How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[coprolite]

48 minutes ago, SilverWolfe said:

Always find people suggesting that we split the gate receipts for league games. If anyone took the time to do the math, splitting gates would likely be counter productive. 

Suggesting that someone should take time to do the Maths co-incided with the start of a really dull Teams training session for me.

 

Having done the Maths, splitting gate receipts would appear to be re-distributive, which really should be unsurprising:

I've just done ticket sales, adding value would be easy but wouldn't change the overall picture- it would make the curves steeper I think.

I've assumed that clubs finish in crowd size order, only to account for the split.

The eagle eyed will note that there are 6,000 more tickets in the "split" column.  That's because I've done 0.75*the crowds in the other half as the average away share, and included 1x the crowds in the same half (50% x 2 games)

 

Fully expecting this to be pulled apart, but I welcome peer review to improve the robustness of the model.

[Guest]

All for splitting gate receipts and similar collectivised initiatives. Can folk stop positing salary caps, though. There's a reason why the only place that does that in sport is USA, where they think the entire point of human existence is to profit from other people's work.

[Monkey Tennis]

46 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Any hints on when football in Scotland was ever egalitarian?

Never entirely.  What a facile observation you attempt to make.

It has, however, until recent decades been much much more egalitarian than is currently the case.

 

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Never entirely.  What a facile observation you attempt to make.

Bit crabbit tonight?  Again?

Scottish football - since its inception - has never been egalitarian.

[HibsFan]

A comment @Monkey Tennis once made that stuck with me on this topic was that, and I'm probably butchering the retelling, the non-Old Firm teams should be allowed to handle the ball and run with it, such is the level of inequality we've reached in Scottish football.

[Kapowzer]

54 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If you want to argue the toss then don't make the poor apostrophe the victim.

As to "why the rest of us think you’re both fucking roasters" I see that.  Which is why I'm not defending the songs - just your ignorance.

As I said - it was all the same polity.

Dunno about anyone else but based on your posting I picture you carried by two bald eunuchs in a sedan chair.

[Guest]

You need a shared consensus so changes can be made multilaterally, all at once. It's neither fair nor realistic to expect individual clubs to set a good example, to give up their privileges unilaterally (this especially would never happen with Cel/Ran).  Even with that, you can only get to the stage of Germany but that is very much worth getting to. There's a reason their league is still called Bundesliga, "bundes" meaning federal or collective, and not some Americanised name like "Premier League" or "Super League". 

Why I say you can currently only get to Germany's level is because the problems in Germany, especially Bayern's dominance, is caused by the external system. It's cash flowing in from outside Germany that has inflated Bayern and that has been beyond German football's control. An element of that has happened with Ran/Cel. The external system, fucked up by the creation of the Premier League in England then the knock-on effects from that (UEFA having to throw cash at elite clubs to stop them breaking away) cannot be countered just from Scotland.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, Kapowzer said:

Dunno about anyone else but based on your posting I picture you carried by two bald eunuchs in a sedan chair.

Lots of posters over my many years on P&B share their fantasies about me but this is the most accurate yet.

I was at the quack for an annual health check on Monday and lockdown hasn't been kind.  I've gained 5Kg so am now recruiting 2 more baldy eunuchs.

[SilverWolfe]

48 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Suggesting that someone should take time to do the Maths co-incided with the start of a really dull Teams training session for me.

 

Having done the Maths, splitting gate receipts would appear to be re-distributive, which really should be unsurprising:

I've just done ticket sales, adding value would be easy but wouldn't change the overall picture- it would make the curves steeper I think.

I've assumed that clubs finish in crowd size order, only to account for the split.

The eagle eyed will note that there are 6,000 more tickets in the "split" column.  That's because I've done 0.75*the crowds in the other half as the average away share, and included 1x the crowds in the same half (50% x 2 games)

 

Fully expecting this to be pulled apart, but I welcome peer review to improve the robustness of the model.

I think I’m following what you’ve done there and pretty sure you’re roughly getting the same answer as me overall.

it is re-distributive, however, it mainly moves revenue from Celtic/ Rangers to the smaller 7 clubs. Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs would remain roughly the same. I’ve used numerous models over numerous years and every time the result shows those 3 clubs would not gain or loss materially.

The end result is that the smaller 7 clubs get much closer to the middle 3. Even though the top 2 lose out, they still remain miles ahead in terms of overall revenues. Given those 3 middle clubs are the most likely to provide a challenge, the above re-distribution model only makes it harder for them. 
 

That’s not to say its not worth pursuing, just that it won’t make it more likely that we get another winner of the league. 

