Can the Old firm stranglehold be broken?

[Guest JTS98]

5 hours ago, Lebowski said:

Kindae agree, but Hearts actually came pretty close in 1998. They gave up on the league to start resting players with a few games to go to get ready for the cup final. Celtic and Rangers dropped multiple points in the run in. Hearts finished 7 points back. They dropped 10 pts in their last 5 games iirc.

Both Celtic and Rangers drop less points now than they did then tbf. But that was just a good Hearts side who were by no means great. As demonstrated by them ending up in relegation bother the following season.

Hearts in 98 are the last credible non-OF contender and I agree with your assessment in general.

It was a very good team that had been built by a savvy coaching team and who showed a high level of consistency against the other non-OF teams that year. Probably the most fun-to-watch Hearts team I've ever seen. I remember being 3-0 up at Killie and Motherwell before half time and back to back 4-1 gubbings of Aberdeen etc.

It was a very good side with good Premier Division players like Naysmith, Adam, Cameron, Salvatori, Hamilton, Flogel, Rousset, Weir etc.

But, yeah, we chucked it with a poor run of home 1-1 draws in March/April and concentrated on the cup final. Vindicated by winning the cup, I suppose, and Cameron had to be rested because he was fucked. But we definitely gave up on the league prematurely.

The following season was an utter shambles, although it should be pointed out that in the first half of the 98/99 season Hearts took 7/12 points from the Old Firm (in the only game we lost to them, Gary McSwegan missed a sitter at 0-0 at Ibrox before we went on to lose), reached the League Cup semis, and ran a good Real Mallorca team (managed by Hector Cuper who would take Valencia to 2 Champions League finals in the next couple of seasons) close in Europe before collapsing after the sale of Neil McCann with Colin Cameron injured, but doesn't really reflect on how good the 97/98 team was. It was a weird season. We beat both of the Old Firm at home and drew with them both away. We won 3-1 at Tannadice, 4-0 at Fir Park, 5-2 at Pittodrie. We just had an utter fucking shambles of a run after new year.

Edited August 10, 2020 by JTS98

[Szamo's_Ammo]

6 hours ago, Tribal Trash said:

Phew!  This forum is VERY busy.

But it's surprisingly down to earth.

[Tutankhamen]

Last team to make an effort before Hibsing it was Aberdeen on the last day of 90/91 season.

29 years ago.

[Lebowski]

Hearts in 98 are the last credible non-OF contender and I agree with your assessment in general.
It was a very good team that had been built by a savvy coaching team and who showed a high level of consistency against the other non-OF teams that year. Probably the most fun-to-watch Hearts team I've ever seen. I remember being 3-0 up at Killie and Motherwell before half time and back to back 4-1 gubbings of Aberdeen etc.
It was a very good side with good Premier Division players like Naysmith, Adam, Cameron, Salvatori, Hamilton, Flogel, Rousset, Weir etc.
But, yeah, we chucked it with a poor run of home 1-1 draws in March/April and concentrated on the cup final. Vindicated by winning the cup, I suppose, and Cameron had to be rested because he was fucked. But we definitely gave up on the league prematurely.
The following season was an utter shambles, although it should be pointed out that in the first half of the 98/99 season Hearts took 7/12 points from the Old Firm (in the only game we lost to them, Gary McSwegan missed a sitter at 0-0 at Ibrox before we went on to lose), reached the League Cup semis, and ran a good Real Mallorca team (managed by Hector Cuper who would take Valencia to 2 Champions League finals in the next couple of seasons) close in Europe before collapsing after the sale of Neil McCann with Colin Cameron injured, but doesn't really reflect on how good the 97/98 team was. It was a weird season. We beat both of the Old Firm at home and drew with them both away. We won 3-1 at Tannadice, 4-0 at Fir Park, 5-2 at Pittodrie. We just had an utter fucking shambles of a run after new year.

One of my oldest mates turned my windup on its head with that. I told him Hibs cost Hearts the league after beating them at ER. He reckoned they were running on fumes and it absolutely was that game which got Jeffries to stop chasing it. However doing that won you the cup. Found that hard to argue with tbh.

[Crawford Bridge]

33 minutes ago, Tutankhamen said:

Hibsing

2015 'phoned, it wants it's patter back.

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

41 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Hearts in 98 are the last credible non-OF contender and I agree with your assessment in general.
It was a very good team that had been built by a savvy coaching team and who showed a high level of consistency against the other non-OF teams that year. Probably the most fun-to-watch Hearts team I've ever seen. I remember being 3-0 up at Killie and Motherwell before half time and back to back 4-1 gubbings of Aberdeen etc.
It was a very good side with good Premier Division players like Naysmith, Adam, Cameron, Salvatori, Hamilton, Flogel, Rousset, Weir etc.
But, yeah, we chucked it with a poor run of home 1-1 draws in March/April and concentrated on the cup final. Vindicated by winning the cup, I suppose, and Cameron had to be rested because he was fucked. But we definitely gave up on the league prematurely.
The following season was an utter shambles, although it should be pointed out that in the first half of the 98/99 season Hearts took 7/12 points from the Old Firm (in the only game we lost to them, Gary McSwegan missed a sitter at 0-0 at Ibrox before we went on to lose), reached the League Cup semis, and ran a good Real Mallorca team (managed by Hector Cuper who would take Valencia to 2 Champions League finals in the next couple of seasons) close in Europe before collapsing after the sale of Neil McCann with Colin Cameron injured, but doesn't really reflect on how good the 97/98 team was. It was a weird season. We beat both of the Old Firm at home and drew with them both away. We won 3-1 at Tannadice, 4-0 at Fir Park, 5-2 at Pittodrie. We just had an utter fucking shambles of a run after new year.

