The Ideal Outcome™

[welldaft]

23 minutes ago, Ric said:

Jesus wept, stick this into the OF forum, very few fans outside of those whose support those two give a flying f**k who wins. This poll is just pandering to the duopoly. I'd have thought you'd be better than that @HibsFan ..  

VERY much this...

But....two teams constantly winning the title is by a baw hair better than one team constantly winning it. 

[velo army]

7 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Someone from outside Glasgow wins the league. Ideally snatching the title on the last day from "Rangers" in hugely controversial circumstances leading to a whole summer of heads-gone statements.

Thinking about it, the perfect final day would see "Rangers" visit Aberdeen needing just a draw for the title.

They lead for 88 minutes before a frankly ridiculous penalty and a miles offside goal win it for the Dons.

Meanwhile, Hibs travel to Parkhead needing a win to have any chance of the title. Celtic, already out of title contention, spend the whole week talking about how they will give it their all, even though doing so could hand the title to their rivals. Neil Lennon insists that they will do their utmost to win out of respect for the integrity of the competition.

Celtic then play their under-13s and Hibs win 11-0. Neil Lennon marks each goal with a pitch invading windmill celebration.

Clyde get promoted and win the cup.

Yes, I have decided to ignore the "realistic" criterion.

Seconds away from giving you a charles only to read the bit in bold and throw up.

f**k Clyde, and for the avoidance of doubt I'm not seething or on the "verge of tears" after getting pumped by your lot.*

 

 

 

 

 

*I am, of course, both of those things. Enjoy your Sunday you b*****d.

[Ric]

16 minutes ago, welldaft said:

VERY much this...

But....two teams constantly winning the title is by a baw hair better than one team constantly winning it. 

Except we've seen one team constantly winning it, just that every decade or so that team swaps shift. There are many people on this forum who have never seen any other team win the title. It is coming up to 40 years, forty fucking years, since a team other than Celtic or Rangers have won!

I don't blame the OF, I should point out, they are just taking advantage of the situation. Since the 80s we've seen the money raised from TV deals, strip sponsorships and club merchandising increase exponentially, extending the gulf between the haves and have nots to a point where I honestly cannot see another club outside of the OF win the league. They were already head and shoulders above their peers, and it took the best of United or Aberdeen and a considerable fallow season of the OF for them to sneak a title, but those are extremely rare and because of the finances mentioned earlier are becoming even less rare.

It's getting to the point now that the governing body should intervene, not that they would, and I'll be honest I'd have huge concerns about it, but there could be a situation where people have been born, lived a full life, and passed away without seeing any team other than the OF win a league.

At this point the league is not competitive, it's a duopoly. In any other sector of business, this wouldn't be allowed.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

The duopoly is effectively a monopoly.

They're both the same thing.

[Sergeant Wilson]

13 minutes ago, Ric said:

It's getting to the point now that the governing body should intervene, 

 

They intervened in 2012 when they allowed a new club to into the league using the Rangers name. The rest, as they say, is history.

[Ric]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

They intervened in 2012 when they allowed a new club to into the league using the Rangers name. The rest, as they say, is history.

[coprolite]

8 minutes ago, Ric said:

 

 

At this point the league is not competitive, it's a duopoly. In any other sector of business, this wouldn't be allowed.

 

It's not really a duopoly though because football isn't really a sector. 

Even if it was a sector in its own right there are a huge variety of suppliers whose "product" is available for consumption that people can choose from. 

The only markets that the cheeks have sewn up are the glory hunting fairweather fans an the sectarian fuckwits. 

[Doctor Sanchez]

Ideally it would be something other than a Glasgow team win the league.  

I'm leaning towards the SEVCO tears and subsequent introspection being more delicious than that thought of Neil Lennon's baw face grinning down thru the ages.

But Celtic knowing that they fucked up their once in a lifetime chance for this is also appealing...  

Every cloud, eh?  

