How do you solve a problem like the Scottish Premiership?

[kingjoey]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

It's only a fecking colour M8 get a fecking grip.

Is that in the same way that a song is only a collection of words, M90?

[tamba_trio]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

Aye. The days of Rangers pandering to bigots as a commercial concern are well behind us.

Back in 2000 there was a pretty big uproar about the original orange top. Rangers insisted it was tangerine, to honour their Dutch players and manager. 

Did this new top have similar questions raised? I live in Australia, so I could be wrong, but it feels like we've gone backwards in terms of pandering to the sectarian element of the Old Firm. 

[coprolite]

17 hours ago, HailHailHayley said:

MOTD is a highlights show which features every team that has played in the Premier League that day, so don't know how that's relevant? When the BBC have English FA Cup games they select the ties featuring the biggest clubs. 

My point is that this happens in literally every country. But there's a weird victim complex among the diddies here like Scotland is a unique case. Big clubs have bigger fanbases. Big clubs have bigger interest in them. It's not rocket science why Dundee v Falkirk wasn't chosen instead.

Last February the BBC one showed Kidderminster v West Ham and Forest v Leicester while relegating Chelsea v Plymouth to the iPlayer. They also love the "romance of the cup" shite and always show a couple of games with some non-league teams. They do also show big teams but not exclusively. 

Commercial contracts can contain requirements other than simply making payment. The spfl could look for a broadcast partner that will broadcast a greater variety of games for promotional purposes, or highlights, or more trailers etc. Broadcaster wants to show every of game? Great, do that, plus one other from each round, fully promoted. Or, no, just one plus one other. Maybe the spfl tried that and doesn't have the bargaining power. 

I understand Premier Sports decision making. It's the fact that they can make that decision that is irritating. 

 

[effeffsee_the2nd]

On 29/08/2022 at 19:35, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

Premier TV is a commercial enterprise, so no surprise from them, though ironically their absolute refusal to even consider a wider service probably costs rather than gains them viewers overall.

Sportsound has no such excuse yet acts like Rangers and Celtic are their charter holders

The way the TV deal is set up for now basically has the viewers maxed out due to current rules;

the police won't entertain them both being at home on the same day, let alone at the same time, so it's always one at home one away, with the away team almost always being televised  - ross county v celtic the other week was the first i can mind for a while

No team can have more than 4 home games rescheduled for TV - the idea of this is kinda fair enough but maybe the number needs looked at.  

Under this set up almost all the old firms home games are sat 3pm ko's (unless they're playing each other) but the flip side is they almost never have an away game at that time. this means that whichever team is away from home WILL get the most viewers because 1. demand for tickets will far outstrip supply, way more than for a home game - even at grounds where a generous allocation is given & 2. because they almost never play at the same time, they watch each others games in the hope that the other drops points.

Even when the game getting shown on TV is utter garbage and a forgone conclusion, there is just no way St johnstone v cetlic is going to 3pm in favour of say dundee utd v hibs, despite the latter probably being a more entertaining game, neither club has a large enough tv following that would justify them getting a head of the uglies

Celtic at home to hearts should probably be televised rather than livi v rangers for the sake of example, but then your encroaching on the maximum number of rescheduled fixtures  

Edited September 1, 2022 by effeffsee_the2nd

[Thenorthernlight]

On 30/08/2022 at 12:40, tamba_trio said:

Back in 2000 there was a pretty big uproar about the original orange top. Rangers insisted it was tangerine, to honour their Dutch players and manager. 

Did this new top have similar questions raised? I live in Australia, so I could be wrong, but it feels like we've gone backwards in terms of pandering to the sectarian element of the Old Firm. 

1) The “Old Firm” ceased to be a term in 2012. Liquidation of one of the teams saw to that.

2) The pandering to the Glasgow 2 starts at the top, from the SFA, more so The Rangers. .

Money dominates every league.
Scotland is no exception.   
That’s why the two of them qualifying for the CL is bad news for Scottish footballs “competition”. 
The media are imbeciles for not understanding the fans views on this. 

I’ll never see a non Glasgow team win the league again. 
If they avoid each other in cup draws, there’s about an 80% chance at least one of them wins the cups. 

As I get older, my interest in Scottish football dwindles as there really does seem little point when the absolute best you can do is finish 3rd in a league & try & sneak a cup every decade or two. 

