Jump to content

SPFL clubs invest in independent advice on strategic review


Carl Fredrickson

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

I totally agree that change is required, just dont see it coming from a money making media tycoon.

 

Sky haven't gone out their way to be kind to English football.  They've got lucky in ways, and done well in others.  But there was no grand plan from Murdoch et al to make the league fairer.

 

The SPFL dont market the game well, but it isn't simply a case that with the right marketing the Scottish game can be like the game in England.  Does Sky/etc even show an equal number of Man City games as they do Burnley games?

 

I am for an 18 team league and various other things I have never witnessed (like a non OF team winning the league) but I don't think it's simply a case of marketing the game better and suddenly people want to watch St Johnstone, or Morton.

It's a chicken and egg situation to a degree... marketing is an uphill struggle when the game is so uncompetitive (ie only 2 winners in 36 years.) I think the mistake we make in Scotland (and I include myself), is we're constantly making comparisons with down south... when things are so far apart it's almost unrecognisable as a product. Perhaps we should be comparing or looking at countries like Denmark or Netherlands, for inspiration.

But I think we should at least try to market/promote our game better than we do at present - if we can generate some extra funding, then hopefully everyone will benefit and move forward accordingly. League re-construction to 18 teams would be big positive IMO and good start, and should promote a bit more competition. I'm also of the opinion that professional teams should have a set of standards before be allowed entry into a new Scottish Professional League eg. no plastic pitches, an  minimum ground capacity and so on... I also agree with others that we have too many 'professional' teams for a country our size... but that's for another debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Rogue Daddy

    30

  • GinRummy

    14

  • Smith's right boot

    12

  • John Findlay

    11

30 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Finally

 

This review must have 2 outcomes, one regime change, Doncaster is harming the league, he has fallen out with the TV companies, it’s clear he does not understand contracts otherwise his Armageddon calling on leagues to finish early was either a blatant lie or gross incompetence.  The other outcome must be ditching the Cinch deal and replacing that and the TV deal with something more in keeping with how we value our product, We have to be bigger than the left sleeve of Spurs, and on a comparison with the LTA and ECB both Global, however Festivals including the Edinburgh sessions and Northampton Saints whatever they are (don’t reply its rhetorical).  The deal itself is the worst deal in 20 years.  We have had the BoS, Clydesdale, and Ladbrokes, but this in real terms is far less.  Somebody must be getting a backhander to accept such a crap deal?  Rangers are complaining about it but not their other arse cheek?  Narrows that down a bit.  Something is wrong, criminally wrong, by this being financed and driven by us, I will accept the outcome more readily.   But it has to drive change if you are not going forward you are going backwards.

 

So what weight does it have, It will only take these 5 clubs to use a breakaway as a serious threat but you don’t get you bluff called and don’t go through with it, so there has to be a product in place and a deal that is better than what we currently have.  If the OF don’t comply and use their weight do shoot it down, then we must call their bluff, as they are not wanted anywhere else.  The clubs with Paisley Syndrome who rely on the Of pound have to made to choose stich with what you have or join a breakaway 18 team league and stand on your own 2 feet, or better still either die or find your own level

Well said Hagar 👍... the bit in bold is something I keep saying. They (the uglies) need us (the rest) more than we need them. The sooner everyone wakes up to that, the better for Scottish football. Nobody else wants THEM. Yeah, a lot of the games income is because of them (and given to them) but, if they didn't have a Scottish league, what would they do? Play each other 38 times a season?

If a breakaway is to happen (and has been mentioned)... no bluffing. Maybe it's a good thing that the voices joining us are American and are not tainted with an OF brush (although Dundee are pushing it!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder if the Old Firm TV deal is as good as its made out to be.

 

say we told Sky that it would no longer be four old firm games and they said they are no longer interested. We would have other offers I would hope and also the option of broadcasting on our own. Scottish football unlike England as someone alluded to earlier is a different kettle of fish. We have fans in the stadium rather than arm chair fans.

 

The only issue I see would be the St Johnstone's of this world who rely on the OF pound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AllyjamboDerbyshire

Don't know if this has been suggested already, but I wonder if this move has anything to do with James Anderson and his joining our club's board. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest his ability, alone, to introduce decent sponsorship and money to our game will far outweigh Doncaster's, or anyone else who's headed the league (in any of its guises), or the SFA. There can be little doubt that he knows money, and how to raise it, and will not allow himself to be intimidated by anyone who might think they know better. Unlike Doncaster, he'll rank alongside the highest of businessmen and hold utmost respect in any negotiations he might undertake. People will listen to him and take him seriously, which I doubt is the case with any of the suits running our game, ever.

