Cyclizine Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: England...100+ full time teams, 5 national leagues. Scotland 22 full time clubs, 4 national leagues. Doesn't make sense. So what? Scotland is a small country and we're not England. If the SPFL clubs thought regionalisation would bring in more crowds and cash, we'd already be doing it. Edited March 9, 2020 by Cyclizine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: England...100+ full time teams, 5 national leagues. Scotland 22 full time clubs, 4 national leagues. Doesn't make sense. Actually makes perfect sense. England has a population of 55,000,000 but, of that population, only 0.7% of the population goes to league football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 374,730. Scotland has a population of 5,400,000 but of that population, 1.1% of the population goes to football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 61,401 This gives us, roughly 16% of the "football" population of England. Therefore we should have, roughly 16% of the number of full time clubs. That means 22 full time clubs, for equivalency, England should have around 130 full time clubs. Which is about the figure they have. But, then again, should England have that many full time clubs at a national level compared to Scotland? Whereas the longest possible journey between full time clubs in Scotland is Killie to Dingwall (4hrs) the longest in England is, what, Carlisle to Plymouth? That's twice as long a journey. Even taking away outliers the geographic spread in England is far more diverse unlike ourselves. All but half a dozen full time clubs in Scotland are in the central belt (if we're being very generous and claiming Killie and Perth aren't central belt) The fact that that travel costs in England are, generally, higher means they have the same amount of full time clubs as Scotland has (per population that actually goes to the football) but have greater costs associated with it. Edited March 9, 2020 by AsimButtHitsASix 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 6 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: Actually makes perfect sense. England has a population of 55,000,000 but, of that population, only 0.7% of the population goes to league football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 374,730. Scotland has a population of 5,400,000 but of that population, 1.1% of the population goes to football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 61,401 This gives us, roughly 16% of the "football" population of England. Therefore we should have, roughly 16% of the number of full time clubs. That means 22 full time clubs, for equivalency, England should have around 130 full time clubs. Which is about the figure they have. But, then again, should England have that many full time clubs at a national level compared to Scotland? Whereas the longest possible journey between full time clubs in Scotland is Killie to Aberdeen the longest in England is, what, Carlisle to Plymouth? Even taking away outliers the geographic spread in England is far more diverse unlike ourselves. All but half a dozen full time clubs in Scotland are in the central belt (if we're being very generous and claiming Killie and Perth aren't central belt) The fact that that travel costs in England are, generally, higher means they have the same amount of full time clubs as Scotland has (per population that actually goes to the football) but have greater costs associated with it. Killie to Aberdeen ? Try QoS to Ross County both full time clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: Killie to Aberdeen ? Try QoS to Ross County both full time clubs. Ah right. I forgot about QoS. I had already edited to include Dingwall. My apologies. I'll amend. I'll put the all important changes in bold. Actually makes perfect sense. England has a population of 55,000,000 but, of that population, only 0.7% of the population goes to league football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 374,730. Scotland has a population of 5,400,000 but of that population, 1.1% of the population goes to football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 61,401 This gives us, roughly 16% of the "football" population of England. Therefore we should have, roughly 16% of the number of full time clubs. That means 22 full time clubs, for equivalency, England should have around 130 full time clubs. Which is about the figure they have. But, then again, should England have that many full time clubs at a national level compared to Scotland? Whereas the longest possible journey between full time clubs in Scotland is Dumfries to Dingwall (4.5hrs) the longest in England is, what, Carlisle to Plymouth? That's almost twice as long a journey. Even taking away outliers the geographic spread in England is far more diverse unlike ourselves. All but half a dozen full time clubs in Scotland are in the central belt (if we're being very generous and claiming Killie and Perth aren't central belt) The fact that that travel costs in England are, generally, higher means they have the same amount of full time clubs as Scotland has (per population that actually goes to the football) but have greater costs associated with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 Scotland isnt a big enough country ,, not enough population, not enough full time teams for 4 national leagues.Who decides what the population is needed to have national leagues. The USA has the 3rd highest population on Earth at around 330 million yet only have one national soccer league, one national football league, one national ice