One of my oldest mates turned my windup on its head with that. I told him Hibs cost Hearts the league after beating them at ER. He reckoned they were running on fumes and it absolutely was that game which got Jeffries to stop chasing it. However doing that won you the cup. Found that hard to argue with tbh.

I think the defeat at Easter Road was the turning point. It was a great second half with two teams who had to win basically playing 4-2-4 and just fucking going for it.

Neil McCann fucked it for us that day by passing when he had a clear shot at goal instead of just putting us 2-1 up. Fine lines.

[BFTD]

What's the money like from this new UEFA tournament?

Years ago, I seem to remember people saying that it was so poor in the opening rounds of the Europa League that teams generally lost money. Is that likely to be different in the even-diddier cup?

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

28 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

What's the money like from this new UEFA tournament?

Years ago, I seem to remember people saying that it was so poor in the opening rounds of the Europa League that teams generally lost money. Is that likely to be different in the even-diddier cup?

Don't know figures but doubt it. 

It's been brought in long term so they can make the Champions League more exclusive and help the massive clubs to become even wealthier. 4 English, 4 German, 4 Italian 4x Spanish clubs straight into group stage. 

In Scotland the same number of clubs qualifying just bumped down to lower comps. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Mr Positive, sometimes.

[TheScarf]

7 hours ago, gannonball said:

You put a 5000/1 bet on Leicester to win?
Are you seriously claiming the year Leicester won you would have put money on them winning the league instead of Aberdeen winning the Scottish Premiership if offered the same odds?

 

What the fuck are you talking about? A club like Leicester, Everton, Wolves are far more likely to win The Barclays than someone else win the Scottish Premiership out with Celtic or Rangers. I couldn’t care less what the odds are or were. It happened in 2016 down there.

[BFTD]

Just now, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

Don't know figures but doubt it. 

It's been brought in long term so they can make the Champions League more exclusive and help the massive clubs to become even wealthier.

That's what I figured, but thought this talk of success in the new tournament being in any way worthwhile might be based on something.

[Crawford Bridge]

Celtic just want it more.

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

22 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

That's what I figured, but thought this talk of success in the new tournament being in any way worthwhile might be based on something.

Arguably it could mean Scottish clubs could last longer in Europe by playing slightly lesser teams, maybe making the group's meaning they'll get at least 3 home games, decent crowds etc £££. 

Price money in comparison though for Champions League is something like 500k per group game victory and that's separate to TV deal and final position money. I can't see the winner of new competition getting as much more for winning the whole thing

It'll beat getting knocked out in July financially I'm sure though 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Mr Positive, sometimes.

[johnnydun]

6 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

What the f**k are you talking about? A club like Leicester, Everton, Wolves are far more likely to win The Barclays than someone else win the Scottish Premiership out with Celtic or Rangers. I couldn’t care less what the odds are or were. It happened in 2016 down there.

Leicester won the league in 2016???

I must have missed that. Can't think where I was on the 2nd of May 2016 at 9.30pm?

[DukDukGoose]

40 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

What's the money like from this new UEFA tournament?

Years ago, I seem to remember people saying that it was so poor in the opening rounds of the Europa League that teams generally lost money. Is that likely to be different in the even-diddier cup?

I think a big part of the problem is the cost of flights etc for clubs. Travel to most of these countries isn't very easy for a football team when you're in and out and spend as less time there as possible.

[Mr Positive, sometimes.]

13 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I think a big part of the problem is the cost of flights etc for clubs. Travel to most of these countries isn't very easy for a football team when you're in and out and spend as less time there as possible.

Was the prize money per qualification round not something like 40k. 

Flight costs I can imagine are nuts. Chartering a plane to somewhere daft like Armenia. As the plane has got to sit and wait for you to travel home again, the club's will have to pay for it to sit idle as well as it isn't earning the owner money, fees at airport it's sitting at etc as well. Never chartered a plane but can't see it being cheap

Edited August 10, 2020 by Mr Positive, sometimes.

[DukDukGoose]

19 minutes ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

Was the prize money per qualification round not something like 40k. 

Flight costs I can imagine are nuts. Chartering a plane to somewhere daft like Armenia. As the plane has got to sit and wait for you to travel home again, the club's will have to pay for it to sit idle as well as it isn't earning the owner money, fees at airport it's sitting at etc as well. Never chartered a plane but can't see it being cheap

I think they usually end up selling seats to fans too. Which isn't ideal.

