SPFL Review

[Ludo*1]

3 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

You may laugh, but if you were to be starting from scratch, you would not have anything like the set up and location of clubs we currently have.

I'm not saying for a second these clubs should merge as it would be a loss, but certainly, do I think there could be some tie ins then pretty likely. I know it is old ground, but it makes zero sense having 2 stadiums on the same street and given the failed multiple attempts at Dundee moving in their own, some sort of shared facility isn't a stupid idea.

Scotland and England are pretty unique in footballing terms not to have shared stadiums and such a large volume of senior teams in such a condensed area.

Given 4 of the 5 teams involved in the review are essentially US owned or at least in part, it would be reasonable to have maybe what we would see as abnormal approaches to how the game and clubs could be structured. Let's be brutally honest, there is a great product there, but the conditions it is in, be it stadiums, tv deals, sponsorship, governance and leadership is more akin to some Balkin state than supposedly one of the richest nations in the world. 

This is gibbering shite.

[Raidernation]

John Nelms
Nelms told BBC Scotland: "It could get ugly. You could have breakaway groups."
 

He’s met Davie Dodds then!

[Swello]

I'm genuinely interested to see what they come out with as there is a lot to fix about the current set up - but I can't get past the fact that a lot of stuff that would be beneficial to the clubs that are writing the terms of reference (let's not pretend this is about the good of Scottish football or any other naïve shite) will likely be to the direct detriment of the OF and that simply won't be allowed happen. The fact that Rangers and Celtic are (seemingly) not involved with this badly hurts its credibility as they always act as one in any situation where other clubs try to force the issue and the truth is that they hold all the power as voting was never reformed when the opportunity was there. 

I also worry that any review will ultimately be about "more money" and will do nothing to fix the biggest flaw in the domestic game which is that the top league is sown up between 2 teams and so is stale as f**k. Not trying to address that is just tinkering at the edges, so I hope the best facet of US sport - stopping things going stale by not allowing one team to dominate - is part of the "competition" part of the review as it would be interesting to see how that could work in theory (although it obviously won't happen in practice)

Edited September 14, 2021 by Swello

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, Chefki Kuqi said:

I also worry about the relatively low number of live televised games that we have and that potentially being heavily influenced by the OF. Not to say that we can't improve the marketing of the game by showing more games, but I do feel there is scope for that value to drop down the more games we show.

The relatively low number of televised games is partly driven by a desire to get fans through the gates, because they are the biggest income generators for most clubs. Having more games on TV means more games moved away from 3pm on a Saturday which is the holy grail for most supporters.

Look at the kick-off times on an average weekend in the European leagues which sell most of their games. I'll take Belgium as an example since you mentioned them - this coming weekend the kick-off times are

Fri 19:45

Sat 15:15
Sat 17:30
Sat 17:30
Sat 19:45

Sun 12:30
Sun 15:00
Sun 17:30
Sun 20:00

 

Obviously we'd only have six games rather than their nine, but we'd still have to look at five or six different kick-off times every weekend, none of which could be 3pm since England are retaining their blackout. So you'd most likely be looking at Friday night, Saturday lunchtime and evening and then lunchtime, afternoon and evening on a Sunday. For the midweek cards you'd probably end up with games kicking off at times like 18:30 and 20:15 Tuesday-Thursday each week.

[Dons_1988]

7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'm struggling to see where he's wrong here to be honest.

Of course this will be about narrow self interest.  

Well aye, businesses rarely invest in things like this without self interest but 1) self interest in itself isn’t a crime 2) self interest doesn’t have to be detrimental to everyone else.

Nothing has been proposed yet here so the time to lose the heed is when the recommendations come out. If they do come out and it’s a 10 team top flight and discarding all the part time teams etc then I won’t be saying ‘I like it because my team proposed it!’. 

I would say it’s a relatively refreshing change from the annual colt team proposal. 

[Monkey Tennis]

8 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Aye all these folk would be raging if it was Rangers and Celtic doing this.

For them it isn't Narrow Self interest when their clubs do it.

Yes, that's about the size of it.

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

Deloitte in Scotland are an absolute gang so nothing worthwhile will come out of it regardless. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

1) self interest in itself isn’t a crime 2) self interest doesn’t have to be detrimental to everyone else.

Seriously?  In football? 

Wow.

Greed is good, yeah?

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Seriously?  In football? 

Wow.

Greed is good, yeah?

Don’t be an obtuse fanny, you’re capable of making points. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Don’t be an obtuse fanny, you’re capable of making points. 

And I'm making one here.

Just about everything that's wrong with football results from self interest winning the day.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

And I'm making one here.

Just about everything that's wrong with football results from self interest winning the day.

You’re talking about self interest at the expense of all else. 

You can’t just say all self interest is bad. It’s a nonsense point. 

[Alert Mongoose]

Sadly there will be only one winner out of this and it begins with a ‘D’ and ends with an ‘E’ but they don’t play at Dens Park.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

You’re talking about self interest at the expense of all else. 

You can’t just say all self interest is bad. It’s a nonsense point. 

In the context of football, it absolutely is not a nonsense point.

 

I'll admit I've got this hideously wrong when the outcome is a far more egalitarian distribution of resources throughout our game.

Is that what you see emerging?

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

In the context of football, it absolutely is not a nonsense point.

 

I'll admit I've got this hideously wrong when the outcome is a far more egalitarian distribution of resources throughout our game.

Is that what you see emerging?

Nothing has emerged yet mate, at all. 

Hence this is not worth the weird lashing out. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

Nothing has emerged yet mate, at all. 

Hence this is not worth the weird lashing out. 

Lashing out?

Calling someone a fanny - that sort of thing?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

Willing to bet RG has nailed this spot on, and the Dees and Dons on here know it too.

Hence their lashing out in such a fashion. 

Telling.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Lashing out?

Calling someone a fanny - that sort of thing?

No, lashing out is about 200 posts about conspiracy theories like Aberdeen’s grand plan to seal, eh, third place.

I called you a fanny for twisting my post to imply an act of self interest was the same as an act of greed. You knew what you were doing there. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

 

I called you a fanny for twisting my post to imply an act of self interest was the same as an act of greed. You knew what you were doing there. 

I don't think any twisting whatever, is required to equate the two in this context.

I'm actually a bit astonished to read that you see it otherwise.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't think any twisting whatever, is required to equate the two in this context.

I'm actually a bit astonished to read that you see it otherwise.

If you’re going to close your mind to change in Scottish football unless all self interest is left at the door then I hope you enjoy the current set up we have. 

[Ludo*1]

Interesting to note that it's Tim Keyes that's signed off on this plan from Dundee rather than John Nelms. Nelms is our day to day 'owner', but Keyes is the man with the Texas billions.