hockey league... Scotland has 3 national rugby union leagues with much smaller crowds going to those games and much less TV and sponsorship revenue. Ireland has a similar population to us and only two national leagues but their league is very much the 4th, 5th or 6th most popular sport depending on who you speak to (hurling, Gaelic football, being the top 3; sometimes horse racing and "watching the English league" are quoted as being more popular than the League of Ireland).So which is it? Should the USA have 60 national leagues? Given that football is the number one sport in Scotland, surely it should have more national leagues than rugby (and indeed hockey, which also has 3 national leagues) and it should have more national leagues than Ireland where football is almost a minority sport? The population argument makes no sense and that's before talking about population distribution! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 10 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said: Scotland has 3 national rugby union leagues We actually have four (Premiership, National 1/2/3), plus Super 6. At one point there was six. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 We actually have four (Premiership, National 1/2/3), plus Super 6. At one point there was six.Point. I was ignoring the Super Six, although by all accounts it has been better than many had initially feared. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 I always find it funny where it’s seen as unsustainable for highly payed PT players to be playing national football whilst mid to top end amateurs compete uk wide weekly and often internationally in other sports. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 18 hours ago, Doonhamer1969 said: England...100+ full time teams, 5 national leagues. Scotland 22 full time clubs, 4 national leagues. Doesn't make sense. That's not actually an argument at all though, is it? Is whatever England do the absolute standard of what is correct? Is it the number of full time clubs you have an issue with our the number of tiers? If the SPFL was fully national but only contained two or three tiers, would that make more sense to you even though exactly the same number of clubs would be playing at a national level? If you want to compare to England, then there are part time teams playing in the National League who face enormously more travel time and cost than any part time team in Scotland over a season. When you go down to the regional level, take the Northern Premier League, fully part time and has a much larger geographical spread than Scottish League One or League Two. The average club there will, again, have a much higher travelling cost in both time and money with the longest journey being around 4 hours. Let's go down a level again, to the Northern League Division One North West (tier 7). Again, it has a larger geographical spread than any league in Scotland in terms of average travelling time for each club over a season, with Workington in the NW, Gateshead in the NE, Pontefract in the SW and Runcorn in the SE. You're holding up Engalnd has being a great example of not making clubs travel too far but if you compared the 10 part time clubs who travelled furthest in Scotland versus the 10 who travelled furthest in England over a season, I'd bet the English clubs comfortabley travel further. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Gordon EF said: That's not actually an argument at all though, is it? Is whatever England do the absolute standard of what is correct? Is it the number of full time clubs you have an issue with our the number of tiers? If the SPFL was fully national but only contained two or three tiers, would that make more sense to you even though exactly the same number of clubs would be playing at a national level? If you want to compare to England, then there are part time teams playing in the National League who face enormously more travel time and cost than any part time team in Scotland over a season. When you go down to the regional level, take the Northern Premier League, fully part time and has a much larger geographical spread than Scottish League One or League Two. The average club there will, again, have a much higher travelling cost in both time and money with the longest journey being around 4 hours. Let's go down a level again, to the Northern League Division One North West (tier 7). Again, it has a larger geographical spread than any league in Scotland in terms of average travelling time for each club over a season, with Workington in the NW, Gateshead in the NE, Pontefract in the SW and Runcorn in the SE. You're holding up Engalnd has being a great example of not making clubs travel too far but if you compared the 10 part time clubs who travelled furthest in Scotland versus the 10 who travelled furthest in England over a season, I'd bet the English clubs comfortabley travel further. My issue is with the number of tiers, as i said, and , again as ive already said, the number of full time clubs. Believe you me, i am no fan of copying England because 'they know best', but they are way ahead of us in Pyramid terms, so studying what they've done, copying the best bits and ignoring the mistakes, is an utterly sensible thing to do. Regarding the part time teams in England playing in the conference, as you well know, they are getting bigger crowds than our League 1 and 2 teams, and even bigger crowds than some of our Championship teams (Eg Alloa, Arbroath) Also, re travelling distances, as part of the reorganisation of the English pyramid currently under way, teams in Tier 9 (Step 5) are currently being moved around PRECISELY to reduce travelling distance. That's why the current 14 leagues at that tier are being increased to 17. