Would you change our league?

[coprolite]

I completely agree that it is "a bad thing" for the OF to dominate our league like they do. 

It isn't the only characteristic that our league has though. 

The possibility of winning the league in the next, say, 20 years is only ever going to be realistic for a handful of clubs. 

Were Cowdenbeath or Ayr fans jubilant when the Dons won the league in the 80s or when Hearts won it last September? 

There are plenty other places to play for. 

The championship (guffy) is more competitive than the SPL but lacks the atmosphere and character that, for me, define our league more than who wins it. 

I would change our league (bigger divisions, 1 each h&a+ more egalitarian prize money) but I think that most of the jeremiads on here are ott: it's a decent league and far from fucked. 

The main assymetry comes from the CL cartel, which is external to our league. 

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, OSP said:

Which would probably be domination by 1 or 2 other teams taking their place. If they hadn't been there since the start of the Premiership in Scotland, Aberdeen would have won it 4 of the 6 times, and finished 2nd once. How is that much different than what has been happening with Celtic and Rangers for the last 30 odd years?

Best-of-the-rest, working backwards from last season to the first season of the SPL:

Kilmarnock

Aberdeen x4

Motherwell x3

Hearts

Dundee Utd

Hearts

Motherwell

Aberdeen

Hearts

Hibs

Hearts x2

Livingston

Hibs

Hearts

St Johnstone

Eight different winners in 21 seasons, with Hearts winning the most on 6, Aberdeen on 5 and Motherwell on 4. That's hardly the same as Celtic 14, Rangers 7.

[OSP]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

Best-of-the-rest, working backwards from last season to the first season of the SPL:

Kilmarnock

Aberdeen x4

Motherwell x3

Hearts

Dundee Utd

Hearts

Motherwell

Aberdeen

Hearts

Hibs

Hearts x2

Livingston

Hibs

Hearts

St Johnstone

Eight different winners in 21 seasons, with Hearts winning the most on 6, Aberdeen on 5 and Motherwell on 4. That's hardly the same as Celtic 14, Rangers 7.

Fair point, but do you believe if Aberdeen had won it 4 out of the last 6 times, being seen as the top side in the country, and with potential to make more money from Europe for example, that they wouldn't have grown even stronger?

I just struggle to see that we wouldn't still have 1 or 2 clubs out ahead of the others for concerted periods of time. Although, I severely doubt it would be as bad as it is with Celtic and Rangers, so I get your point there.

[GordonS]

Or put it another way - the most league titles any club other than the OF have won is 4. Celtic have won as many titles since 1980, and Rangers since 1975, as all of the other teams in Scotland have won combined since the league started in 1890.

[HibsFan]

On 22/10/2019 at 14:25, LondonHMFC said:

Whilst a salary cap may make our league slightly more competitive, the likes of Rangers & Celtic would have a much harder time in Europe.

A more competitive league AND weegies in tears and snotters after being knocked out by some Cypriot mob?

That sounds like a win-win to me. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, OSP said:

Which would probably be domination by 1 or 2 other teams taking their place. If they hadn't been there since the start of the Premiership in Scotland, Aberdeen would have won it 4 of the 6 times, and finished 2nd once. How is that much different than what has been happening with Celtic and Rangers for the last 30 odd years?

Personally I enjoy it more when it's closer between Celtic and the other teams in the league. For a good few years Hibs used to come to Celtic Park and play 4-3-3 and put the shitters up us every time, was great games to watch.

But at the end of the day, I still want my team to be top. Blatant self interest wins in the end every time unfortunately.

Football isn't a sport anymore for the clubs involved, it's a business. And because of that, they look after their own self interests before everything else. Which means the vast majority of the time the clubs with the most resources and influence, will stay at the top, with a few exceptional circumstances.

In other words, the gross imbalance actually suits you and you like it.  It also suits the other OF fans and the bulk of our media.  Basically, there are far too many people who want an illusion of competition, rather than the real thing.

That's why it won't change, and that's why it's shit.

[OSP]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

In other words, the gross imbalance actually suits you and you like it.  It also suits the other OF fans and the bulk of our media.  Basically, there are far too many people who want an illusion of competition, rather than the real thing.

That's why it won't change, and that's why it's shit.

Don't think I've tried to hide the fact that blatant self interest is key here.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas for a reason.

Doesn't make it right at all, but I can't see anything changing anytime soon.

But don't pretend for a second that it's only Celtic and Rangers that work this way. It's like that all the way across football, and not only in this country.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, OSP said:

Don't think I've tried to hide the fact that blatant self interest is key here.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas for a reason.