 

One thing's for sure, if he does get heavily involved, is that if he can't bring substantially more money into Scottish football, and raise its profile, then no one can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rogue Daddy said:

It's a chicken and egg situation to a degree... marketing is an uphill struggle when the game is so uncompetitive (ie only 2 winners in 36 years.) I think the mistake we make in Scotland (and I include myself), is we're constantly making comparisons with down south... when things are so far apart it's almost unrecognisable as a product. Perhaps we should be comparing or looking at countries like Denmark or Netherlands, for inspiration.

But I think we should at least try to market/promote our game better than we do at present - if we can generate some extra funding, then hopefully everyone will benefit and move forward accordingly. League re-construction to 18 teams would be big positive IMO and good start, and should promote a bit more competition. I'm also of the opinion that professional teams should have a set of standards before be allowed entry into a new Scottish Professional League eg. no plastic pitches, an  minimum ground capacity and so on... I also agree with others that we have too many 'professional' teams for a country our size... but that's for another debate.


It is interesting the Dutch TV deal doesn’t stipulate there must be 4 Ajax Feyenoord games. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperstarSteve

I’m starting to get the feeling genuine plans for a breakaway are already in place. 
 

Tom English mentioned weeks ago that clubs had threatened a breakaway and John Nelms said the same.
 

Personally think they are just going down every avenue possibly to say they tried and if turned down with the door closed. Off we go. To where and what’s next who knows but I believe the breakaway talks is no bluff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Don't know if this has been suggested already, but I wonder if this move has anything to do with James Anderson and his joining our club's board. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest his ability, alone, to introduce decent sponsorship and money to our game will far outweigh Doncaster's, or anyone else who's headed the league (in any of its guises), or the SFA. There can be little doubt that he knows money, and how to raise it, and will not allow himself to be intimidated by anyone who might think they know better. Unlike Doncaster, he'll rank alongside the highest of businessmen and hold utmost respect in any negotiations he might undertake. People will listen to him and take him seriously, which I doubt is the case with any of the suits running our game, ever.

 

One thing's for sure, if he does get heavily involved, is that if he can't bring substantially more money into Scottish football, and raise its profile, then no one can.

JA (and some of his business companions) are exactly the type of people we should want running our game... and not the sham-ateurs who currently demand £400k salaries!

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, OTT said:


It is interesting the Dutch TV deal doesn’t stipulate there must be 4 Ajax Feyenoord games. 
 

Ach, what do they know! when have Ajax or Feyenoord or the Netherlands ever achieved anything decent! 🙄.. what they need is 4 OF derbies as part of their deal to promote their profile on the footballing stage!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WageThief said:

 

Yeah.  To be more concrete I am saying that until TV money reaches a level where the match day revenue makes tiny differences to the quality of player a club brings in, splitting it evenly (obviously the correct thing) will make little difference to competition.

see what you mean. over time would that remove an incentive for clubs to maintain a match day experience? reduce stadium size anything else to keep costs down etc ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, lost in space said:

Re your 2nd para -agree.

BUT the 5 clubs must be aware what will happen and that SFA/ersecheecks will say "Naw".

So they must have a plan B.

Please let them have a plan B.....

There is no Plan B. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jim Panzee said:

see what you mean. over time would that remove an incentive for clubs to maintain a match day experience? reduce stadium size anything else to keep costs down etc ?

 

I doubt it, I dont think TV income has had such an effect anywhere else in world sport.  But I don't really know.

 

I would imagine the effect would be the opposite.  Clubs could have great players rather than great pies so the matchday experience would be improved.  But they also might build a better stadium or get a rolls royce for the owner. 

 

I doubt we will get to see whether it will happen anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rogue Daddy said:

It's a chicken and egg situation to a degree... marketing is an uphill struggle when the game is so uncompetitive (ie only 2 winners in 36 years.) I think the mistake we make in Scotland (and I include myself), is we're constantly making comparisons with down south... when things are so far apart it's almost unrecognisable as a product. Perhaps we should be comparing or looking at countries like Denmark or Netherlands, for inspiration.