[East Coast Warrior]

7 hours ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

The SPL & Rangers, two things that stopped existing but keep getting talked about as if they still do.

 

Another one is folk referring to the SPFL as if it's the top flight Premiership, not getting that all four leagues are  part of the SPFL.

I think the pedantry on using SPL these days is misplaced.

It isn't officially correct, but come on, no one is misinterpreting SPL as anything other than the shortest synonym for top flight Scottish football. 

 

 

[G51]

Eventually, a team outside of the OF will win the league. But that's only as a result of variance - eventually, we'll have one season that is just so mad that a non-OF team wins it. Which is a shame - because the conditions for another team to put together a title-winning side should be more favourable.

A lot of times there are Scottish football fans who look at other leagues and are envious - envious of the money and players in places like England etc. And when we look at how to close the gap to these superleagues, there's a myriad of ideas about how to do it. But one that is often overlooked is that a lot of these leagues are set up in a way that encourages more parity among teams than ours, which is what makes them more exciting, and in turn makes the league more desirable and (most importantly for us) fun.

The frustrating thing is that the teams in the SPFL do not seem to recognise the benefits this would bring. It's not just related to prize money either - there are other rules you can implement that help to limit the advantage that Rangers and Celtic have. The five sub rule that was voted through earlier for example - all the indications we have is that this benefits bigger clubs over smaller clubs. So how did this get passed? And even if it does pass, what concessions do the smaller clubs negotiate in return? At the moment, the rules are overwhelmingly in favour of Rangers and Celtic to the detriment of the actual league.

I take the weekends game for example - we'll see a match like Rangers 3-0 St Mirren 25 times this season. Rangers dominate the ball, St Mirren stick ten behind it, Rangers have 45 shots and three of them go in, St Mirren cross the halfway line maybe twice in the whole match. It's an instantly forgettable game that neither side will remember in two months time. Who actually enjoys this? For Rangers fans, it's a sense of relief that we haven't dropped points, because any Premiership title winner needs at least 85 points now so we can't afford to drop points. For St Mirren fans it's (I assume) a game that you can't really be arsed with and don't enjoy watching your team play in.

It doesn't have to be that way.

I would sorely like to see sweeping rule changes across the leagues that would make them more competitive and limit the advantage that Rangers and Celtic have over others. I don't think there's a single club that wouldn't benefit - Rangers and Celtic included. A strong league is good for everyone. Parity will be impossible to achieve, but we should still aim for it, and coming close is achievable.

All of the above is just my opinion, of course.

[TheScarf]

That’s all well and good but the Tv money being split evenly 12 ways would require a 11-1 vote in favour of it which would never happen.  Because of the monumentally fucking stupid 11-1 voting system.

[Tutankhamen]

5 minutes ago, G51 said:

Eventually, a team outside of the OF will win the league. But that's only as a result of variance - eventually, we'll have one season that is just so mad that a non-OF team wins it. Which is a shame - because the conditions for another team to put together a title-winning side should be more favourable.

A lot of times there are Scottish football fans who look at other leagues and are envious - envious of the money and players in places like England etc. And when we look at how to close the gap to these superleagues, there's a myriad of ideas about how to do it. But one that is often overlooked is that a lot of these leagues are set up in a way that encourages more parity among teams than ours, which is what makes them more exciting, and in turn makes the league more desirable and (most importantly for us) fun.

The frustrating thing is that the teams in the SPFL do not seem to recognise the benefits this would bring. It's not just related to prize money either - there are other rules you can implement that help to limit the advantage that Rangers and Celtic have. The five sub rule that was voted through earlier for example - all the indications we have is that this benefits bigger clubs over smaller clubs. So how did this get passed? And even if it does pass, what concessions do the smaller clubs negotiate in return? At the moment, the rules are overwhelmingly in favour of Rangers and Celtic to the detriment of the actual league.

I take the weekends game for example - we'll see a match like Rangers 3-0 St Mirren 25 times this season. Rangers dominate the ball, St Mirren stick ten behind it, Rangers have 45 shots and three of them go in, St Mirren cross the halfway line maybe twice in the whole match. It's an instantly forgettable game that neither side will remember in two months time. Who actually enjoys this? For Rangers fans, it's a sense of relief that we haven't dropped points, because any Premiership title winner needs at least 85 points now so we can't afford to drop points. For St Mirren fans it's (I assume) a game that you can't really be arsed with and don't enjoy watching your team play in.

It doesn't have to be that way.

I would sorely like to see sweeping rule changes across the leagues that would make them more competitive and limit the advantage that Rangers and Celtic have over others. I don't think there's a single club that wouldn't benefit - Rangers and Celtic included. A strong league is good for everyone. Parity will be impossible to achieve, but we should still aim for it, and coming close is achievable.

All of the above is just my opinion, of course.

Feel sorry for the Italian and German fans in those one horse leagues.