 

[Falcor Roar]

Celtic to win 9 IAR and Rangers to stop 10 from now until the end of time please. If we're being realistic by saying another winner is not possible. 

it would be like that Greek boy pushing the stone up the hill, torture for both sides as neither is satisfied. 

[Ric]

22 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It's not really a duopoly though because football isn't really a sector.

Oh, it most definitely is a duopoly for all the reasons I mentioned, but you are right, it's not a sector in the same sense as a business sector.

22 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Even if it was a sector in its own right there are a huge variety of suppliers whose "product" is available for consumption that people can choose from.

I don't really want to go off on a tangent about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but they blocked a merger between ASDA and Sainsburys - and in fact Walmart recently sold off ASDA because of that - yet that wasn't because there wasn't other 'providers' but because it made the sector uncompetitive. It didn't suggest that because the "fans" of either outlet shopped there (creating income) they were in some way the deciding factor for the merger to be allowed.

As I say, it's a bit of a tangent that I wasn't really intending on extrapolating.

 

The headline here is that we have people who are reaching their mid life who have never witnessed any other team win the league than the big two, if it was just through bad management or poor decisions on the park I'd say, fair play, but it's not that (or at least not that alone), the primary thing that is retaining the duopoly are the finances. That simply cannot be healthy for our sport, and I would contend that by nearly every metric it simply isn't.

Edited October 18, 2020 by Ric
...almost countless grammatical errors!

[coprolite]

32 minutes ago, Ric said:

Oh, it most definitely is a duopoly for all the reasons I mentioned, but you are right, it's not a sector in the same sense as a business sector.

I don't really want to go off on a tangent about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but they blocked a merger between ASDA and Sainsburys - and in fact Walmart recently sold off ASDA because of that - yet that wasn't because there wasn't other 'providers' but because it made the sector uncompetitive. It didn't suggest that because the "fans" of either outlet shopped there (creating income) they were in some way the deciding factor for the merger to be allowed.

As I say, it's a bit of a tangent that I wasn't really intending on extrapolating.

 

The headline here is that we have people who are reaching their mid life who have never witnessed any other team win the league than the big two, if it was just through bad management or poor decisions on the park I'd say, fair play, but it's not that (or at least not that alone), the primary thing that is retaining the duopoly are the finances. That simply cannot be healthy for our sport, and I would contend that by nearly every metric it simply isn't.

Lol. 

Duopoly : If you want to watch football in Scotland you have to pay through the nose because you can only watch Rangers and Celtic. No other teams are available. 

Not a duopoly: Celtic and Rangers win the league but you can watch who you want.

Not really sure what point you're making about walmart and sainsbury but there are specific exemptions from competition law for sporting competitions. If there weren't, the SFA, SPFL, LTA, BAGA, the lot of them would be classed as anti competitive cartels. 

While part of me is just being pedantic because i enjoy it, i also think it's important to understand what the problem is. The problem is a failure of collective action on the part of the clubs. There are, what 40?,clubs in the Spfl that aren't the cheeks and if they could act in concert to distribute money and make rules more fairly then others might have a chance. 

Or you can go full Scottish Football Monitor and write to the EU and the mergers commission. 

 

[D.A.F.C]

Rangers win the league but get into financial difficulty and the title is awarded to Hibs in second place.

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

While part of me is just being pedantic because i enjoy it...

That's quite clear.

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I also think it's important to understand what the problem is. The problem is a failure of collective action on the part of the clubs. There are, what 40?,clubs in the Spfl that aren't the cheeks and if they could act in concert to distribute money and make rules more fairly then others might have a chance.

You are right, it is important to understand the problem. It's all fine and well calling on other clubs to take actions, and it's true they should use their collective bargaining position more, however when the chance to allow major changes to be made it was your chairman that blocked it.

As for the rest of your reply, it's a shame that you've chosen to misinterpret the point I was trying to convey, and being facetious about it isn't going to progress the debate any further on.

However, I'd rather not trade barbed comments, let's end on a point of consensus. I am sure that you, like I,  would rather not see the league won by one of two teams for the next 35 years as they have been for the last 35. The question is how do we alter the structure in order to facilitate that change?

