How did we get here?

[10menwent2mow]

2 hours ago, Luddite said:

Often wondered that myself…”Lost Futures” and all that jazz…if Hearts had won the ‘86 League, if Dundee United won the ‘87 UEFA Cup….

Can add the Dons not winning the league at Ibrox in 91. Following season was the first of the Champions League. 

[Luddite]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Shaker said:

No mention of the abandoned plans for the Scottish Super League in 1992? Eyeing up the money on offer in England, five clubs quit the SFL to form a new league, rising to eight or nine before Celtic - at the time skint, rudderless and little more than a wreck looking for a place to happen - panicked, everyone fell out with each other, and the whole thing collapsed. What was pegged as a much more fan-friendly league - less games, pretty much all of which would be on a Saturday, no relegation for two seasons until it had settled down - was still in the planning as the Premier League took off, meaning we were immediately behind the curve as English football was reborn. Following the colllapse of the Super League plans, Murray pulled on his braces, pulled the ladder up and started signing cheques with a stamp - with a stamp, Marge! - to power Rangers to 9IAR, ahead of a decade and more of squabbling with Celtic culminating in 2012 and all that.

It also ultimately brought about the reorganisation of the leagues and the election of Inverness and Ross County - teams that almost immediately rocketed up the leagues, displacing old hands as they went - leading to a quarter of a century of grim pyramid chat and precious little action, since (sort of) recitifed. The whole episode coincided with Scotland's disastrous World Cup '94 qualifying campaign, which didn't help at all.

Took another few years for a breakaway league to launch in the shape of the SPL, but by then the EPL had won.

Strange season, 1992/93. 

 

Definitely should have included this info, but I have very little recollection of those plans and consequences. Thanks

Edited February 2, 2022 by Luddite

[DA Baracus]

Very old firm centric take on things in the original post.

[Highlandmagar]

17 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Very old firm centric take on things in the original post.

Yeah. You'd think that was only thing that matters.

[Kyle Reese]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That Scottish Super League was a hideous notion - no relegation for Christ's sake.

You make it sound regrettable that it never got going. 

 

It's also one Hell of a take on the SPL, to imply that the biggest problem with that shitshow was that it came too late.

The problem with the SPL, was the eight club chairmen and CEOs who thought that by making it smaller, there would be more money spread over a smaller number of clubs, and that this would lead to the non-OF clubs getting stronger and closer to the OF. Was never going to happen. 

The problems with the current set-up are vast and many, but the main one, is the gap between the OF and the other clubs. It simply does not matter what anyone does to change it, if this isn’t tackled. It’s the one thing that would improve the game here. Many of us believe that a bigger league playing each other home and away is the biggest change that COULD help achieve this. Others argue that it never worked in the fucking 70s so won’t work now.

[ftk]

You could help fix the gap my taxing each club in the Premiership 50% of their revenue then distribute it equally between all 12 teams.

E.g if £60 million was raised then each team would get £5 million back. Would significantly weaken the old firm and greatly strengthen the smaller teams.

Need to fix the voting structure for this to ever happen though.

[Monkey Tennis]

20 minutes ago, Kyle Reese said:

The problem with the SPL, was the eight club chairmen and CEOs who thought that by making it smaller, there would be more money spread over a smaller number of clubs, and that this would lead to the non-OF clubs getting stronger and closer to the OF. Was never going to happen. 

The problems with the current set-up are vast and many, but the main one, is the gap between the OF and the other clubs. It simply does not matter what anyone does to change it, if this isn’t tackled. It’s the one thing that would improve the game here. Many of us believe that a bigger league playing each other home and away is the biggest change that COULD help achieve this. Others argue that it never worked in the fucking 70s so won’t work now.

I really don't understand the logic that sees a clear link between a bigger top league and a greater challenge for those at the top. 

I'm not saying it would make things worse, but I don't see how introducing smaller clubs is likely to narrow the gap between the bloated big ones and the rest.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I really don't understand the logic that sees a clear link between a bigger top league and a greater challenge for those at the top. 
I'm not saying it would make things worse, but I don't see how introducing smaller clubs is likely to narrow the gap between the bloated big ones and the rest.

The argument usually goes that if Aberdeen/Hearts/whoever didn’t have to face Rangers 4 times they would have a better chance

It’s piffle of course

If hearts had a team that was good enough to be contenders we’d have a team good enough to get 6 points out of 12 against Celtic or Rangers.

The one way that restructuring to 18 or 10 might open things up a lot would be a shorter season.

Keeping the dream alive for 34 or 36 games is slightly more likely than 38

[Kyle Reese]

8 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I really don't understand the logic that sees a clear link between a bigger top league and a greater challenge for those at the top. 

I'm not saying it would make things worse, but I don't see how introducing smaller clubs is likely to narrow the gap between the bloated big ones and the rest.

 

7 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

The argument usually goes that if Aberdeen/Hearts/whoever didn’t have to face Rangers 4 times they would have a better chance

It’s piffle of course

If hearts had a team that was good enough to be contenders we’d have a team good enough to get 6 points out of 12 against Celtic or Rangers.

The one way that restructuring to 18 or 10 might open things up a lot would be a shorter season.