But I think we should at least try to market/promote our game better than we do at present - if we can generate some extra funding, then hopefully everyone will benefit and move forward accordingly. League re-construction to 18 teams would be big positive IMO and good start, and should promote a bit more competition. I'm also of the opinion that professional teams should have a set of standards before be allowed entry into a new Scottish Professional League eg. no plastic pitches, an  minimum ground capacity and so on... I also agree with others that we have too many 'professional' teams for a country our size... but that's for another debate.

 

It isn't just the competitiveness that makes it difficult to market to be fair.  You are right what you said about England but I will use them as an example anyway.  In Scotland we have 5 big clubs, a sixth in between, and about six others smaller than Luton, then loads that make Luton look like a massive club.

 

An 18 team league has a bit of an obvious downside in terms of evenly split tv money in that we get less of it.  Interestingly if the game was made fairer, one of the two main  advantages (in my mind) would be negated.  Currently an 18 team league is better because we only play the best teams twice, and because even a weak Hearts side can usually win away against whoever the bottom six is.

 

I think a media strategy would be to try and create an actual "big 5" however so.  I mean it already exists, but an actual competitive one would be exciting and it would have a knock on effect on a bottom 7 (or 13) if you even wanted to show such games.  In the current league setup, there are 40 big 5 games per year which is unbelievable really when you do the maths.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WageThief said:

 

I doubt it, I dont think TV income has had such an effect anywhere else in world sport.  But I don't really know.

 

I would imagine the effect would be the opposite.  Clubs could have great players rather than great pies so the matchday experience would be improved.  But they also might build a better stadium or get a rolls royce for the owner. 

 

I doubt we will get to see whether it will happen anyway.

 

Yeap - agree with that

Link to post
Share on other sites

its about time we told the TV companies that they up our cut or we start reminding the Scottish public about how much we put into TV, through subscription or license fees. most of our cash goes south and they have the best TV deals on the planet , but we are getting short changed for sure. I'm not saying we should get the same but I am saying we should revalue how we spend our cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rods said:

The only issue I see would be the St Johnstone's of this world who rely on the OF pound.

 

St Johnstone reduced the allocation given to Rangers fans last weekend btw. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WageThief said:

 

It isn't just the competitiveness that makes it difficult to market to be fair.  You are right what you said about England but I will use them as an example anyway.  In Scotland we have 5 big clubs, a sixth in between, and about six others smaller than Luton, then loads that make Luton look like a massive club.

 

An 18 team league has a bit of an obvious downside in terms of evenly split tv money in that we get less of it.  Interestingly if the game was made fairer, one of the two main  advantages (in my mind) would be negated.  Currently an 18 team league is better because we only play the best teams twice, and because even a weak Hearts side can usually win away against whoever the bottom six is.

 

I think a media strategy would be to try and create an actual "big 5" however so.  I mean it already exists, but an actual competitive one would be exciting and it would have a knock on effect on a bottom 7 (or 13) if you even wanted to show such games.  In the current league setup, there are 40 big 5 games per year which is unbelievable really when you do the maths.

 

Pretty sure this was one of the major reasons against reconstruction (for the smaller teams). I also think it's a no-brainer to expand our league. It would, definitely, make it just that wee bit more competitive with this change alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hagar the Horrible

Our new soccerball franchise will be made as a comparison with the NFL,  a team getting to the play-offs is a winning season, even though only one wins the super-bowl.  In our setup playing each other too many times you can finish 4th and have a negative goal difference,  That’s a losing season,  that just does not happen when you play each other twice.  Before a ball is kicked some clubs will gift the OF 24 point and be skelped as a reward, some might scrape a few draws or the occasional memorable win, but who was the last team to take >13 points?   Winning the league or even splitting the OF is rarer that Leicester winning the league, notwithstanding the closer you get the more bazaar the refereeing decisions become, watch this space!!!!

 

Perhaps the SFA should run all teams below the age of 18, and the worst team gets first pick of the best of the youth set ups.  Yeah I know the SFA in 150 years have done the square root of nada in improving and promoting our game.  At international level we are the same as Israel. We fear everybody now.  Still the blazers get to travel first class…go them!