Doesn't make it right at all, but I can't see anything changing anytime soon.

But don't pretend for a second that it's only Celtic and Rangers that work this way. It's like that all the way across football, and not only in this country.

I'm not pretending it's unique to Scotland, but it is more pronounced here.

It's also the situation that concerns me most, on account of the fact that I'm a Scottish football fan who lives in Scotland.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, OSP said:

Don't think I've tried to hide the fact that blatant self interest is key here.

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas for a reason.

Doesn't make it right at all, but I can't see anything changing anytime soon.

But don't pretend for a second that it's only Celtic and Rangers that work this way. It's like that all the way across football, and not only in this country.

Yes, the powerful clubs try and make it a closed shop as much as possible across football, no arguments there.

Only in Scotland have we not only accepted it but embraced it.

[Romeo]

Fans of other clubs outside Celtic and Sevco should be asking their own clubs why they continue to vote for and put up with the current set up.

[wastecoatwilly]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

In other words, the gross imbalance actually suits you and you like it.  It also suits the other OF fans and the bulk of our media.  Basically, there are far too many people who want an illusion of competition, rather than the real thing.

That's why it won't change, and that's why it's shit.

The problem with you and other fans on here is you like to point the finger at the Glasgow clubs.
Aberdeen and Dundee utd didn't build on their success from the 80's only 40 years later Aberdeen are starting to get their own house in order.
It's easy for fans to say why build a new stadium instead of investing in the team.
We can talk about one stadium in Dundee for the clubs to share the cost.
We can talk about separating the full time clubs from the part time clubs with a pyramid system in place.
The success of Inverness and Ross county and the disaster of Gretna.
Bulldozing hampden  and building a national stadium in Stirling.
But in your head and many other posters on here it's all the glasga clubs fault.
  

[Ya Bezzer!]

Prices - Football in this country is overpriced, especially in the way that away supporters get fleeced but looking at it from a 'value for money' point of in comparison to other leagues is too simplistic and reducing ticket prices is going to put clubs that struggle money wise currently into even further bother and will inevitably lead to an even lower standard than is already present .  You have to look at it more like this, Scottish football is a niche product and if you want a niche product you have to pay more for it.  I'm not interested in going down to Newcastle and watching a match for the same price I can watch us at Tynecastle.  Therefore I have to put my hand deeper into my pocket.  I'd LOVE for it to be cheaper but I really don't think it's possible.  I'm probably prepared to pay £30 for a match.  That's roughly in line with other live entertainment but I did recently refuse to go to Hearts because of the ticket price and I don't think that prices going over £30 is really feasible for clubs  either, in fact ticket prices have generally stayed around the same price for a while now.  So longer term with inflation factored in, I think the price of football is going to come down anyway.  

Leagues - The set up now is in my opinion the best possible one we can have.  Does that mean it's good?  No, but that's the situation.  At the end of the day Celtic are going to win (or possibly Rangers) almost all the time whatever the set up and that's proved by just looking down the list of winners.  There has never been a format in the 100+ year history of Scottish football where the OF didn't dominate.  The reason Dundee Utd and Aberdeen briefly challenged the OF in the early and mid eighties were more to do with socio-economic conditions and a couple of world class managers rather than league format.  Right now, we have top six and Europe to aim at, play offs and relegation at the bottom end.  That keeps most teams season as interesting as its going to be.  Personally I'd like there to be two automatic relegation spots because I think it's important to freshen the league up every year.  When only one team goes down there is too much sameness.  The 16 team league has its merits but again, Rangers and Celtic will still win it, there will be more teams with nothing to play for and the 2nd tier of Scottish football will basically have to go semi-pro/part-time and that in the long term is simply going to destroy long established professional clubs who get relegated.  Relegation is bad enough currently, but to get relegated into a 'seaside league' is going to end clubs.

Economics - Obviously Celtic and Rangers dwarf everyone else in terms of income but wealth distribution runs two ways.  Would Motherwell fans be happy if David Turnbull's transfer fee was split between 42 league clubs in the interest of 'fairness'?  Probably not.  The economics of the game is tricky as often our supporters tend to look up as victims of unfairness without looking down.  The truth is our club was at the forefront of the creation of the SPL, the single worst decision in the history of Scottish football, which cut out most of Scottish football and has led to the standard of the game is country to go into free fall.  We were there saying yes, nodding our head and fucking the game in Scotland over because we felt we'd benefit.  We also rolled over on Project Brave as soon as we got included.  Basically we as a club as shown the same selfish self interest as anyone else.