Keeping the dream alive for 34 or 36 games is slightly more likely than 38

This is a very selfish hypothetical set-up that I’m suggesting. It won’t be popular, but it’s the best way I can think of, to make the possibility of a champion out-with the OF a possibility.

If you added four or six teams to the current 12, and everybody played each other once at home, and once away, then in my opinion, you would have the opportunity for one of the three medium sized clubs to put in a league challenge, in a season where they put together a once in a decade or so good squad. 

I’ll use Hearts as my hero in my scenario, just because:

Over the course of 30 or 34 games, we would play the OF once at home, and once away. They would be tough games, but we would be more capable of winning them and overcoming.the odds in two one off cup final-esque fixtures, than we would four times over the season.

What I think could happen, is the gap would shift. The current problematic gap, is the one from second to third. If that gap was narrowed a bit, and the gap from fifth to sixth was widened a bit, then over the course of a season, if one of the medium three (Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen) managed to assemble that once in a decade outstanding squad, we would be better equipped to do an OF on the teams below us.

Bear in mind in this scenario, we have a squad like that of Hearts in 86, 98 or 06. It’s also dependent on a few other things, not just an extended top division. I’d introduce a cap on away supporters. Set it a percentage of average home crowd. This would mean less income for clubs that currently sell comparable numbers of tickets to the OF when playing them at home, as they do to their own supporters. This would reduce the quality of their playing resources, and widen the gap a little between fifth and sixth place clubs (based on size of support).

The medium sized club that puts together their once in a decade good squad would probably get more points over a season by doing better against the third tier top division clubs, and would only have to play the top two twice each. Over the course of the season I believe this could lead to the medium sized club, who had assembled this rare but excellent squad, to put in a better challenge than if it had to play the OF eight times. It could also be less likely to slip up v one of the smaller clubs and drop as many points that way.

I’d also abolish loans between clubs in the same division, and I’d have two automatic relegation spots, and then play offs between third bottom and third in the division below. All teams in the top division would to be full-time professional. 

Selfish, and won’t be to many people’s taste, but in my opinion, it’s about the only way I can ever see a challenge from out-with Glasgow. It wouldn’t be a sure thing to work, but I believe it sets the board in a way that would at least make it a bit more likely. 

Many flaws in what I’ve put above, and it’s no guarantee of success, but I think it would at least make it a bit more achievable. Let’s face it, there’s plenty flaws in the current system, and we know for damn sure that it doesn’t lend itself well to a team out-with the OF winning it at present, as we’ve seen for the last 30 odd years. 

It’s early in the morning though, and I’ve not had a coffee yet. I’ll look back in and take the pelters over all the reasons why it’s a terrible idea a little later.

[kennie makevin]

2 hours ago, Kyle Reese said:

 

This is a very selfish hypothetical set-up that I’m suggesting. It won’t be popular, but it’s the best way I can think of, to make the possibility of a champion out-with the OF a possibility.

If you added four or six teams to the current 12, and everybody played each other once at home, and once away, then in my opinion, you would have the opportunity for one of the three medium sized clubs to put in a league challenge, in a season where they put together a once in a decade or so good squad. 

I’ll use Hearts as my hero in my scenario, just because:

Over the course of 30 or 34 games, we would play the OF once at home, and once away. They would be tough games, but we would be more capable of winning them and overcoming.the odds in two one off cup final-esque fixtures, than we would four times over the season.

What I think could happen, is the gap would shift. The current problematic gap, is the one from second to third. If that gap was narrowed a bit, and the gap from fifth to sixth was widened a bit, then over the course of a season, if one of the medium three (Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen) managed to assemble that once in a decade outstanding squad, we would be better equipped to do an OF on the teams below us.

Bear in mind in this scenario, we have a squad like that of Hearts in 86, 98 or 06. It’s also dependent on a few other things, not just an extended top division. I’d introduce a cap on away supporters. Set it a percentage of average home crowd. This would mean less income for clubs that currently sell comparable numbers of tickets to the OF when playing them at home, as they do to their own supporters. This would reduce the quality of their playing resources, and widen the gap a little between fifth and sixth place clubs (based on size of support).

The medium sized club that puts together their once in a decade good squad would probably get more points over a season by doing better against the third tier top division clubs, and would only have to play the top two twice each. Over the course of the season I believe this could lead to the medium sized club, who had assembled this rare but excellent squad, to put in a better challenge than if it had to play the OF eight times. It could also be less likely to slip up v one of the smaller clubs and drop as many points that way.

I’d also abolish loans between clubs in the same division, and I’d have two automatic relegation spots, and then play offs between third bottom and third in the division below. All teams in the top division would to be full-time professional. 

Selfish, and won’t be to many people’s taste, but in my opinion, it’s about the only way I can ever see a challenge from out-with Glasgow. It wouldn’t be a sure thing to work, but I believe it sets the board in a way that would at least make it a bit more likely. 

Many flaws in what I’ve put above, and it’s no guarantee of success, but I think it would at least make it a bit more achievable. Let’s face it, there’s plenty flaws in the current system, and we know for damn sure that it doesn’t lend itself well to a team out-with the OF winning it at present, as we’ve seen for the last 30 odd years. 

