Jump to content

League Reconstruction 20/21 season


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ric said:

Yeah, they always have dominated, and likely always will.

Now in a more serious note, I do believe that playing 2 times rather than 4 has to increase the chances of them not being so dominant and if I had the time I'd maybe present statistical data to back that up.

Do you mean them playing each team twice?

Just go back over the seasons at the 22 game stage and see. I can only think of a few recent seasons where non-OF teams are even close to the top by that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah f**k it!!!

Anybody who thinks the current set up is the only way to do it Is a yes (or is it no) voting, Tory (or labour), Brexit (or not) loving OFTW. 

Just delete to suit your agenda. 

:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had a 16 team league they could increase the number of games played in the League Cup to make up for the lost games - such as mini leagues in late summer.

Also, when it comes to OF games a season and tv deals I still say that if a company - for example BT wins the league rights then the loser, for example Sky, could get the cup derby rights. Obviously there’s no guarantee but the OF regularly meet in the cups anyway.
Neither of them have Scottish Cup rights. Those are held by BBC & Premier Sports. Think League Cup is still BT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

Do you mean them playing each team twice?

Just go back over the seasons at the 22 game stage and see. I can only think of a few recent seasons where non-OF teams are even close to the top by that stage.

I can see why you would use that as a metric, it's not really the same as across the whole season for several reasons.

We've seen the OF slip up on the odd occasion, and I am taking them together here, so there is an argument to be made in regard to their being less chances for them to recoup those "loses".

We've seen all across the world that the gap between the richest and poorest is growing. Perhaps less so in some, but it does seem to be the case. Maybe that is just the "natural" cycle of football when the richest clubs end getting the most money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:
25 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:
If we had a 16 team league they could increase the number of games played in the League Cup to make up for the lost games - such as mini leagues in late summer.

Also, when it comes to OF games a season and tv deals I still say that if a company - for example BT wins the league rights then the loser, for example Sky, could get the cup derby rights. Obviously there’s no guarantee but the OF regularly meet in the cups anyway.

Neither of them have Scottish Cup rights. Those are held by BBC & Premier Sports. Think League Cup is still BT.

League Cup (if it happens) will be on Premier next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ric said:

Yeah, I'm not sure you can be so absolutist with such a claim.

As I said already, just putting out a lovely bit of correlation.

 

No, p'raps not, but a little bit of correlation....

In the last 10 season of the old 19/20 team first division, 10 different teams won

In the first 10 seasons of the old 10 team first division 10 different teams won it

In the last 10 season of a 10 team Championship/first division 9 different teams won it (fucken Ross County...)

Without the financial advantage it certainly looks like the size of the league doesn't play a huge part in competitiveness

Edited by EdTheDuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ali_91 said:

This is a very poor survey, with the below question being a particular lowlight and possibly the most leading question I’ve ever read. 
 

An anonymous football survey is the equivalent of #hopesandprayers

Utterly useless other than weeding out the stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a good article in the Scotsman today where the Chairman of Stenhousemuir says he is sick to the teeth of the SPFL  as the Board and Premiership do not give a damn for the smaller clubs. He is not happy about attempts to change the League on a temporary basis to save Hearts while doing nothing for Partick or Stranraer. (Of course reconstruction may change that but at the moment PT and Stranraer are down whereas Hearts are not). If his views are typical there would be little support further down the Leagues.

The Championship has been called a the best League in Scotland for years. Likewise League One and Two are competitive. Every game in the Premiership means something. For me I would leave as is especially because of the motivation for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

Without the financial advantage it certainly looks like the size of the league doesn't play a huge part in competitiveness

Now, I think this is very fair and unfortunately it always muddies any study we can do.

Football finances have very much been a moveable feast over the decades. Larger teams with bigger fanbases allowing greater gate receipts and merchandising have always benefited and it's only conjecture but I feel when you add in the way TV money has impacted on that it's only increased the gap.

As I say, this is all just correlation and conjecture.

Sadly someone like Budge won't give two fucks when it comes to her "taskforce" as that will simply have these following objectives:

  • Stop Hearts being relegated
  • Ensure that once Hearts are not relegated, the finances are returned back to normal so Hearts don't lose money to those pesky smaller clubs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

This is a very poor survey, with the below question being a particular lowlight and possibly the most leading question I’ve ever read. 
 