Again in terms of comparing Scottish football to the NFL I just think that's way off.  Ultimately the competitiveness of the NFL is down to things like the draft system, something that is incompatible with Scottish football, and the fact that two clubs don't generate 70% of the income.  

Edited October 24, 2019 by Ya Bezzer!

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, OSP said:

Fair point, but do you believe if Aberdeen had won it 4 out of the last 6 times, being seen as the top side in the country, and with potential to make more money from Europe for example, that they wouldn't have grown even stronger?

I just struggle to see that we wouldn't still have 1 or 2 clubs out ahead of the others for concerted periods of time. Although, I severely doubt it would be as bad as it is with Celtic and Rangers, so I get your point there.

At the start of each season Aberdeen, Hearts and HIbs would be aiming to win the title, most of the time Motherwell would be in there and others like Kilmarnock, St Johnstone, Dundee Utd, Caley Thistle, Livingston would have spells when they could have realistic attempts. Any club in the title hunt would have bigger crowds and more interest from sponsors and TV. It's possible that Aberdeen, Hearts and HIbs could pull away - there's a big drop-off in average attendance from them to the next best supported clubs - but it's nothing like the gulf between Rangers and Aberdeen. And none of them are likely to make it to the CL group stage more than a couple of times in a generation, where the money is totally disproportionate in a country like Scotland.

I would say Aberdeen's recent success - four consecutive second place finishes is hugely impressive - is more down to Derek McInnes than to money - they had the same money for the previous 15 years in which they were pish. Even then if Rangers hadn't handled it so badly they would have poached him. A year isn't a long time for a football team so having the occasional run of three or four in a row doesn't mean there's an imbalance. Two 9-in-a-rows and one 8-in-a-row, by two clubs, in a little over 50 years does.

In the past 54 years, 94% of the league titles have gone to two clubs, with other clubs only challenging very infrequently. Even if just one title in four went outside the OF it would be revolutionary for supporters of clubs in with a chance.

One thing worth wondering about - imagine the Champions League had started in the early 80s. Aberdeen and Dundee Utd would have been pulling in tens of millions every year. 

[DA Baracus]

22 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The problem with you and other fans on here is you like to point the finger at the Glasgow clubs.
Aberdeen and Dundee utd didn't build on their success from the 80's only 40 years later Aberdeen are starting to get their own house in order.
It's easy for fans to say why build a new stadium instead of investing in the team.
We can talk about one stadium in Dundee for the clubs to share the cost.
We can talk about separating the full time clubs from the part time clubs with a pyramid system in place.
The success of Inverness and Ross county and the disaster of Gretna.
Bulldozing hampden  and building a national stadium in Stirling.
But in your head and many other posters on here it's all the glasga clubs fault.
  

Shut up you moron.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

In many other sports the salary cap as applied is often implemented as a percentage (or similar function) of turnover as opposed to a flat rate

Applied here this wouldn't do anything to open up range of possible winners but that's not necessarily what it's for

It's there to stop clubs "speculating to accumulate" and running into financial trouble.

As a supporter of a club that went through a near-death experience relatively recently I can see the appeal.

 

[Ya Bezzer!]

29 minutes ago, GordonS said:

One thing worth wondering about - imagine the Champions League had started in the early 80s. Aberdeen and Dundee Utd would have been pulling in tens of millions every year. 

Perhaps not the official history but I think it was Brian Glanville who wrote that the genesis of the Champions League was when Real Madrid were drawn against Bayern Munich in the quarter finals of the 1987/88 European Cup.  

Real Madrid were already furious that they had been drawn in the first round against Italian champions Napoli and then had to face Porto in the 2nd round.  This while eventual winners PSV faced the likes of Rapid Vienna and Bordeaux.

So when Real were drawn against Bayern officials from both clubs outraged that the two top clubs had been drawn against each other started to collaborate with  the intention of getting rid of the unseeded knock out system.

So I guess why I'm saying all this is Aberdeen and Dundee Utd in a way are responsible for how things turned out.  They tweaked the noses of the big clubs and were then excluded as a result.

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Ya Bezzer!

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

Perhaps not the official history but I think it was Brian Glanville who wrote that the genesis of the Champions League was when Real Madrid were drawn against Bayern Munich in the quarter finals of the 1987/88 European Cup.  

Real Madrid were already furious that they had been drawn in the first round against Italian champions Napoli and then had to face Porto in the 2nd round.  This while eventual winners PSV faced the likes of Rapid Vienna and Bordeaux.