It’s early in the morning though, and I’ve not had a coffee yet. I’ll look back in and take the pelters over all the reasons why it’s a terrible idea a little later.

Not forgetting of course, the utter tedium of playing the same teams on such a regular basis . Factor in the stifling of young talent coming through when every game is 'vital', a healthy league requires a zone of mid-table safety come springtime. 

How did we get here ? By abondining two divisions, playing each other home an away only.  That decision in 74/75 sealed Scottish footballs fate. A slow, steady and now rapidly accelerating decline every since. 

 

[Ric]

Not replied to this thread yet, but I will do so, however it will be very short...

 

> "How did we get here?"

> "Being subservient to the duopoly"

[Luddite]

13 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Very old firm centric take on things in the original post.

 

13 hours ago, Highlandmagyar Tier 3 said:

Yeah. You'd think that was only thing that matters.

This is the strangest response I’ve read, if you can explain ways in which teams outside the Old Firm contributed to the neoliberalization of Scottish football I would genuinely like to read it. 

 

[Kyle Reese]

28 minutes ago, kennie makevin said:

Not forgetting of course, the utter tedium of playing the same teams on such a regular basis . Factor in the stifling of young talent coming through when every game is 'vital', a healthy league requires a zone of mid-table safety come springtime. 

How did we get here ? By abondining two divisions, playing each other home an away only.  That decision in 74/75 sealed Scottish footballs fate. A slow, steady and now rapidly accelerating decline every since. 

 

Whilst I agree, some people think it is better to play the bigger teams more often, because it's more bigger games. Personally, I agree with you.

[Luddite]

12 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I really don't understand the logic that sees a clear link between a bigger top league and a greater challenge for those at the top. 

I'm not saying it would make things worse, but I don't see how introducing smaller clubs is likely to narrow the gap between the bloated big ones and the rest.

If teams like Hearts, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dun Utd only had to go to Ibrox and Parkhead once a season, would that reduce the number of “guaranteed 3 pts” for the OF against teams with the best chance of forming a challenge to them?

It still kinda needs a 3rd team to separate  themselves from the rest though, like a few teams have had good performances and results against OF this season, then followed it up with a loss to teams below then in the league.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Luddite

[Lex]

You could help fix the gap my taxing each club in the Premiership 50% of their revenue then distribute it equally between all 12 teams.

E.g if £60 million was raised then each team would get £5 million back. Would significantly weaken the old firm and greatly strengthen the smaller teams.

Need to fix the voting structure for this to ever happen though.

We had a chance to fix the voting structure when Rangers died. The other clubs could have then outvoted the old firm on any proposal and something like that could have been introduced.
Aberdeen and Stewart Milne decided against it however, so we are stuck with 11-1. c***s.

[Luddite]

2 minutes ago, Lex said:

 

We had a chance to fix the voting structure when Rangers died. The other clubs could have then outvoted the old firm on any proposal and something like that could have been introduced.
Aberdeen and Stewart Milne decided against it however, so we are stuck with 11-1. c***s.

 

I don’t know enough about this. What was the Aberdeen logic here?

[Kyle Reese]

3 minutes ago, Luddite said:

If teams only had to go to Ibrox and Parkhead once a season, would that reduce the number of “guaranteed 3 pts” for the OF?

It still kinda needs a 3rd team to separate  themself from the rest though, like a few teams have had good performances and results against OF this season, then followed it up with a loss to teams below then in the league.

That's because the system we operate under has every team in the second tier of the division too closely matched. Teams with 18k average attendances are closer in quality to teams with 4k average attendances, than they are the 40/50k top two. Add in OF loanees to the 4k teams, and you have a situation where everyone outside the top two will take more points of each other, but unlikely to do it very often v the top two.

[Kyle Reese]

5 minutes ago, Luddite said:

I don’t know enough about this. What was the Aberdeen logic here?

I can't remember the reasons that Aberdeen gave, but I emailed Hearts at the time and asked what our intentions were. The reply, was that as Aberdeen had signaled their intention to retain it, it was immaterial, and they would abstain. I then asked if Aberdeen had not signaled their intention to vote that way, how would Hearts vote? I was told that it would be decided at board level, and they would have to take things like the possibility of small teams voting for gate sharing in to account, but they would most likely have voted for a fairer voting system. 

[Kyle Reese]

27 minutes ago, Luddite said:

I don’t know enough about this. What was the Aberdeen logic here?

Peter Lawwell's words at the time:

hissssssssssssssssssssss

Aberdeen's stance:

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I can't remember the reasons that Aberdeen gave, but I emailed Hearts at the time and asked what our intentions were. The reply, was that as Aberdeen had signaled their intention to retain it, it was immaterial, and they would abstain. I then asked if Aberdeen had not signaled their intention to vote that way, how would Hearts vote? I was told that it would be decided at board level, and they would have to take things like the possibility of small teams voting for gate sharing in to account, but they would most likely have voted for a fairer voting system. 

Given the very real financial meltdown spreading from the Baltic Hearts board presumably had more pressing concerns than a hypothetical vote on league reform