SPFL Review

[capt_oats]

Taking my cynical hat off for a second and overlooking the massive coincidence that the 5 pushing this "review" happen to be the clubs who have had substantial investment from outside partners or "benefactors" or in the case of the Dundee clubs have been propped up by US owners setting fire to cash in their respective money pits with no immediate sign of a return on their investment.

The problem with the SPFL is the SPFL itself. The wants/needs of the majority of the top league sides are entirely different to teams in League 2. So there's a disconnect there.

If the concern is about the marketing of the league then a good first step would be to actually invest properly in marketing. At the moment though, the SPFL is set up to distribute the cash back to the clubs - if the clubs want to change that it's their money and their choice to enact that.

Aside from the hilarity of Hearts being relegated with 8 games to go while kicking and screaming their way through the courts (and being relegated anyway despite what the ITK legal eagles on JKB were predicting) that whole episode last year showed how difficult it is a) to establish common ground and b) enact change in the current set up.

Similarly it highlighted what Doncaster's role actually is, rather than what people want to think it should be. He's an administrator lads. If clubs want a commissioner or the like then go out hire one and be prepared to pay them properly. Again, that's up to the clubs to make that choice.

Establishing a brand takes time and it also takes joined up thinking. Ultimately, short term at least, the point @PauloPerth makes is correct...you can change the names of the leagues, give everything a lick of paint but at the moment the players/teams ie: the "product" will be exactly the same.

Longer term? Absolutely, increased investment should be something that is welcomed but it's not something that going to happen just because Diamond Dave Cormack and Ron The Con will it to be so. What's the strategy? It's surely not just "demand more money for "the product""?

If the concern is about a lack of investment then establish a role that focuses on that and make sure their KPIs and renumeration reflect what you're asking them to do.

There are huge flaws with the SPFL and who knows, maybe this independent report will actually address them in some meaningful way.

If it does then great.

Edited September 16, 2021 by capt_oats

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I'm not suggesting you would match Wigan's offer. I'm suggesting you may get another extension out of him a year prior which in turn boost his value when the teams do make an offer. Or you keep a hold on a good talent for an extra year.

They've been aware of the money on offer elsewhere for a while, much like McCart/Rooney know they'll get huge deals next Summer and have been refusing extensions since the start of the year. Why would they sign extensions with Saints on less than they'd be getting elsewhere? Especially when they know the club could backtrack on any deal to sell them/they could get injured?

[ayaye]

4 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Taking my cynical hat off for a second and overlooking the massive coincidence that the 5 pushing this "review" happen to be the clubs who have had substantial investment from outside partners or "benefactors" or in the case of the Dundee clubs have been propped up by US owners setting fire to cash in their respective money pits with no immediate sign of a return on their investment.

The problem with the SPFL is the SPFL itself. The wants/needs of the majority of the top league sides are entirely different to teams in League 2. So there's a disconnect there.

If the concern is about the marketing of the league then a good first step would be to actually invest properly in marketing. At the moment though, the SPFL is set up to distribute the cash back to the clubs - if the clubs want to change that it's their money and their choice to enact that.

Aside from the hilarity of Hearts being relegated with 8 games to go while kicking and screaming their way through the courts (and being relegated anyway despite what the ITK legal eagles on JKB were predicting) that whole episode last year showed how difficult it is a) to establish common ground and b) enact change.

Similarly it highlighted what Doncaster's role actually is, rather than what people want to think it should be. He's an administrator lads. If clubs want a commissioner or the like then go out hire one and be prepared to pay them properly. Again, that's up to the clubs to make that choice.

Establishing a brand takes time and it also takes joined up thinking. Ultimately, short term at least, the point @PauloPerth makes is correct...you can change the names of the leagues, given everything a lick of paint but at the moment the players/teams ie: the "product" will be exactly the same.

Longer term? Absolutely, increased investment should be something that is welcomed but it's not something that going to happen just because Diamond Dave Cormack and Ron The Con will it to be so. What's the strategy? It's surely not just "demand more money for "the product""?

If the concern is about a lack of investment then establish a role that focuses on that and make sure their KPIs and renumeration reflect what you're asking them to do.

There are huge flaws with the SPFL and who knows, maybe this independent report will actually address them in some meaningful way.