So when Real were drawn against Bayern officials from both clubs outraged that the two top clubs had been drawn started to collaborate with each other with the intention of getting rid of the unseeded knock out system.

So I guess why I'm saying all this is Aberdeen and Dundee Utd in a way are responsible for how things turned out.  They tweaked the noses of the big clubs and were then excluded as a result.

 

Are you trying to say John Hewitt killed football?

[Ya Bezzer!]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Are you trying to say John Hewitt killed football?

Certainly two of the knife wounds in Caesar were from Erick Black and John Hewitt. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Romeo said:

Fans of other clubs outside Celtic and Sevco should be asking their own clubs why they continue to vote for and put up with the current set up.

Well yes.  Maintaining the voting structure was criminal, as was the setting up of the SPL in the first place.

So what?  Who's arguing otherwise?

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

Prices - Football in this country is overpriced, especially in the way that away supporters get fleeced but looking at it from a 'value for money' point of in comparison to other leagues is too simplistic and reducing ticket prices is going to put clubs that struggle money wise currently into even further bother and will inevitably lead to an even lower standard than is already present .  You have to look at it more like this, Scottish football is a niche product and if you want a niche product you have to pay more for it.  I'm not interested in going down to Newcastle and watching a match for the same price I can watch us at Tynecastle.  Therefore I have to put my hand deeper into my pocket.  I'd LOVE for it to be cheaper but I really don't think it's possible.  I'm probably prepared to pay £30 for a match.  That's roughly in line with other live entertainment but I did recently refuse to go to Hearts because of the ticket price and I don't think that prices going over £30 is really feasible for clubs  either, in fact ticket prices have generally stayed around the same price for a while now.  So longer term with inflation factored in, I think the price of football is going to come down anyway.  

Leagues - The set up now is in my opinion the best possible one we can have.  Does that mean it's good?  No, but that's the situation.  At the end of the day Celtic are going to win (or possibly Rangers) almost all the time whatever the set up and that's proved by just looking down the list of winners.  There has never been a format in the 100+ year history of Scottish football where the OF didn't dominate.  The reason Dundee Utd and Aberdeen briefly challenged the OF in the early and mid eighties were more to do with socio-economic conditions and a couple of world class managers rather than league format.  Right now, we have top six and Europe to aim at, play offs and relegation at the bottom end.  That keeps most teams season as interesting as its going to be.  Personally I'd like there to be two automatic relegation spots because I think it's important to freshen the league up every year.  When only one team goes down there is too much sameness.  The 16 team league has its merits but again, Rangers and Celtic will still win it, there will be more teams with nothing to play for and the 2nd tier of Scottish football will basically have to go semi-pro/part-time and that in the long term is simply going to destroy long established professional clubs who get relegated.  Relegation is bad enough currently, but to get relegated into a 'seaside league' is going to end clubs.

Economics - Obviously Celtic and Rangers dwarf everyone else in terms of income but wealth distribution runs two ways.  Would Motherwell fans be happy if David Turnbull's transfer fee was split between 42 league clubs in the interest of 'fairness'?  Probably not.  The economics of the game is tricky as often our supporters tend to look up as victims of unfairness without looking down.  The truth is our club was at the forefront of the creation of the SPL, the single worst decision in the history of Scottish football, which cut out most of Scottish football and has led to the standard of the game is country to go into free fall.  We were there saying yes, nodding our head and fucking the game in Scotland over because we felt we'd benefit.  We also rolled over on Project Brave as soon as we got included.  Basically we as a club as shown the same selfish self interest as anyone else.

Again in terms of comparing Scottish football to the NFL I just think that's way off.  Ultimately the competitiveness of the NFL is down to things like the draft system, something that is incompatible with Scottish football, and the fact that two clubs don't generate 70% of the income.  

A good post, with the correct acknowledgement that clubs like Motherwell were absolutely guilty of doing self interested damage when helping set up the SPL.

I don't agree with much in the final paragraph though.  Firstly, I simply don't accept that two clubs "generate 70% of the income".  There is only income at all because of the context provided to competitions by the participation of loads of clubs.  Without that context, nobody watches.

I also think we do have things to learn from the likes of the NFL.  Of course, features like the draft system wouldn't translate directly into our game.  The principal however, that recognises that competitions are more valid and appealing when efforts are made to make the playing field level, is one I wish we'd lift.

The sad reality is though, that a chronic imbalance genuinely pleases the bulk of the followers of our  game.  I don't like what that says about us.