Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[TheGoon]

47 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

.......with 3 other separate clubs having won the league in that time.  One of the clubs was as recently as the ‘13-‘14 season.  Since ‘13-‘14 I don’t think we have even had a club, other than the Old Firm, with a shout of winning the league come Easter*.

If you think the size of the country is relevant Ireland has a population broadly similar to Scotland and they have had about a half dozen teams win their top flight in the last 35 years.

 That is the sad reality of Scottish football.

* Quite possibly change Easter to Christmas 

 

The Irish league is a genuine glorified pub league though. The Old Firm’s dominance has never especially bothered me, as duopolies and even single teams dominating is pretty much common place throughout Europe. Might be a bit more extreme here, but the situation isn’t much different to what 90% of Europe’s top divisions go through.  

[Skyline Drifter]

57 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

The Croatian league formed in 1992, and in the preceding 28 years has 4 winners, but two of those only have 1 trophy, and Hadjuk/Dinamo finished in the top 3 both times.

succeeding 

[jagsfan57]

 

I would argue that it wasn’t the board that determined the end of the season.
It was the clubs that voted to end the season.

[Shadow Play]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Most obvious one I can think of is Greece, where Olympiacos and Panathanikos were the only winners over a 22 year period. Panathanikos then obviously collapsed financially.

The Croatian league formed in 1992, and in the preceding 28 years has 4 winners, but two of those only have 1 trophy, and Hadjuk/Dinamo finished in the top 3 both times.

19 years since any club outwith Turin or Milan won Serie A too.

So I was right.  No examples of a league where only 2 clubs have won the league in the last 35 years?

1 hour ago, TheGoon said:

The Irish league is a genuine glorified pub league though. The Old Firm’s dominance has never especially bothered me, as duopolies and even single teams dominating is pretty much common place throughout Europe. Might be a bit more extreme here, but the situation isn’t much different to what 90% of Europe’s top divisions go through.  

Not only two clubs over a period of 35 years though.

[johnnydun]

38 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

I would argue that it wasn’t the board that determined the end of the season.
It was the clubs that voted to end the season.

Yes it was, the board determined the end of the season after a vote by the clubs.

[Judge]

Should have been 14-10-10-10, promote top two, no relegation and meant that Brora and Kelty would have been given chance also. Would then have built into proposals to hold talks in two seasons about a full restructure giving clubs time to consider a number of options prior to start of season 22/23 where promotion relegation etc can be agreed prior to the commencement of the season.

[Rudolph Hucker]

12 hours ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

That pretty much sums things up, imo. Hearts are looking to deny promotion to clubs that are due it on merit in ofder to save themselves from their own failure. It's time they faced up to the fact that the solution that was agreed upon by a sufficient majority of their peers is the best that could be found in these extraordinary circumstances. 

 

12 hours ago, virginton said:

In what way would 14 team divisions as proposed by Hearts 'deny promotion' to any such club? Be extremely specific.

 

11 hours ago, AUFC 1910 said:

Would it not be the case of the play off teams missing out on an opportunity (Dundee and Ayr)

 

11 hours ago, AUFC 1910 said:

If the top division is increased to 14, then surely the ‘fairest’ way would be for the top 3in the championship to move up, while the ‘relegated’ team (Hearts) remain just that - relegated.

 

11 hours ago, virginton said:

An opportunity to win promotion through a playoff system is not the even close to being 'due' a promotion 'on merit' though. 

 

9 hours ago, AUFC 1910 said:

I agree, but you quoted ‘deny promotion’, which in fairness, is what has happened so far to the clubs finishing 2nd, 3rd and 4th - as by finishing in these positions opens up the opportunity to gain promotion, which subsequently has been denied.

Thanx, AUFC 1910, for attending to this nonsense while I was away.

i assumed it would be obvious from my post that I was referring to all the divisions. Apparently I failed to make enough allowance for those who are either hard of thinking or who simply want to point-score. or both, as in this case. 