If it does then great.

100%.

I'm just not sure a report by independent advisors commissioned by only 5 of the clubs that make up the SPFL (12%), who all happen to be in the top tier, will give an 'independent' verdict. I hope I'm proven wrong.

[Ludo*1]

4 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

They've been aware of the money on offer elsewhere for a while, much like McCart/Rooney know they'll get huge deals next Summer and have been refusing extensions since the start of the year. Why would they sign extensions with Saints on less than they'd be getting elsewhere? Especially when they know the club could backtrack on any deal to sell them/they could get injured?

You could have avoided this by not shitting the bed in Europe and netting the £3m.

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

They've been aware of the money on offer elsewhere for a while, much like McCart/Rooney know they'll get huge deals next Summer and have been refusing extensions since the start of the year. Why would they sign extensions with Saints on less than they'd be getting elsewhere? Especially when they know the club could backtrack on any deal to sell them/they could get injured?

It happens in football all the time. Players sign for an extra year on an increased wage so the club can then maximise their profit whilst the player can also look at attracting a bigger wage from his next club.

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

You could have avoided this by not shitting the bed in Europe and netting the £3m.

What?

Kerr wasn't signing a new deal regardless, and McCann didn't leave for the money. The £3m would've made no difference to either situation.

[the jambo-rocker]

4 hours ago, Les Cabbage said:

Genuinely curious, for the people that want the league to be extended to 16/18.

Assuming we play eachother twice that would reduce the amount of league games we play to either 30 or 34 games.

How do you plan for clubs to sign up to that? It would reduce the money coming in as it would be less gate money from less games, less derbies and all that comes along with that.

I’m not knocking the idea but I’m just not sure how it makes sense for any club from a financial perspective, other than for the 4 clubs that would be promoted as a result

I think you could get away with 18, but 30 might be stretch. People will still likely pay for 34 as long as the piss isn't taken IMO.

I'd say people that say mid-table games would become boring in a bigger league should ask English teams their thoughts on dead rubbers and they don't matter to them. Even then, a compromise for it with the 5th place that now nets that European place, would be to have playoffs 4-7th like they do in the Dutch leagues.

I've always personally liked the idea of introducing a Super Cup match also. Of course that doesn't guarantee a third OF game around the 4 OF matches originally guaranteed, but the onus should be on them to be playing for it IMO. Extra trophy at the end of the day.

[RandomGuy.]

19 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

It happens in football all the time. Players sign for an extra year on an increased wage so the club can then maximise their profit whilst the player can also look at attracting a bigger wage from his next club.

I mean, that's almost exactly what Kerr done when he signed his last deal.

[DukDukGoose]

11 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I mean, that's almost exactly what Kerr done when he signed his last deal.

So more money means you can do it again/offer him a higher wage and get a true reflection of his worth.

Scott McKenna got at least 3 extensions from us before he left.

[Leith Green]

35 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

McCann didn't leave for the money

Another altruistic footballer........................

Edited September 16, 2021 by Leith Green

[RandomGuy.]

5 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

So more money means you can do it again/offer him a higher wage and get a true reflection of his worth.

He didn't want to stay any longer, he's turning 25 this season and had been with us for like a decade.

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

He didn't want to stay any longer, he's turning 25 this season and had been with us for like a decade.

That's why I said offer a higher wage and get a true reflection of his worth.

[RandomGuy.]

2 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

That's why I said offer a higher wage and get a true reflection of his worth.

It wouldn't matter what we offered him though, which is what I'm saying.

He admitted after leaving that he felt he had nothing left to achieve in Scotland and wanted to try and challenge himself in a different country, same with McCann. He wasn't going to run the risk of trying to get his big move down south as a 26yo, the fact he stayed so long as it is probably meant Wigan could get him, as English clubs are snobby about a players age from up here.

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

It wouldn't matter what we offered him though, which is what I'm saying.

He admitted after leaving that he felt he had nothing left to achieve in Scotland and wanted to try and challenge himself in a different country, same with McCann. He wasn't going to run the risk of trying to get his big move down south as a 26yo, the fact he stayed so long as it is probably meant Wigan could get him, as English clubs are snobby about a players age from up here.

You're not this silly.