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Gordon EF said: That's not actually an argument at all though, is it? Is whatever England do the absolute standard of what is correct? Is it the number of full time clubs you have an issue with our the number of tiers? If the SPFL was fully national but only contained two or three tiers, would that make more sense to you even though exactly the same number of clubs would be playing at a national level? If you want to compare to England, then there are part time teams playing in the National League who face enormously more travel time and cost than any part time team in Scotland over a season. When you go down to the regional level, take the Northern Premier League, fully part time and has a much larger geographical spread than Scottish League One or League Two. The average club there will, again, have a much higher travelling cost in both time and money with the longest journey being around 4 hours. Let's go down a level again, to the Northern League Division One North West (tier 7). Again, it has a larger geographical spread than any league in Scotland in terms of average travelling time for each club over a season, with Workington in the NW, Gateshead in the NE, Pontefract in the SW and Runcorn in the SE. You're holding up Engalnd has being a great example of not making clubs travel too far but if you compared the 10 part time clubs who travelled furthest in Scotland versus the 10 who travelled furthest in England over a season, I'd bet the English clubs comfortabley travel further. You're just making stuff up. Show me where i 'held up England as a great example of not making clubs travel too far' ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: My issue is with the number of tiers, as i said, and , again as ive already said, the number of full time clubs. But what would you propose doing about the number of full time clubs? Forcing some FT clubs to go part time? Are you saying you'd be happy moving to three tiers within the SPFL whilst keeping all 42 clubs despite it solving absolutely none of the supposed travelling problems? Quote Believe you me, i am no fan of copying England because 'they know best', but they are way ahead of us in Pyramid terms, so studying what they've done, copying the best bits and ignoring the mistakes, is an utterly sensible thing to do. That;s fair enough but doesn't that require some actual analysis of what works there and why it works? All you're saying isthat propertionally more clubs play nationally in Scotland without taking any other context into account. Quote Regarding the part time teams in England playing in the conference, as you well know, they are getting bigger crowds than our League 1 and 2 teams, and even bigger crowds than some of our Championship teams (Eg Alloa, Arbroath) Possibly, which was why the main foucs of my point was the regionalised level below the National League. If we say that the lowest level the national structure in England is roughly analogous to the Championship in Scotland i.e. most years with a significant majority FT with some PT clubs so it makes sense for that to be a national league. Then the question is at the level below this (mostly PT clubs with a few FTs), what distances is it reasonable to expect those clubs to travel based on their income. In England, the first regionalised league, the average attendences are much lower than Scottish League One (only 4/22 clubs have a higher average than Forfar - the second lowest in L1) and on average the travel greater distances. So on the cost in time and money of travelling argument, it makes less sense to regionalise Scottish League One than it does to even further regionalise tier 6 in England. Quote Also, re travelling distances, as part of the reorganisation of the English pyramid currently under way, teams in Tier 9 (Step 5) are currently being moved around PRECISELY to reduce travelling distance. That's why the current 14 leagues at that tier are being increased to 17. OK, but clubs in tier 9 in England are in a very different position to clubs in tier 3/4 in Scotland. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: You're just making stuff up. Show me where i 'held up England as a great example of not making clubs travel too far' ? Quote England...100+ full time teams, 5 national leagues. Scotland 22 full time clubs, 4 national leagues. Doesn't make sense. If your main argument in favour of regionalising tier 3 is reduced travelling and a comparison with England, it would stand o reason that the English structure must allow clubs of a similar stature/income to play in a league where they don't have to travel as far as they do in Scotland. This absolutely is not the case. Edited March 10, 2020 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 21 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: Actually makes perfect sense. England has a population of 55,000,000 but, of that population, only 0.7% of the population goes to league football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 374,730. Scotland has a population of 5,400,000 but of that population, 1.1% of the population goes to football matches. This means they have a "football" population of 61,401 This gives us, roughly 16% of the "football" population of England. Therefore we should have, roughly 16% of the number of full time clubs. That means 22 full time clubs, for equivalency, England should have around 130 full time