cowdenbeath Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Just now, newcastle broon said: I know what you meant sorry just couldn't resist I know you know It would be a good set up if you could get all the non league sides under one banner, doubt it will happen in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab B Nesbit Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 25 minutes ago, cowdenbeath said: How do we know they wouldn't be interested in a league with an East/West split the question hasn't been asked. For me it would be the ideal thing as there is just too much of a population base and teams in the LL catchment area, quite a few sides in the east juniors with better facilities than some of the LL sides and they play in their own towns I'm sure it would have been suggested by the Juniors if they had any interest. Time to look forward and WW will continue to progress in the LL. I'm sure there is but there's as many in poor facilities and the odd one not even in their own town Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newcastle broon Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 27 minutes ago, cowdenbeath said: I'm looking at the overall view of Scottish non league football from a neutral point of view, go to watch teams at all levels when Cowden arn't playing. Come doon and watch ww sometime been quite impressed wi the 2 laddies you've gave us on loan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdenbeath Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 4 minutes ago, newcastle broon said: Come doon and watch ww sometime been quite impressed wi the 2 laddies you've gave us on loan I'll get to a game sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Burton Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Why do full time clubs subsidise part time clubs? That to me is bonkers! Elgin City v Berwick Rangers wouldn't happen without the subsidy(called prize money laughably) that the full time clubs share.Its them that bring in the crowds,sponsorship and TV deal. I cant see that continuing in the future with the way football is going in this country. They don't subsidies the part time clubs. Its prize money that has to be earned and amounts to a fraction of the money received into Scottish football. Going by your logic Celtic will receive a 10 million subsidy for making the champions league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Celtic's champions league games will be televised and will hence help generate the income to be distributed between participants. Edinburgh City's league games this season will not and will add next to nothing in terms of value in broadcasting and sponsor terms. That's the difference that turns it into a subsidy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Burton Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Bt sport didn't spend a fortune to show the champions league because of Celtic. In terms of the champions league, Celtic are a Diddy club much the same as league one or two clubs in Scotland. The likes of Turiff United, Cowdenbeath have had games televised this season. In the last few seasons there has been plenty of live games televised from the lower leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Edinburgh City would get 0.18% of SPFL monies for their current league placing. Also "next to nothing". However they contribute more than that in proportion of SPFL crowds (0.23%) and lower-level games contribute to income streams like naming rights exposure, pools cash and so on. Occasional SPFL2 games do get televised, btw - QP v Berwick was last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 ...and we have always been at war with Eastasia. The normal scenario would be that the top tier (or its individual member clubs) would sell their TV rights and share the naming rights and the lower semi-pro level divisions would be expected to secure their own deals in a similar manner to the Lowland League. The only reason the subsidy of the lower SPFL divisions still happens is that the voting clout of the smaller part-time clubs within the old SFL constitution made it impossible for the SPL in legal terms to make a clean break financially. "Diddy team" fans all tend to drone on about how much they despise the Old Firm even though the subsidy drip feed that keeps their clubs in the manner to which they are accustomed revolves around keeping the whole Billy vs Dan thing going from generation to generation to keep the armchair punters hooked, just as the political elite drones on about the evils of "sectarianism" in the aftermath of Old Firm games but are happy to cynically exploit it to try to get the proles to vote for them on a dog whistle type basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendan Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/8/2016 at 01:15, LongTimeLurker said: Celtic's champions league games will be televised and will hence help generate the income to be distributed between participants. Edinburgh City's league games this season will not and will add next to nothing in terms of value in broadcasting and sponsor terms. That's the difference that turns it into a subsidy. BT had to buy the UK rights as one package - Celtic get a proportion of that as participants. The lower leagues contribute quite a bit from fixture list fees and exposure for sponsors (as the Scottish lower league results generally are treated with a UK-wide reverence that they probably don't quite deserve). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 No quite about it as far as I can see. If the lower two tiers were cut loose and had to find their own title sponsor, they would soon be treated on a par with something like the Isthmian League by the London based media and even in Scotland I suspect they would soon be getting Highland League level sort of coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstarstranraer Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 On 08/09/2016 at 07:32, LongTimeLurker said: ...and we have always been at war with Eastasia. The normal scenario would be that the top tier (or its individual member clubs) would sell their TV rights and share the naming rights and the lower semi-pro level divisions would be expected to secure their own deals in a similar manner to the Lowland League. The only reason the subsidy of the lower SPFL divisions still happens is that the voting clout of the smaller part-time clubs within the old SFL constitution made it impossible for the SPL in legal terms to make a clean break financially. "Diddy team" fans all tend to drone on about how much they despise the Old Firm even though the subsidy drip feed that keeps their clubs in the manner to which they are accustomed revolves around keeping the whole Billy vs Dan thing going from generation to generation to keep the armchair punters hooked, just as the political elite drones on about the evils of "sectarianism" in the aftermath of Old Firm games but are happy to cynically exploit it to try to get the proles to vote for them on a dog whistle type basis. Are you really insinuating the only marketable asset Scottish football has to generate TV revenue is a history of religious bigotry? I've no idea where you're coming from on this but this doesn't seem to be an accurate reflection of Scottish football or society to me. The idea that the 'diddy teams', in the absence of the old firm, would get no TV or sponsorship deals whatsoever is clearly nonsensical, nor does every 'armchair punter' tune in to games only involving the two Glasgow clubs concerned. Self-evidently it would be a smaller sum, perhaps much smaller, but there clearly is a market for coverage of other clubs in the Scottish system so to pretend that without the old firm fixtures Scottish football would be entirely bankrupt is ludicrous. After all we've not had a regular 'Billy v Dan' revenue generator for the last few seasons and we did just about survive the ensuing armageddon. The 'subsidy' from the premier league clearly isn't all generated by two clubs and there would still be money available without them. As has been said above the part-time clubs do also generate revenue themselves. If monies from the larger clubs were to disappear I doubt the level of the part-time game would drop that substantially. After all most of the players aren't getting huge amounts as things stand, and were these wages to drop where would they all go? Most would presumably still want to play the game at the highest level they could and I doubt they'd all be poached by English National League clubs or whatever. Some clubs might struggle but were the SFL essentially to be resurrected without any future funding from the top 12-18 teams most would cope even if there were initial difficulties for some sides. The coverage of League One and Two is scarcely better than that of the Highland League anyway these days across most media outlets. I don't think that the SPFL consciously markets the old firm clubs in the basis of sectarianism (which does exist, you don't need the quotation marks). Evidently they don't take the kind of action they could and should to stamp it out but I think this is more due to an unwillingness to upset what they see as the two big beasts of the Scottish game than a tacit approval of religious intolerance. As to the political elites whipping it up to win votes when and how does that actually occur in 21st century Scotland? As far as I can see no major Scottish political party is deliberately trying to foster a sectarian divide in order to gain support. As an aside I'd be interested to know how 22 English clubs could make a clean break and ditch 70 other football league sides in a way that the SPL clubs were apparently unable to mimic. Genuine question if anybody has any answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Redstarstranraer said: Are you really insinuating the only marketable asset Scottish football has to generate TV revenue is a history of religious bigotry? Where satellite broadcasters like Sky TV are concerned to be quite blunt, yes, although I would probably quibble about the "religious bigotry" terminology. Take out the Old Firm and replace them with normal clubs with no Ireland/Ulster related ethnocultural baggage and Scottish football would be looking at BBC Scotland or STV as the main partner for significantly less money than it gets now and a lot more of the armchair punters would be Man U or Liverpool supporters etc, which is already happening to a significant extent with the younger generation. On politicians it is not really the subforum for it but what I have in mind is the ongoing support for faith schools when only 4% of the population actually goes to church regularly and all the bizarre legislation adding "sectarian" aggravations when a Breach of the Peace charge could do the job just fine given it allows complete flexibility on sentencing and the people involved seldom go anywhere near a church. Alex Salmond was big into that as was Jack McConnell. Nicola Sturgeon is reported to be less keen and to see it as a legacy from Alex Salmond, so maybe there's hope for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstarstranraer Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 I'm not sure we're really that reliant on either the old firm or the context they supposedly play in, or we shouldn't be and need not be. You'll have to excuse some rather hasty back-of-a-fag-packet style calculations here, but the last news regarding the Sky contract was that the new deal was something like 25% better than the old one. There don't seem to be exact figures as to what that means but it was about 15m a year so presumably it's more like 18.75m a season now. So it isn't as if Sky are exactly showering the SPFL with cash no matter what the motivation they have for showing the games might be. Looking at leagues I think are vaguely comparable with Scotland throws up some interesting results. The Danish Superliga was getting (from 2009) roughly 140m Euros for its TV rights. That deal was renewed in 2014 and again what the figures are now exactly I couldn't say but if that 140m Euro covered 5 seasons that would be 28m Euro a year, which even allowing for fluctuations in the value of the pound is a generous deal in comparison to ours given FC Copenhagen and the like aren't supposedly as well-supported as the old firm. The figures I've seen suggest the Norwegian Tippeligaen has secured a deal worth about 46m dollars a year over six years. The Austrian Bundesliga was getting 20.2m Euro a year from 2012 and that figure may well have increased since. In 2008 the Belgian Pro League was getting 45m Euro a season. Besides that Sky pay English rugby league and union far more per season even though the average attendances they get are much lower, and I doubt there are substantially more armchair fans of rugby out there than Scottish football (if there are why are their actual attendances so poor?).