What's the most "Tin Pot" thing you've seen in the SPFL

[VincentGuerin]

41 minutes ago, Squonk said:

Exactly. What would be the point of the other ten Premiership clubs proposing a vote on a return to gate sharing, for example? Yet gate sharing stopped in the mid-eighties at the behest of Celtic and Rangers, coincidentally just around the start of the 37 year stranglehold of the top league title by the duopoly.

I've not crunched the numbers on this, and, as boring as I am, I'm unlikely to.

Has anyone ever run the numbers on what the effect would be, for example, on the income gap between Hearts and Celtic over a season? I hear it suggested a lot, but never with numbers.

Instinct tells me this would benefit the smaller clubs, but maybe Hearts and Hibs would lose out, for example?

I could be very wrong.

Edited August 12, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[AJF]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

You made this argument the last time, but it doesn't hold water. Clubs are not going to waste their time proposing resolutions that they know are going to fail.

And this time I also asked what measures could be introduced that would make the SPFL more competitive? I see above gate sharing is floated. I'm not dismissing this as an idea in itself, but is this even feasible in the sense of, would Rangers and Celtic (or any other club, for that matter) be compelled to hand over X% of their turnover against their will? Would a vote amongst the SPFL clubs allow that to legally happen?

I could understand if the decision was to, for example, redistribute prize money in a different manner. Although I don't expect an extra few hundred thousand to certain clubs would bridge that gap. I'm just not sure that the SPFL would hold the power to enforce a club to hand over a chunk of their own turnover, but I could be wrong.

Edited August 12, 2022 by AJF

[LIVIFOREVER]

11 hours ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Billy Davies used to own this property. I can’t remember whether he sold up in 2006 or 2011.

If the current bun owners get an offer over £559,000 I’ll be fcuking stunned. I might go in and say I’ll only make an offer on the condition they rip that fcuking bar out. 55 my arse! Yer old club died a year after you moved in you muppets.

Wonder how many Sevco fans that could afford that property would actually want something so garish as that bar ceiling, i mean my wife would never go for something similar in a Livi crest, and i wouldn't want it on my room ceiling either, there's supporting your team and then there's just being a sad weirdo, border sociopath.

[G51]

17 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Wonder how many Sevco fans that could afford that property would actually want something so garish as that bar ceiling, i mean my wife would never go for something similar in a Livi crest, and i wouldn't want it on my room ceiling either, there's supporting your team and then there's just being a sad weirdo, border sociopath.

I don't think "distastefully decorating your ceiling" quite qualifies as sociopathy tbh. 

['WellDel]

19 minutes ago, G51 said:

I don't think "distastefully decorating your ceiling" quite qualifies as sociopathy tbh. 

No, but it does mark them out as very much OFTW for their poor new neighbours, wherever they rock up next.

 

[LIVIFOREVER]

17 minutes ago, G51 said:

I don't think "distastefully decorating your ceiling" quite qualifies as sociopathy tbh. 

A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour. That kinda describes your average Sevco fan tbh, getting your ceiling decorated like that takes it to another level though. 

 

[Squonk]

32 minutes ago, AJF said:

would Rangers and Celtic (or any other club, for that matter) be compelled to hand over X% of their turnover against their will? Would a vote amongst the SPFL clubs allow that to legally happen?

The big two forced the rest of the clubs "to hand over X% of their turnover against their will" back in the eighties, exactly as you describe. If it was legal back then, how could it be illegal now without a change in the law? Before you tell us the home club should be entitled to keep its gate receipts, bear in mind there would be no gate receipts without the participation of the away team. The re-introduction of gate sharing would be a step in the right direction in trying to make the SPFL more competitive. For that reason, it'll never happen thanks to the absurd 11-1 requirement. It would require turkeys to vote for Christmas.

[AJF]

12 minutes ago, Squonk said:

The big two forced the rest of the clubs "to hand over X% of their turnover against their will" back in the eighties, exactly as you describe. If it was legal back then, how could it be illegal now without a change in the law? Before you tell us the home club should be entitled to keep its gate receipts, bear in mind there would be no gate receipts without the participation of the away team. The re-introduction of gate sharing would be a step in the right direction in trying to make the SPFL more competitive. For that reason, it'll never happen thanks to the absurd 11-1 requirement. It would require turkeys to vote for Christmas.

I'm sure you appreciate that what is accepted and legal in the past is not always a justification that something will be accepted and legal in the present day. You will also appreciate that the governing body and rules that apply to clubs will also have changed a lot since the eighties.

Forgive my ignorance on the matter having not been born until 1990, but was this gate sharing arrangement stipulated by the governing body or was it simply an agreement between the clubs? And how was it changed/challenged?

I don't know whether or not it is feasible, that is why I am asking the question. I simply have my doubts that a 9-3 voting structure would allow it.

Edited August 12, 2022 by AJF

[Grangemouth Bairn]

16 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Or drug dealer?

Reminds me of Mark Richardson's wife's place in Gilmerton

You are a brave man popping round there when hubby’s away.

[Squonk]

1 hour ago, AJF said:

I'm sure you appreciate that what is accepted and legal in the past is not always a justification that something will be accepted and legal in the present day. You will also appreciate that the governing body and rules that apply to clubs will also have changed a lot since the eighties.

Forgive my ignorance on the matter having not been born until 1990, but was this gate sharing arrangement stipulated by the governing body or was it simply an agreement between the clubs? And how was it changed/challenged?

I don't know whether or not it is feasible, that is why I am asking the question. I simply have my doubts that a 9-3 voting structure would allow it.

