and this had particular impacts on the commercial side of things, where the SFL performed poorly (and continued to do so after the breakaway right up until its demise).

For all its many other failings, the SPL was a commercial success, the amount of income received by Scottish football substantially increased over that period, and I'm not convinced that would have happened with the sort of bowling club mentality the SFL had. However, where it mostly went wrong was in the redistribution of that income, it was hoarded almost exclusively by the top 12 rather than some of it being shared around. That obviously had impacts on most SPL clubs too, because it led to relegation having too high a cost. The SPFL merger finally addressed this to a large extent, with prize money in the lower leagues, especially the Championship, increasing massively and the chance of promotion increasing by 50%.

Had the SPL shown a bit more foresight on these issues, and also avoided the 10,000 seater rule, which was also partly commercially driven rather than purely being a deliberate barrier, then I think it would probably still exist and wouldn't be seen in the negative light it is now.

It certainly wasn't just a rebranding to the SPFL though, it represented a very clear positive step towards a bit more parity in our game, and I think we have seen the effects of that over the last decade.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The other context for the creation of the SPL is that the voting structure of the SFL could often lead to a "tail wagging the dog" situation, and this had particular impacts on the commercial side of things, where the SFL performed poorly (and continued to do so after the breakaway right up until its demise).

For all its many other failings, the SPL was a commercial success, the amount of income received by Scottish football substantially increased over that period, and I'm not convinced that would have happened with the sort of bowling club mentality the SFL had. However, where it mostly went wrong was in the redistribution of that income, it was hoarded almost exclusively by the top 12 rather than some of it being shared around. That obviously had impacts on most SPL clubs too, because it led to relegation having too high a cost. The SPFL merger finally addressed this to a large extent, with prize money in the lower leagues, especially the Championship, increasing massively and the chance of promotion increasing by 50%.

Had the SPL shown a bit more foresight on these issues, and also avoided the 10,000 seater rule, which was also partly commercially driven rather than purely being a deliberate barrier, then I think it would probably still exist and wouldn't be seen in the negative light it is now.

It certainly wasn't just a rebranding to the SPFL though, it represented a very clear positive step towards a bit more parity in our game, and I think we have seen the effects of that over the last decade.
 

A good post.

I think, though, that to say the SPL "went wrong"  in keeping all the money for itself is to miss the point.   That's precisely what it was for.

[Thenorthernlight]

On 16/07/2022 at 19:46, bennett said:

Maybe the BBC should have a one off show with a few PnBers replacing their regular pundits.

 

If any BBC types are looking in...

Getting rid of h*ns like McIntyre, Young, etc would be a step in the right direction.

Sportsound will be horrendous listening with McIntyre in the chair.

”Now, let’s get back to ‘Rangers’ “… 

[Alert Mongoose]

I could be wrong but was Macleod not in the presenting seat on Saturday and I thought I heard someone say something that suggested he would be keeping that role.

[DiegoDiego]

Its always "top flight clubs are evil, self interested, monsters" you hear from perennial lower league fans.
Never any mention of how hard the lower league clubs fought, and continue to fight, to prevent those below League Two getting promoted. 

I think that's a bit harsh, I've read plenty of posts from League 2 fans acknowledging the imbalance of the situation.

[microdave]

25 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

 

I think that's a bit harsh, I've read plenty of posts from League 2 fans acknowledging the imbalance of the situation.

I'm one that would fully support the automatic relegation of the bottom placed L2 side even if it ends up being my team. I think it's ridiculous that they get a second chance and that a team winning a league title isn't promoted automatically. I realise that it's complicated to work out due to having two champions competing for one place but at worst, they should play off for promotion.

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

 

I think that's a bit harsh, I've read plenty of posts from League 2 fans acknowledging the imbalance of the situation.

Equally, the one-up, one-down system was criticised for years by supporters of loads of teams inside and outside the top flight. It didn't change how their clubs acted, and the views of lower-league clubs' fans are no more relevant in a discussion about how their clubs behave when their own self-interest is involved.

I accept RG directly referenced fans' views, it's something that could equally be argued the other way. For example, Monkeytennis quite extensively referenced the views of supporters of SPL clubs.

Edited July 18, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

I accept RG directly referenced fans' views, it's something that could equally be argued the other way. For example, Monkeytennis quite extensively referenced the views of supporters of SPL clubs.

Did I?

When?

[resk]

5 hours ago, Alert Mongoose said:

I could be wrong but was Macleod not in the presenting seat on Saturday and I thought I heard someone say something that suggested he would be keeping that role.

I think I heard him say he was doing it for a couple of weeks, after which presumably McIntyre will take over permanently.  

[VincentGuerin]

7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

 

Only ignorant fans of top flight clubs saw this as purely cosmetic.

 

7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The disgraceful bit was in 1998 when clubs like yours abandoned the SFL.   

Seriously, I think there's just complete ignorance around this.   

 

 

Calling it a simple re-brand is to miss all of that, presumably because it hardly mattered to your club.

 

56 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Did I?

When?

As above.

[Monkey Tennis]

6 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

 

As above.

Yes, I wondered if that's what you meant after I'd asked the question.

I don't think it's quite the same thing though.  I wasn't characterising all top flight fans as adhering to a particular outlook.  I was merely commenting on the stance that was already in evidence on the thread, and attempting to attribute it to something.

 

[Alert Mongoose]

19 minutes ago, resk said:

I think I heard him say he was doing it for a couple of weeks, after which presumably McIntyre will take over permanently.  

Ah. I had hoped there had been a change of mind. Macleod was actually better at it than I had anticipated.

[VincentGuerin]

8 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Ah. I had hoped there had been a change of mind. Macleod was actually better at it than I had anticipated.

I was surprised at this too.

Don't particularly enjoy him as a commentator, but as a presenter he was engaging, enthusiastic, and gave good clarity throughout.

A shame he won't be taking over.