I'm suggesting that if you could have offered him another £1k on his last renewal then that raises his value when Wigan make their offer.

[Dons_1988]

1 hour ago, capt_oats said:

Taking my cynical hat off for a second and overlooking the massive coincidence that the 5 pushing this "review" happen to be the clubs who have had substantial investment from outside partners or "benefactors" or in the case of the Dundee clubs have been propped up by US owners setting fire to cash in their respective money pits with no immediate sign of a return on their investment.

The problem with the SPFL is the SPFL itself. The wants/needs of the majority of the top league sides are entirely different to teams in League 2. So there's a disconnect there.

If the concern is about the marketing of the league then a good first step would be to actually invest properly in marketing. At the moment though, the SPFL is set up to distribute the cash back to the clubs - if the clubs want to change that it's their money and their choice to enact that.

Aside from the hilarity of Hearts being relegated with 8 games to go while kicking and screaming their way through the courts (and being relegated anyway despite what the ITK legal eagles on JKB were predicting) that whole episode last year showed how difficult it is a) to establish common ground and b) enact change in the current set up.

Similarly it highlighted what Doncaster's role actually is, rather than what people want to think it should be. He's an administrator lads. If clubs want a commissioner or the like then go out hire one and be prepared to pay them properly. Again, that's up to the clubs to make that choice.

Establishing a brand takes time and it also takes joined up thinking. Ultimately, short term at least, the point @PauloPerth makes is correct...you can change the names of the leagues, give everything a lick of paint but at the moment the players/teams ie: the "product" will be exactly the same.

Longer term? Absolutely, increased investment should be something that is welcomed but it's not something that going to happen just because Diamond Dave Cormack and Ron The Con will it to be so. What's the strategy? It's surely not just "demand more money for "the product""?

If the concern is about a lack of investment then establish a role that focuses on that and make sure their KPIs and renumeration reflect what you're asking them to do.

There are huge flaws with the SPFL and who knows, maybe this independent report will actually address them in some meaningful way.

If it does then great.

I used to respect you and then you typed renumeration

[Ludo*1]

53 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

What?

Kerr wasn't signing a new deal regardless, and McCann didn't leave for the money. The £3m would've made no difference to either situation.

You wouldn't have bent over so easily on deadline day with that £3m.

[RandomGuy.]

15 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

You're not this silly.

I'm suggesting that if you could have offered him another £1k on his last renewal then that raises his value when Wigan make their offer.

He was down to the last 12 months of his deal, him earning an extra £1k a week would have made almost no difference.

He wasn't going to extend his deal as he'd already done that to get us a fee before and was desperate to challenge himself in a different league.

12 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

You wouldn't have bent over so easily on deadline day with that £3m.

It really wouldn't. Kerr wasn't signing a new deal and our whole youth development push is about getting fees in, losing Kerr for nothing would make it all pointless. 

The McCann fee is one the club are claiming will smash the transfer record and then have a hefty sell on clause on top of, with McCann demanding he's sold and forcing the move. I doubt that changes with the extra money.

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

The McCann fee is one the club are claiming will smash the transfer record and then have a hefty sell on clause on top of, with McCann demanding he's sold and forcing the move. I doubt that changes with the extra money.

Was only a matter of time until you swallowed it.

[Zamora Fan]

I think you could get away with 18, but 30 might be stretch. People will still likely pay for 34 as long as the piss isn't taken IMO.
I'd say people that say mid-table games would become boring in a bigger league should ask English teams their thoughts on dead rubbers and they don't matter to them. Even then, a compromise for it with the 5th place that now nets that European place, would be to have playoffs 4-7th like they do in the Dutch leagues.
I've always personally liked the idea of introducing a Super Cup match also. Of course that doesn't guarantee a third OF game around the 4 OF matches originally guaranteed, but the onus should be on them to be playing for it IMO. Extra trophy at the end of the day.

See I think that sounds shite. Even if there is a playoff (bit difficult to work given the Scottish cup place) that means a load of teams from like 9th to 14th doing f**k all. The existence of those teams that kick about in mid table in the English league seems well boring tbh.

[RandomGuy.]

5 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Was only a matter of time until you swallowed it.

Swallowed what?

I think we sold McCann too low but the club clearly don't, so I don't think an extra £3m would've changed their mind on that deal.