 

BE17C910-D889-4450-ABDB-3B0B7D6D352B.jpeg

I wonder why Partick Thistle fan Paul Goodwin's completely fake supporters association would suddenly be pushing a survey on league reconstruction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would league reconstruction do nothing for Partick Thistle or Stranraer? If the top flight gets bigger then teams get saved in the leagues below. Sounds like the Stenhousemuir chairman is a bit thick.

Edited by craigkillie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screenshot_20200417-103544_Chrome.thumb.jpg.5b329953b5acc4f3e6d86d724f4f54ab.jpg
No matter what league set up, Celtic and Rangers have comfortably dominated in terms of titles, over the entire history of Scottish football, yet you still have folk on here claiming a 16 team division is the answer and their dominance will be ended.


This is true, however I think you’d be surprised to see how close other teams have come to winning the league during the 50s and 60s. There’s many seasons where the OF won the title but only just - the runner up was the likes of Hibs or Aberdeen by a mere 2 to 5 points. That’s off the top of my head but feel free to double check. The difference now is that the OF are comfortably running away at the top consistently every season. Would a bigger league change that? Possibly. Will sticking with what we have just now change that? No.

Anything that threatens the dominance of Celtic and Rangers I am in favour of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

This is a very poor survey, with the below question being a particular lowlight and possibly the most leading question I’ve ever read. 
 

 

BE17C910-D889-4450-ABDB-3B0B7D6D352B.jpeg

Its awful, I started it and just gave up at that point - the prev q (iirc) asks if you think fans should have a voice in reconstruction - then goes on to ask this drivel (clearly designed so they can say "this is what fans want").

A survey which only the stupidest of mouthbreathers wouldn't see through.

Whoever designed it is a fud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Screenshot_20200417-103544_Chrome.thumb.jpg.5b329953b5acc4f3e6d86d724f4f54ab.jpg

FWIW the most diverse amount of top two finishers seems to be in a 10 team division, but you're back over 100 years for that.

No matter what league set up, Celtic and Rangers have comfortably dominated in terms of titles, over the entire history of Scottish football, yet you still have folk on here claiming a 16 team division is the answer and their dominance will be ended.

Thing is, then, they dominated because they were two of the best clubs in Europe.  I don't know how much extra income from European matches helped, but there was something of a stitch-up, like Clyde being barred from Europe despite qualifying because there were two Glasgow clubs already there.

The fifties were a bit different...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

 


This is true, however I think you’d be surprised to see how close other teams have come to winning the league during the 50s and 60s. There’s many seasons where the OF won the title but only just - the runner up was the likes of Hibs or Aberdeen by a mere 2 to 5 points. That’s off the top of my head but feel free to double check. The difference now is that the OF are comfortably running away at the top consistently every season. Would a bigger league change that? Possibly. Will sticking with what we have just now change that? No.

Anything that threatens the dominance of Celtic and Rangers I am in favour of.
 

 

Unless you change the amount they receive from UEFA for making European Group Stages, then nothing can be done domestically to close the gap, barring wage caps which would never be voted in under the 11-1 system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Unless you change the amount they receive from UEFA for making European Group Stages, then nothing can be done domestically to close the gap, barring wage caps which would never be voted in under the 11-1 system.

The other difference money-wise since the fifties and sixties is that since 1970-odd teams no longer share gate money. Rangers and Celtic pushed for that change. That obviously made them richer at the expense of other clubs and TV/Europe money has only stretched that difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NorthBank said:

^^^^^^this

A short-term reconstruction to save 1 club when other clubs with more legitimate cause for complaint accept it isn't normal times and Hearts are where they are because they are shite. Keep the leagues as they are.

Who are the clubs with more legitimate causes for complaint that are accepting it?  Because Partick and Falkirk both explicitly mention reconstruction in their statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want reconstruction and have for a long time, but if it keeps us playing teams 4 times a season and maintains a split then there's no point.

I'd like a 16 team top league, 18 team second tier and a pyramid setup with meaningful straight promotion/relegation below that.  But that'll never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2-20-20

 

No relegation from the top tier.

 

They can w**k themselves into oblivion over playing each other 38 times a season (or however many times they want, I don't give a shit)

 

Home/Away in the 2nd & 3rd tier for 38 games. Extra income in the way of money saved on police & new seats.

 

Problem solved. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...