* Evidently it's possible to quibble about the relative size and appeal of the leagues cited above, but it's certainly the case that in each instance quite decent sums are being offered to leagues arguably of no greater quality and no better attended than the SPFL premiership. Leagues which certainly do not rely on decades of 'ethnocultural baggage' to push their product. I would suspect that were we to somehow find overnight that the whole Ireland/Ulster aspect of Scottish football (which is indeed becoming increasingly irrelevant in society more broadly) had disappeared then the product would still be marketable to satellite broadcasters. Anyway I would still maintain I don't see it as the main draw in any case, and even if it were the above examples show how we could achieve as much income if not more if it were totally disregarded. The main culprit seems to be the SPFL's total inability to negotiate a decent deal for itself. On the politics front I likewise don't really want to get into it that much but I'd argue the faith-based schooling is more a relic that politicians don't want to touch for fear of upsetting certain communities (i.e. mostly in this instance the Catholic community although also some Protestants) rather than an attempt to foster division and profit from it, although that might have been the case 50 years ago or so. Again the OBAF act controversy is another discussion but I think it was more a ham-fisted attempt to quash sectarian sentiment than profit from stoking up antagonism. *Just to add the actual viewing figures are supposedly lower than those Sky pull in for the SPFL as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 On 09/09/2016 at 15:27, Redstarstranraer said: Besides that Sky pay English rugby league and union far more per season even though the average attendances they get are much lower, and I doubt there are substantially more armchair fans of rugby out there than Scottish football (if there are why are their actual attendances so poor?).* *Just to add the actual viewing figures are supposedly lower than those Sky pull in for the SPFL as well. Since this deal was done i've seen this argument banded about from time to time. I've always taken it as it might well be a smaller audience but it is a different audience. They attract additional subscribers & sponsors for their rugby coverage, whereas Scottish football is predominantly covered by English & Spanish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 On 04/09/2016 at 14:50, Rab B Nesbit said: I'm sure it would have been suggested by the Juniors if they had any interest. Time to look forward and WW will continue to progress in the LL. I'm sure there is but there's as many in poor facilities and the odd one not even in their own town erm........it was the SJFA who stated they would only be interested in a three region solution to mirror the Junior set-up, so it has already been suggested - by the Juniors! It was ignored of course. If this was re-visited, I'm sure that the Juniors would engage. Who is going to push this though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VodkaTap Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, Burnie_man said: erm........it was the SJFA who stated they would only be interested in a three region solution to mirror the Junior set-up, so it has already been suggested - by the Juniors! It was ignored of course. If this was re-visited, I'm sure that the Juniors would engage. Who is going to push this though? So what you are really saying is that only the juniors know wot's best for non league footie & has decided it was their way or no way ???? Everyone has to fall in with their view - or they will simply take the huff, pick up their ball & go play by themselves ! What an arrogant view to hold !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanley Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 In this case, the juniors have the right view. I have no loyalties whatsoever to the juniors and I'm very pro-pyramid but it's simply common sense to realise that a north/south divide at tier five rather than a north/east/west divide (when the majority of the population lives in the central belt) makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendan Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I think most people would agree that a E/W/N split would be better, but only *if* the Juniors joined. I can't help suspecting the juniors would encourage an E/W split but then still refuse to join, for other reasons. I think they've set out on path now that they don't feel any pressure to change. The demotion of league teams like East Stirlingshire and the promotion of others like Edinburgh City and possibly teams like EK means that 10-20 years down the line there will probably be quite a strong LL even without any Junior involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VodkaTap Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Burnie_man said: erm........it was the SJFA who stated they would only be interested in a three region solution to mirror the Junior set-up, so it has already been suggested - by the Juniors! It was ignored of course. If this was re-visited, I'm sure that the Juniors would engage. Who is going to push this though? If this 3 region view was proposed by the Juniors then this was not the reason given as to why they wanted nothing to do with the setup of the LL. The comments at the time were all about not enough information, it was all too rushed and so on. Nothing about it should be 3 leagues. This sounds more like re-writing of the history to suit the current attitudes to a pyramid. I totally understand that there enough quality junior teams coupled with the existing LL teams to provide a healthy two team league outwith the highland league. But please don't try to tell us that this is why the juniors did not engage in the pyramid process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.