clubs. Which is about the figure they have. But, then again, should England have that many full time clubs at a national level compared to Scotland? Whereas the longest possible journey between full time clubs in Scotland is Killie to Dingwall (4hrs) the longest in England is, what, Carlisle to Plymouth? That's twice as long a journey. Even taking away outliers the geographic spread in England is far more diverse unlike ourselves. All but half a dozen full time clubs in Scotland are in the central belt (if we're being very generous and claiming Killie and Perth aren't central belt) The fact that that travel costs in England are, generally, higher means they have the same amount of full time clubs as Scotland has (per population that actually goes to the football) but have greater costs associated with it. They have the money to do it. Plymouth's crowd on Saturday was 12,000+ ( ive been to Plymouth more times than ive had hot dinners , my son was brought up there ) Killie and Ross County's average crowd ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: They have the money to do it. Plymouth's crowd on Saturday was 12,000+ ( ive been to Plymouth more times than ive had hot dinners , my son was brought up there ) Killie and Ross County's average crowd ? How could you possibly read that post and think this was the pertinent point? Edited March 10, 2020 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, Doonhamer1969 said: They have the money to do it. Plymouth's crowd on Saturday was 12,000+ ( ive been to Plymouth more times than ive had hot dinners , my son was brought up there ) Killie and Ross County's average crowd ? But what was Solihull Moors? Or AFC Fylde? etc. You can't hand pick on team to make an example. Which of the full time clubs in Scotland does not receive adequate crowds to support full time football? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 Think in amongst all this was there are clubs at Step 3 in the English Pyramid that cover a greater area than SPFL1& SPFL2 and are part time almost entirely. Looking at attendances there are several clubs that don't even break 200 on average through the gate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 If travel is the main concern then it's obvious that for each level you weigh up the typical resources of clubs at a particular level (using attendences as a proxy is sensible) vs the cost of travelling. If cost of travelling becomes too much of a burden then regionalisation makes sense, assuming there's a sensible geographic split to be made. Looking specifically at Leagues One and Two in Scotland, I don't think any of these conditions are met. 1. Clubs generally aren't complaining about unaffordable travel costs. 2. In comparison with regionalised leagues in England, Scottish clubs at tiers 3 and 4 do less travelling than clubs of similar stature / resources in England. 3. the geography of Scotland isn't particularly suited to regionalisation at that level. Given that the majority of clubs in positions 23-42 come from the central belt, a relative border would only cut that group of teams in half, forcing some of them into the insane situation where they travel further in a regionalised league and are potentially denied playing derbies. A hard border would result in ludicrously unequal divisions where the strength in the South would be much greater than the North. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 30 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: But what was Solihull Moors? Or AFC Fylde? etc. You can't hand pick on team to make an example. Which of the full time clubs in Scotland does not receive adequate crowds to support full time football? !! My team for a start ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer1969 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 16 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: If travel is the main concern then it's obvious that for each level you weigh up the typical resources of clubs at a particular level (using attendences as a proxy is sensible) vs the cost of travelling. If cost of travelling becomes too much of a burden then regionalisation makes sense, assuming there's a sensible geographic split to be made. Looking specifically at Leagues One and Two in Scotland, I don't think any of these conditions are met. 1. Clubs generally aren't complaining about unaffordable travel costs. 2. In comparison with regionalised leagues in England, Scottish clubs at tiers 3 and 4 do less travelling than clubs of similar stature / resources in England. 3. the geography of Scotland isn't particularly suited to regionalisation at that level. Given that the majority of clubs in positions 23-42 come from the central belt, a relative border would only cut that group of teams in half, forcing some of them into the insane situation where they travel further in a regionalised league and are potentially denied playing derbies. A hard border would result in ludicrously unequal divisions where the strength in the South would be much greater than the North. Because they are used to it. If their travelling costs were reduced, why on earth would they not welcome it ?? As ive said already, if there is no desire for it among the clubs, fine , it stays as it is. I still fail to see though, how 10 clubs, and EVERY single club below them, wouldnt want to be one tier closer to the top. If the preferable solution is 42 clubs in 3 tiers, ie bigger leagues, 14 or 16, again fine, so be it. But im not pretending to be a spokesman on behalf of 20 clubs. Are you ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.