The only way true competition will ever exist is if the two of them pissed off from Scottish football. 
They’d both drop Scottish football in a heartbeat, but seeing as no-one wants them, they’ll be here for all time

 

[kennie makevin]

2 hours ago, Thenorthernlight said:

1) The “Old Firm” ceased to be a term in 2012. Liquidation of one of the teams saw to that.

2) The pandering to the Glasgow 2 starts at the top, from the SFA, more so The Rangers. .

Money dominates every league.
Scotland is no exception.   
That’s why the two of them qualifying for the CL is bad news for Scottish footballs “competition”. 
The media are imbeciles for not understanding the fans views on this. 

I’ll never see a non Glasgow team win the league again. 
If they avoid each other in cup draws, there’s about an 80% chance at least one of them wins the cups. 

As I get older, my interest in Scottish football dwindles as there really does seem little point when the absolute best you can do is finish 3rd in a league & try & sneak a cup every decade or two. 

The only way true competition will ever exist is if the two of them pissed off from Scottish football. 
They’d both drop Scottish football in a heartbeat, but seeing as no-one wants them, they’ll be here for all time

 

Like so many on these forums you totally miss the point of the term 'Old Firm'.  As long as two clubs calling themselves Celtic & Rangers exist to carve up Scottish football into a never ending duopoly with all the financial dice loaded in their favour then 'The Old Firm' remain a term, a fact and a disgrace. See point 2 of your post !

Edited September 1, 2022 by kennie makevin
Typo

[tamba_trio]

51 minutes ago, kennie makevin said:

Like so many on these forums you totally miss the point of the term 'Old Firm'.  As long as two clubs calling themselves Celtic & Rangers exist to carve up Scottish football into a never ending duopoly with all the financial dice loaded in their favour then 'The Old Firm' remain a term, a fact and a disgrace. See point 2 of your post !

Yup. I know Rangers went bust. You know Rangers went bust. But there's a team playing at Ibrox called Rangers, who dominate the fans alongside Celtic. They're still the Old Firm. In fact, probably more now than ever.

Hell, they even use going bust to get their fans onside. Rangers get to use the "150 years of history" to wind everybody up. Celtic get to play the "unbroken history" thing. They've perfected the pantomime. 

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, kennie makevin said:

Like so many on these forums you totally miss the point of the term 'Old Firm'.  As long as two clubs calling themselves Celtic & Rangers exist to carve up Scottish football into a never ending duopoly with all the financial dice loaded in their favour then 'The Old Firm' remain a term, a fact and a disgrace. See point 2 of your post !

 

3 minutes ago, tamba_trio said:

Yup. I know Rangers went bust. You know Rangers went bust. But there's a team playing at Ibrox called Rangers, who dominate the fans alongside Celtic. They're still the Old Firm. In fact, probably more now than ever.

Hell, they even use going bust to get their fans onside. Rangers get to use the "150 years of history" to wind everybody up. Celtic get to play the "unbroken history" thing. They've perfected the pantomime. 

It's simultaneously true that Rangers died and that there is an Old Firm.

It's also worth noting how extremely upset Celtic fans get when people use the term. I go out of my way to do so whenever possible.

Except when speaking to Rangers fans.

[gannonball]

3 hours ago, Thenorthernlight said:

my interest in Scottish football dwindles as there really does seem little point when the absolute best you can do is finish 3rd in a league & try & sneak a cup every decade or two. 

 

 

I think the term you are looking for here is glory hunter tbh.

[accies1874]

Celtic spend £5m on a striker who flops. Doesn't matter, we'll just write that one off (and potentially recoup half of it) as we've got another £5m striker banging them in and a £2.5m striker in reserve.

Hopefully the £500,000 business plan can find a way around this imbalance.

[CambieBud]

45 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

 

It's simultaneously true that Rangers died and that there is an Old Firm.

It's also worth noting how extremely upset Celtic fans get when people use the term. I go out of my way to do so whenever possible.

Except when speaking to Rangers fans.

They also hate being described as each other’s business partners 

[gannonball]

1 minute ago, accies1874 said:

Celtic spend £5m on a striker who flops. Doesn't matter, we'll just write that one off (and potentially recoup half of it) as we've got another £5m striker banging them in and a £2.5m striker in reserve.