[The_Kincardine]

42 minutes ago, HibsFan said:

A comment @Monkey Tennis once made that stuck with me on this topic was that, and I'm probably butchering the retelling, the non-Old Firm teams should be allowed to handle the ball and run with it, such is the level of inequality we've reached in Scottish football.

In the land of @Monkey Tennisevery game would be a draw and every team would congratulate themselves on the outcome.

[Monkey Tennis]

12 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

In the land of @Monkey Tennisevery game would be a draw and every team would congratulate themselves on the outcome.

Is that really the best you've got?

I never had you down as an imbecile.  This idea that to question the grotesque imbalance that currently exists is to somehow only instead want absolute equality, is just fucking juvenile and actually a bit thick.

[The_Kincardine]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What a facile observation you attempt to make.

 

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I never had you down as an imbecile.  

Happy Friday to you too

[VincentGuerin]

2 hours ago, SilverWolfe said:

 do the math

I've seen some sick, sick stuff on this site, but this is fucking vile.

[coprolite]

34 minutes ago, SilverWolfe said:

I think I’m following what you’ve done there and pretty sure you’re roughly getting the same answer as me overall.

it is re-distributive, however, it mainly moves revenue from Celtic/ Rangers to the smaller 7 clubs. Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs would remain roughly the same. I’ve used numerous models over numerous years and every time the result shows those 3 clubs would not gain or loss materially.

The end result is that the smaller 7 clubs get much closer to the middle 3. Even though the top 2 lose out, they still remain miles ahead in terms of overall revenues. Given those 3 middle clubs are the most likely to provide a challenge, the above re-distribution model only makes it harder for them. 
 

That’s not to say its not worth pursuing, just that it won’t make it more likely that we get another winner of the league. 

Agreed. I think it would change the probability of a non OF league winner from pigs-flying to once in a blue moon.

[VincentGuerin]

Talk of league structures of gate money distribution is deck chairs on the Titanic stuff.

The game needs to be fundamentally reorganised from the top down, including the European competitions and how the finance that flows from that works.

Nothing else will make any meaningful difference. And it's unlikely to happen. We'd all be as well making peace with that.

Barring some fabulously wealthy lunatic buying a Scottish club, nobody else is ever going to win the league. And I'm not sure 'd even like to see it done that way.

[Monkey Tennis]

9 hours ago, Aufc said:

 

I don’t agree with stuff like gate money being pooled. That seems slightly unfair. 

 

I don't think it's remotely unfair.

Letting one team keep all the money from a match is the very definition of unfair.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Lots of posters over my many years on P&B share their fantasies about me but this is the most accurate yet.

I was at the quack for an annual health check on Monday and lockdown hasn't been kind.  I've gained 5Kg so am now recruiting 2 more baldy eunuchs.

How much are you paying?

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

How much are you paying?

Lots of baldies asking the same Q.  Most are doing it discretely by PM.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, SilverWolfe said:

I think I’m following what you’ve done there and pretty sure you’re roughly getting the same answer as me overall.

it is re-distributive, however, it mainly moves revenue from Celtic/ Rangers to the smaller 7 clubs. Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs would remain roughly the same. I’ve used numerous models over numerous years and every time the result shows those 3 clubs would not gain or loss materially.

The end result is that the smaller 7 clubs get much closer to the middle 3. Even though the top 2 lose out, they still remain miles ahead in terms of overall revenues. Given those 3 middle clubs are the most likely to provide a challenge, the above re-distribution model only makes it harder for them. 
 

That’s not to say its not worth pursuing, just that it won’t make it more likely that we get another winner of the league. 

This is debatable though.  In relative terms, it does take the bigger diddy sides closer to the OF.  It also makes it harder for the sister clubs to pulverise everyone every week.  

In itself, it's unlikely to produce a new champion.  It has value, however, in that it recognises that if the Motherwell team doesn't show up at Parkhead, 50,000 others don't either.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, HibsFan said:

A comment @Monkey Tennis once made that stuck with me on this topic was that, and I'm probably butchering the retelling, the non-Old Firm teams should be allowed to handle the ball and run with it, such is the level of inequality we've reached in Scottish football.

That's about right.

When you really think about it, it's absolutely perverse that we require both teams to field the same number of players and obey the same rules regarding handball and offside (presumably in the interests of fairness) yet allow, nay encourage and revel in, gross imbalances in wealth and spending.  We do this while safe in the certain knowledge that such imbalance dictates outcomes.  

I asked what would yield a closer outcome over the course of the season:  the current set up; or one where wealth was equalised, but the OF's opponents could only field ten men each week?

 

I'm sure the second arrangement would see the OF finish ahead of the pack by a smaller margin than is currently evident.  If that's true, it begs questions as to why we bother.