I can't find anything definitive on the end of gate sharing but from the little information available online, it seems it wasn't just the big two who brought about change in the eighties, so my apologies for misleading and perpetuating an urban myth. Apparently Scottish League clubs voted 26 to 11 in 1980 in favour of the home club retaining gate receipts. If the article I read is accurate, the mind boggles as to what the majority of clubs thought they had to gain from such a drastic change.

On your main point, legality/illegality is an entirely different matter from the application of their own rules by the football authorities, the latter of which can apparently be ignored, re-written, interpreted according to preferred agenda, or just concocted 'subject to board approval.' That's why we had numerous contradictory statements from the suits during Rangers plunge into liquidation where the suits laughingly told us they couldn't do this, that and the other because it wasn't in the rules, yet they were capable of inventing previously unheard of temporary memberships, not to mention having Club 12 exist simultaneously alongside Rangers Football Club (ergo two clubs couldn't possibly be the same club), amongst a host of other things. 

[stu92]

How would splitting gates work when a large proportion of most teams’ attendances will be made up of season tickets that are paid up front at the beginning of the season? Presume this wasn’t an obstacle in the 80s and earlier?

[steelmen]

i think gate sharing is a non starter, a bit like cup games the attendance figure is massaged to there were more comp tickets than paying punters, then there is police and stewarding fees taken off before you get to the figure to be halved. As Stu says above, how do you account for season tickets.

what the smaller clubs would probably try for is changing the split of the prize money. From memory when Rangers died there was a change made to give 3rd, 4th more money. i am guessing that was reverted when newco finally got up to 2nd.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

24 minutes ago, steelmen said:

i think gate sharing is a non starter, a bit like cup games the attendance figure is massaged to there were more comp tickets than paying punters, then there is police and stewarding fees taken off before you get to the figure to be halved. As Stu says above, how do you account for season tickets.

what the smaller clubs would probably try for is changing the split of the prize money. From memory when Rangers died there was a change made to give 3rd, 4th more money. i am guessing that was reverted when newco finally got up to 2nd.

No, there was a significant downwards shift in prize money distribution through the leagues (to tier 2 especially) when the merger took place in 2013. That has not been undone.

[G51]

I can't quite believe folk are talking about hypothetical gate-sharing when the clubs are about to vote through a terrible TV deal negotiated by the worst chief executive in all of sports. 

If we want to talk about revenue issues, start right there. How have we ended up in a situation where we've negotiated a worse TV deal than the one we already had? Are the clubs really that scared of Sky? Are Doncaster and McLennan really that incompetent?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

6 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I've not crunched the numbers on this, and, as boring as I am, I'm unlikely to.

Has anyone ever run the numbers on what the effect would be, for example, on the income gap between Hearts and Celtic over a season? I hear it suggested a lot, but never with numbers.

Instinct tells me this would benefit the smaller clubs, but maybe Hearts and Hibs would lose out, for example?

I could be very wrong.

The average attendances for 2018/19 (the last complete season) was about 16k while Hibs and Hearts got about 17,500 and Aberdeen 15,000

but it appears that gate sharing would be a transfer of resources from the biggest two clubs to the smallest seven with the remainder hardly noticing a difference as their average away  attendance will generally not be far off their average home attendance 

obviously attendances vary year on year and the two effects are never going to balance precisely, The model  could be finessed to take into account various factors if you wanted but the general picture is going to remain 

 

 

[SuperSaints1877]

2 hours ago, G51 said:

I can't quite believe folk are talking about hypothetical gate-sharing when the clubs are about to vote through a terrible TV deal negotiated by the worst chief executive in all of sports. 

If we want to talk about revenue issues, start right there. How have we ended up in a situation where we've negotiated a worse TV deal than the one we already had? Are the clubs really that scared of Sky? Are Doncaster and McLennan really that incompetent?

I have no fcuking idea how Doncaster still remains at the top job. He is absolutely fcuking hopeless and out of touch. The deals brokered during his time have been appalling.

Does he have photographic and video evidence of the chairmen of all the league clubs indulging in drug fuelled orgies?

Get that cnut tae fcuk!

[Illgresi]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

The average attendances for 2018/19 (the last complete season) was about 16k while Hibs and Hearts got about 17,500 and Aberdeen 15,000

but it appears that gate sharing would be a transfer of resources from the biggest two clubs to the smallest seven with the remainder hardly noticing a difference as their average away  attendance will generally not be far off their average home attendance 

obviously attendances vary year on year and the two effects are never going to balance precisely, The model  could be finessed to take into account various factors if you wanted but the general picture is going to remain 

 

 

I remember when Milne voted against changing the voting system, I did a back-of-envelope calculation based on average attendances the previous season. The only clubs at the time that were losing gate receipts were Celtic and Rangers by between 40-50% IIRC and Hearts by about 2%. All the other clubs stood to gain something.

Shame on Stewart Milne.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, G51 said:

I can't quite believe folk are talking about hypothetical gate-sharing when the clubs are about to vote through a terrible TV deal negotiated by the worst chief executive in all of sports. 

If we want to talk about revenue issues, start right there. How have we ended up in a situation where we've negotiated a worse TV deal than the one we already had? Are the clubs really that scared of Sky? Are Doncaster and McLennan really that incompetent?

You're seeing the central issue as the size of any pot.

It's not.  Its distribution is what matters.

[G51]

24 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You're seeing the central issue as the size of any pot.

It's not.  Its distribution is what matters.

1/42nd of f**k all is still f**k all. 

[kingjoey]

18 minutes ago, G51 said:

1/42nd of f**k all is still f**k all. 

That’s a great sound bite. But it’s not f*ck all in reality.