Would you change our league?

[The Saintee]

Some form of change is needed.

Particularly one that means no relegation this season.

[HibeeJibee]

4 hours ago, JTS98 said:

1) Not really. He disagreed with a point nobody was making; that we should return wholesale to the set-up of the 19th century. For example, do you think gate receipt sharing in some way would make our game more or less competitive?

2) Complicated by two world wars, one of which arguably cost Hearts at least one title and the other of which stopped play altogether for a few years (in terms of a national league, anyway). Also worth pointing out that the decade after that saw five non-Old Firm title wins by three different teams. Do you see that situation arising from where we are now? I'd argue it's impossible without organisational change.

Gate-sharing could assist but would be unlikely to make a fundamental difference to the destiny of the league title. How much of Celtic's revenue does 40% of their ticket sales comprise? Going by previous calculations on here it would make OF slightly poorer, make no difference to Aberdeen/Hearts/Hibs, and make the smaller clubs richer. If anything that might mean the smaller clubs taking more points off Aberdeen/Hearts/Hibs, not cutting OF off at knees.

My observation is simply that during a period of 'big' leagues in 1920s & 1930s (and either side) OF were still dominant; and during a period of 'small' leagues in 1980s they weren't.

This would indicate that it's not actually driven by some of the factors people associate with "the good old days".

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, HibeeJibee said:

Gate-sharing could assist but would be unlikely to make a fundamental difference to the destiny of the league title. How much of Celtic's revenue does 40% of their ticket sales comprise? Going by previous calculations on here it would make OF slightly poorer, make no difference to Aberdeen/Hearts/Hibs, and make the smaller clubs richer. If anything that might mean the smaller clubs taking more points off Aberdeen/Hearts/Hibs, not cutting OF off at knees.

My observation is simply that during a period of 'big' leagues in 1920s & 1930s (and either side) OF were still dominant; and during a period of 'small' leagues in 1980s they weren't.

This would indicate that it's not actually driven by some of the factors people associate with "the good old days".

I'm not really a fan of the bigger league idea. As I mentioned before, it just puts in more small fish for the Old Firm to gub.

But I don't see the harm in investigating what would happen if we decided that - in the interests of the game - we'd see how we could better share the money around like we used to.

[HibeeJibee]

33 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I'm not really a fan of the bigger league idea. As I mentioned before, it just puts in more small fish for the Old Firm to gub.

But I don't see the harm in investigating what would happen if we decided that - in the interests of the game - we'd see how we could better share the money around like we used to.

If we look at Hearts: last season your aggregate home crowd was 333,724 so you retained 100% of those proceeds. Your aggregate away crowd was 283,048.

Had you kept 60% of home (200,235) and 40% of away (113,220) you'd have been worse off by 20,269... maybe £400k before tax.

This would be more pronounced in a 'big' league only playing OF, Hibs and Aberdeen once and adding current Championship clubs - without considering whether crowds in such a league might be lower overall and/or whether playing fewer games.

EDIT: Some would say "ah but it makes OF poorer" but of course their £ is more heavily sponsorship, merchandise, CL/EL prizemoney, etc.

Edited November 10, 2019 by HibeeJibee

[sjc]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Apart from the fact the Summer month off is when most teams let their grass grow and recover, or are you magically expecting to recover in January?

The pitches would be far less damaged or worn throughout a summer season therefore have far less to recover from.

[Jacksgranda]

On 07/11/2019 at 17:28, ArabAuslander said:

Keep up the good fight Craig. You ever going to grace or screens on AVFTT?

 

On 07/11/2019 at 17:30, craigkillie said:

I'd say it's unlikely. The producers quite rightly want consistency on the screen, and the other boys are smashing it out of the park.

Translation - "I've a face for radio"...

[Jacksgranda]

On 07/11/2019 at 22:17, Monkey Tennis said:

Ach fair enough.

You have indeed done some good fight fighting, rendering the 'apologist' charge a bit cheap and unfair.  For it I therefore duly er... apologise.  

I maintain that on the matters raised on this thread though, your contributions are essentially conservative.  Whether that's due to conviction, posturing or a combination of both I don't know, but the impression is that your instincts lean in such a direction.

I haven't actually suggested or advocated play-offs.  I don't like the idea, because we have Cups for that.  I also think that there's only a need for arsing round with such fundamentals because of the enshrined vaulting inequality our game doesn't just tolerate, but promotes.

As for an approach that "doesn't seem particularly successful", I'm not sure how that's measured.  I'm not really on a quest to get support or agreement; I'm just expressing a view.   Of course I'm a bit strident at times, but a bit of hyperbole doesn't go amiss if feelings are strong.

I've never found you "strident", "dogged", perhaps.

[Cyclizine]

1 hour ago, sjc said:

The pitches would be far less damaged or worn throughout a summer season therefore have far less to recover from.

They really wouldn't. Most grass pitches, particularly in the lower leagues would be in an absolute state by November - particularly if a backlog of postponements came into play. Then they'd have no chance to recover over winter before a new season started. I have no issue with the concept of Summer football, but I can't see how it'd work in Scotland (outwith the amateur leagues up where I'm based). We'd have to seriously change the fixture list: cut league fixtures and make significant changes to the cups (or even scrap some), for what I think is very little gain. June is the only month we don't have fixtures anyway.

[Monkey Tennis]

19 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

It's also worth remembering that from 1904 to 1948 only 1 league title wasn't won by OF. During that same period only 17 Scottish Cup/equivalents weren't (5 during WWI + WWII).

Come on.  As presented, that's wildly misleading.  