Thanx again.

[Monkey Tennis]

It's not just that we've only had two winners for so long.  It's also that apart from the banter years, we have had the same top two for so long, a situation that has resumed.  

Lots of countries have it bad in this regard, but we certainly have it worse than most of them.

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

 

 

 

 

 

Thanx, AUFC 1910, for attending to this nonsense while I was away.

i assumed it would be obvious from my post that I was referring to all the divisions. Apparently I failed to make enough allowance for those who are either hard of thinking or who simply want to point-score. or both, as in this case. 

Thanx again.

Erm no, try again: which clubs would be denied a promotion that they were 'due on merit' as a result of Hearts' proposal? Be extremely specific.

[eez-eh]

2 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

So I was right.  No examples of a league where only 2 clubs have won the league in the last 35 years?

Not only two clubs over a period of 35 years though.

I don’t think there’s any that beat the 35 year thing but there are obvious similarities Europe. In terms of big leagues France looks to be heading there and Portugal pretty much is there already. In the “middle” leagues you have Croatia as already mentioned plus Serbia.

Ukraine is the most obviously example with only two different winners from 1993 onwards (pretty much since independence).

[Rudolph Hucker]

Just now, virginton said:

Erm no, try again: which clubs would be denied a promotion that they were 'due on merit' as a result of Hearts' proposal? Be extremely specific.

Away and have an “extremely specific” shite.

[Monkey Tennis]

5 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

I don’t think there’s any that beat the 35 year thing but there are obvious similarities Europe. In terms of big leagues France looks to be heading there and Portugal pretty much is there already. 

Since the turn of the century, four sides have won the Portuguese league, while eight have won the French title in the same period.

Hardly similar to our nonsense.

[eez-eh]

27 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Since the turn of the century, four sides have won the Portuguese league, while eight have won the French title in the same period.

Hardly similar to our nonsense.

Hence why I said “look to be heading that way”.

PSG look set to win every title for the foreseeable while Porto and Benfica have won the last 17 and all but 3 since 1982.

It’s not a defence of our lack of competition, but I think a lot of leagues seem to be heading towards 1/2 teams winning every year, which is a shame.

Edited May 28, 2020 by eez-eh

[Rob1885]

Penarol and Nacional have dominated in a similar vein in Uruguay to the Old Firm.

[Dunning1874]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Most obvious one I can think of is Greece, where Olympiacos and Panathanikos were the only winners over a 22 year period.

Worth noting that rather than being much of duopoly, Olympiacos won it 19 times in 21 seasons.

[rb123!]

 

[Sting777]

1 hour ago, rb123! said:

 

Perhaps not, if The Budgie doesn’t get what she is looking for!!

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5645259/hearts-chief-budge-scottish-football-lockdown/

[Boo Khaki]

5 hours ago, Shadow Play said:

So I was right.  No examples of a league where only 2 clubs have won the league in the last 35 years?

Not only two clubs over a period of 35 years though.

Benfica and Porto have won something like 37 of the last 40 Portuguese titles, the exception being a three year period around the turn of the millennium when Sporting and Boavista won two titles and one single title respectively.

Not quite what you are looking for, but take 2000-2002 out of the equation and it would be more or less identical to Scotland.

 If, for arguments sake, you removed Dundee Utd and Aberdeen's titles in the first half of the 80's, and the three won by Sporting and Boavista, then you'd have two countries where the title had been shared between two clubs every season for the past 40 years.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Boo Khaki

[jagsfan57]

Yes it was, the board determined the end of the season after a vote by the clubs.

The rules(at least the section that you posted twice) didn’t mention anything about a vote, though - definitely using an interpretation that suits your argument.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Clubs from big cities with big supports will dominate in any country. I'm less certain what the other reasons are in each country, some are seen as establishment or opposition representatives, army,  police, connected to royals etc.

Our two capitalised on conflict between locals and immigrants who happened to have different religions. It just seems a bit more petty and opportunistic than other countries.