Hopefully the £500,000 business plan can find a way around this imbalance.

We generally operate well within our means and more often than not have a healthy transfer surplus. Whilst we are fortunate that our main selling market doesn’t really operate this way and pay inflated prices we aren’t really doing anything a great deal wrong by constantly developing players and selling them on. Thankfully now Aberdeen look to be trying this method rather in the past more looking at proven SPFL players in the wrong age group to make serious cash on. Im not saying they will ever catch us now but moaning at about a clubs good business model is a strange one given there’s other things really you can point at that isn’t right .

[gannonball]

3 minutes ago, CambieBud said:

They also hate being described as each other’s business partners 

I don’t I have ever heard us being described as that tbh but ok

[CambieBud]

Just now, gannonball said:

I don’t I have ever heard us being described as that tbh but ok

You have now Gannonball. My Celtic/Newco pals get raging when we use the term

[VincentGuerin]

17 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

Celtic spend £5m on a striker who flops. Doesn't matter, we'll just write that one off (and potentially recoup half of it) as we've got another £5m striker banging them in and a £2.5m striker in reserve.

Hopefully the £500,000 business plan can find a way around this imbalance.

For f**k's sake, were you not listening to Sportsound?

You need to GROW YOUR CLUB and SHOW AMBITION!

[CoF]

3 hours ago, Thenorthernlight said:

Ill never see a non Glasgow team win the league again. 

 

Your faith in Partick Thistle is admirable. 

[accies1874]

We generally operate well within our means and more often than not have a healthy transfer surplus. Whilst we are fortunate that our main selling market doesn’t really operate this way and pay inflated prices we aren’t really doing anything a great deal wrong by constantly developing players and selling them on. Thankfully now Aberdeen look to be trying this method rather in the past more looking at proven SPFL players in the wrong age group to make serious cash on. Im not saying they will ever catch us now but moaning at about a clubs good business model is a strange one given there’s other things really you can point at that isn’t right .

Last season you could afford to spend about £1m on nobodies that are just water off a duck's back, as well as whatever McCarthy is on.

Season before about £10m on a couple of flops plus whatever Duffy's loan fee was.

19/20 you're looking at around £15m on players who had very little lasting impact. Jullien a bit iffy as he was mostly good but you'd want more than a season out of one of the biggest transfers in Scottish football history.

So at least £18m on duds in two years, plus £7m on a player who had one good season before being binned. That's an insane amount of money wasted in Scottish football terms - more wasted in couple of years than the total spend of the other 10 in however long.

[VincentGuerin]

10 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

 

 

Last season you could afford to spend about £1m on nobodies that are just water off a duck's back, as well as whatever McCarthy is on.

Season before about £10m on a couple of flops plus whatever Duffy's loan fee was.

19/20 you're looking at around £15m on players who had very little lasting impact. Jullien a bit iffy as he was mostly good but you'd want more than a season out of one of the biggest transfers in Scottish football history.

So at least £18m on duds in two years, plus £7m on a player who had one good season before being binned. That's an insane amount of money wasted in Scottish football terms - more wasted in couple of years than the total spend of the other 10 in however long.

Ah, but you see the other clubs just need to be 'well-run', like Celtic are.

[CambieBud]

4 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Ah, but you see the other clubs just need to be 'well-run', like Celtic are.

Socialist Celtic are the ideal we should all aim to emulate. Start by refusing to pay the living wage to employees 

[Bonksy+HisChristianParade]

16 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

 

 

Last season you could afford to spend about £1m on nobodies that are just water off a duck's back, as well as whatever McCarthy is on.

Season before about £10m on a couple of flops plus whatever Duffy's loan fee was.

19/20 you're looking at around £15m on players who had very little lasting impact. Jullien a bit iffy as he was mostly good but you'd want more than a season out of one of the biggest transfers in Scottish football history.

So at least £18m on duds in two years, plus £7m on a player who had one good season before being binned. That's an insane amount of money wasted in Scottish football terms - more wasted in couple of years than the total spend of the other 10 in however long.

 

It’s just a good business model m8. All you need is £15m to spend on players who you can then sell on at a profit should they do well. Why haven’t the other clubs thought of this?! Clowns.