As you know, a couple of minor skirmishes in that period had quite an effect.  It's also not the case that the top two was the same throughout nearly all of that spell.  The recent one however saw the OF occupy the top 2 slots every year but one from the mid 90s up to the year after Rangers' 2012 death.  And the one exception came via a club destined for a near death experience.

The Cups too, headed consistently to the OF, until the duopoly was halted, allowing others a crack, with only one giant in the way.  It's actually good evidence of what can happen when OF collective power is diminished.  Sadly though, it's been restored.

It's absolutely fair and accurate to suggest that our game wasn't as skewed as now, at earlier points in its history.  

[craigkillie]

The Scottish League didn't stop for World War I. The Scottish Cup did, but not the league.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The Scottish League didn't stop for World War I. The Scottish Cup did, but not the league.

Ok, but it stopped for a long time for WWII, which wasn't acknowledged at all.  

Therefore the post was deliberately misleading.

[HibeeJibee]

28 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The Scottish League didn't stop for World War I. The Scottish Cup did, but not the league.

SFA did organise a Scottish Cup in almost all but name in 1918-19. SFL organised watered-down equivalent in 1917-18.

SFL didn't actually close-down for 1939-40 either. For some reason 1914-15 to 1918-19 are official, but 1939-40 unofficial. SFA organised a Scottish Cup in almost all but name in 1939-40 and 1945-46.

Plus during WWII largely the same conditions existed as WWI - clubs from north-east withdrew, lower-league suspended - only it was under a different name from 1940-41 so "unofficial"... 1945-46 was a nationwide league with only some minor clubs missing... There was actually an equivalent of the Scottish Cup, and League Cup (except in 1939-40), every season.

EDIT: In terms of this discussion it doesn't water-down the dominance as Rangers won SFL in 1939-40 and Southern League every season; won 4 out of 6 League Cups; and 2 out of 6 War Emergency/Summer/Victory Cups. Celtic were SL runners-up twice.


Nevertheless lets not cloud matters with that.

While there was no absolute duopoly between Third Lanark winning league in 1903-04 and Hibs in 1947-48, it remains the case that:
* Rangers won 20 SFL titles, Celtic won 15, Motherwell won 1
* Rangers were runners-up 6 times, Celtic 10 times, Airdrie + Motherwell 4 times, Falkirk + Hearts 3 times, Aberdeen + Dundee twice, Hibs + Morton once
* only in 8 seasons did OF not finish 2 of top 3
so it was still considerable dominance.

Edited November 10, 2019 by HibeeJibee

[Monkey Tennis]

10 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Nevertheless lets not cloud matters with that.

While there was no absolute duopoly between Third Lanark winning league in 1903-04 and Hibs in 1947-48, it remains the case that:
* Rangers won 20 SFL titles, Celtic won 15, Motherwell won 1
* Rangers were runners-up 6 times, Celtic 10 times, Airdrie + Motherwell 4 times, Falkirk + Hearts 3 times, Aberdeen + Dundee twice, Hibs + Morton once
* only in 8 seasons did OF not finish 2 of top 3
so it was still considerable dominance.

Of course these clubs have always dominated.  They're the big ones from the biggest city.

The picture above is different from the current one though.  Clubs could realistically look to split them, if not genuinely challenge.  Points gaps would, I suspect, support the idea that it was significantly more competitive for other sides too, even allowing for 2 points for a win, but you'll know more about that than me.

It was materially different.  The top 2 now is fixed again, as it was before Rangers' liquidation.  It really wasn't at all in the days you've pointed to as representing a parallel.

[wastecoatwilly]

21 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It was materially different.  The top 2 now is fixed again, as it was before Rangers' liquidation.  It really wasn't at all in the days you've pointed to as representing a parallel.

Yes there is a material difference,Celtic are the only team winning trophies.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Yes there is a material difference,Celtic are the only team winning trophies.

Not like you to bone headedly miss the point Willie.

The trophies were shared with the breaking of the duopoly.  Which one of you gets an upper hand is immaterial.  

Which one do you like again?  I have to check because it doesn't matter.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Monkey Tennis

[wastecoatwilly]

13 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Not like you to bone headedly miss the point Willie.

Last season Hearts were at the top of the league more than any other team bar Celtic so you could say it was significantly more competitive than this season so far.
But even thou you say the duopoly is back there is no evidence of that yet.  

[Monkey Tennis]

25 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Last season Hearts were at the top of the league more than any other team bar Celtic so you could say it was significantly more competitive than this season so far.
But even thou you say the duopoly is back there is no evidence of that yet.  

There is.  There's plenty. 

This season could not possibly demonstrate that more clearly. 

[sjc]

5 hours ago, Cyclizine said:

They really wouldn't. Most grass pitches, particularly in the lower leagues would be in an absolute state by November - particularly if a backlog of postponements came into play. Then they'd have no chance to recover over winter before a new season started. I have no issue with the concept of Summer football, but I can't see how it'd work in Scotland (outwith the amateur leagues up where I'm based). We'd have to seriously change the fixture list: cut league fixtures and make significant changes to the cups (or even scrap some), for what I think is very little gain. June is the only month we don't have fixtures anyway.

Currently pitches only start to degrade between late October and mid February, with the latter being them at their worst. By mid to late March the pitches are already starting to recover.

Pitches would take far less punishment and degrade far less due to continual growth from March to September during a summer season, therefore requiring far less maintenance during a winter close season.

Any groundsman will tell you this. Like I said, there are many reasons to disagree with a summer season but pitch protection isn't one of them.