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

I hope they both get the Covid.

I was thinking something along the lines of going into the last day of the season both teams are neck and neck with Aberdeen two points behind.

There's an outbreak of Covid in Glasgow and Rangers and Celtic can't fulfill their fixtures. Aberdeen win theirs.

Do the SPFL award 3-0 wins to Rangers and Celtic's opponents....

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by tamthebam
Spon

[coprolite]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

That's quite clear.

You are right, it is important to understand the problem. It's all fine and well calling on other clubs to take actions, and it's true they should use their collective bargaining position more, however when the chance to allow major changes to be made it was your chairman that blocked it.

As for the rest of your reply, it's a shame that you've chosen to misinterpret the point I was trying to convey, and being facetious about it isn't going to progress the debate any further on.

However, I'd rather not trade barbed comments, let's end on a point of consensus. I am sure that you, like I,  would rather not see the league won by one of two teams for the next 35 years as they have been for the last 35. The question is how do we alter the structure in order to facilitate that change?

No denying that wigless did the wrong thing. That's exactly the sort of short term self interest that gets us in the state we're in. See also the Setanta debacle that probably influenced milne in keeping the voting structure. 

A fairer split of money is an absolute must, but the size of the fanbases limits the impact that could have. I don't think we can expect the authorities to remove the inequality but it shouldn't be too much to ask for them to stop making it worse. 

[invergowrie arab]

2 hours ago, Marshmallo said:

My view with the Old Firm is I would rather have one set of fans in abject misery constantly than them sharing trophies. I think the marginal enjoyment of each trophy win is diminishing. Celtic's joy at winning something else just now is outweighed by Rangers fans' anger, which I don't think would be true for a Rangers title victory.

In other words, one club dominating and the other being in a constant rage is preferable to them both sharing a degree of success.

Knows the words to all the rebel songs

[Jacksgranda]

11 hours ago, HibsFan said:

 

As it comes down to the crunch of this decade of Celtic dominance, I'm leaning more towards believing that Rangers winning a shortened season would tick all the boxes:

• Celtic's support enraged, Timplosions are always fun
• No ten in a row, a minter that Scottish football could do without
• The opportunity for the rest of us to tell Rangers fans it didn't actually count
• H*ns  having to u-turn on shortened league titles not counting
• Presumably a massive fallout and courtroom drama aplenty
• Neil Lennon having to live the rest of his life being known as the man who cost his beloved Celtic 'the 10'

 

I think that sums it up fairly well!

[Miguel Sanchez]

Other. An option that doesn't begin with either "Celtic" or "Rangers"

[Green Day]

Ideal outcome?

Rangers are top of the league come March, Celtic have a couple of games in hand which would take them level on points but ahead on GD.

Scottish Govt forces the SFA/SPFL to call the leagues due to massive CV19 spikes which are traced back to another Glasgow Derby where the fan(nie)s of both clubs travelled to Manchester, got in huge paggers and licked the tables in covid infested nightclubs.

Massive legal action taken, both teams expelled to the seasides - Hibs declared champions on grounds of having the sexiest fans.

Championship declared null and void, no promotion or relegation, Budge and Tom English do a naked half marathon up and down the Royal Mile to raise funds for the Save Hearts In Trouble fund, both are jailed on grounds of public indecency.

[Ric]

9 minutes ago, coprolite said:

A fairer split of money is an absolute must, but the size of the fanbases limits the impact that could have. I don't think we can expect the authorities to remove the inequality but it shouldn't be too much to ask for them to stop making it worse. 

I agree with both of those.

In general I am loathe for the authorities to get involved in a sporting issue (..especially if it could stop Hearts being relegated! ) but the simple fact is the current system simply isn't providing the level of competition that you would "hope" for. Hope is, of course, a very subjective term. I get that you'll always have a set of big clubs hogging the title but 35 years of just two is ridiculous and, without checking, I am guessing not reflective of any other professional league in Europe.