 

There is so much wrong with our game and nobody willing to try and put it right.  In F1 a team shaving 1/10th of a second of a lap is making a massive improvement. We are on the start line in a clapped out Reliant Robin, we need to be designing a Formula one car.  It’s not rocket science.  We now run our fans club as a business by putting businessmen in charge, not over passionate fans, as that’s when it goes Pete Tong. The SFA and the SPFL game is run like a bowling club, we need to cull the bowling club committees who run it.  Oh and the Game is bigger than the OF, so either get them to ditch altogether their bigoted roots and culture, or do it for them.  Their presence stops families going to games, They are holding us all back in the 70’s. They won’t be missed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

There is so much wrong with our game and nobody willing to try and put it right.  In F1 a team shaving 1/10th of a second of a lap is making a massive improvement. We are on the start line in a clapped out Reliant Robin, we need to be designing a Formula one car.  It’s not rocket science.  We now run our fans club as a business by putting businessmen in charge, not over passionate fans, as that’s when it goes Pete Tong. The SFA and the SPFL game is run like a bowling club, we need to cull the bowling club committees who run it.  Oh and the Game is bigger than the OF, so either get them to ditch altogether their bigoted roots and culture, or do it for them.  Their presence stops families going to games, They are holding us all back in the 70’s. They won’t be missed.

They absolutely are and have done, to ensure they get everything their own way... to then blame 'lack of competition' when they, inevitably, fail in Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

, we need to be designing a Formula one car.  It’s not rocket science

I would argue that designing a formula 1 car would very much take cognisance of rocket science 😁 otherwise an excellent post 👏

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Rods said:

I often wonder if the Old Firm TV deal is as good as its made out to be.

 

say we told Sky that it would no longer be four old firm games and they said they are no longer interested. We would have other offers I would hope and also the option of broadcasting on our own. Scottish football unlike England as someone alluded to earlier is a different kettle of fish. We have fans in the stadium rather than arm chair fans.

 

The only issue I see would be the St Johnstone's of this world who rely on the OF pound.

It's an old one now, but how can they can they get a deal that guarantees 4 old firm games when our league is set up so no one is sure of four against anyone? 

It won't happen but a deal like that can't be struck if there is a possibility of ine not making top.

Everything is about them and we are there to make up the numbers. 

I hope they go against any new proposals and there is a breakaway.

Only solution to change from 4 games a season which gives them the league  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SuperstarSteve
25 minutes ago, Auldbenches said:

It's an old one now, but how can they can they get a deal that guarantees 4 old firm games when our league is set up so no one is sure of four against anyone? 

It won't happen but a deal like that can't be struck if there is a possibility of ine not making top.

Everything is about them and we are there to make up the numbers. 

I hope they go against any new proposals and there is a breakaway.

Only solution to change from 4 games a season which gives them the league  

The deal is a set number of home games each I believe. Celtic and rangers on TV at all away grounds and the OF games are kept for their home games. 
In return away teams get the OF coin when they visit. OF have the added advantage this year of no away fans.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SuperstarSteve said:

The deal is a set number of home games each I believe. Celtic and rangers on TV at all away grounds and the OF games are kept for their home games. 
In return away teams get the OF coin when they visit. OF have the added advantage this year of no away fans.  

It's terrible but the other clubs own fault if they continue to accept this.  Luckily it looks like some aren't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Portable Badger
On 16/09/2021 at 13:24, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Don't know if this has been suggested already, but I wonder if this move has anything to do with James Anderson and his joining our club's board. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest his ability, alone, to introduce decent sponsorship and money to our game will far outweigh Doncaster's, or anyone else who's headed the league (in any of its guises), or the SFA. There can be little doubt that he knows money, and how to raise it, and will not allow himself to be intimidated by anyone who might think they know better. Unlike Doncaster, he'll rank alongside the highest of businessmen and hold utmost respect in any negotiations he might undertake. People will listen to him and take him seriously, which I doubt is the case with any of the suits running our game, ever.

 

One thing's for sure, if he does get heavily involved, is that if he can't bring substantially more money into Scottish football, and raise its profile, then no one can.

Wouldn’t disagree with you on why James Anderson has now joined the Board.  Part of his raison d’etre as a Fund Manager was looking long term, noticing trends and technologies and backing well governanced companies to invest in.  

Edited by Portable Badger
Link to post
Share on other sites
AllyjamboDerbyshire
Just now, Portable Badger said:

Wouldn’t disagree with you on why James Anderson has now joined the Board.  Part of his raison d’etre as a Fund Manager was looking long term, noticing trends and technologies and backing well governanced companies to invest in.  

All pure speculation on my part, of course, but for progress to be made in the running and financing of our game, someone with the knowledge, respect, and most importantly, in it not for himself but to better the game he obviously loves, I doubt there's anyone out there better than James Andedson to, at least, shape the future of Scottish football, even if he doesn't want to actually head up the SPFL, himself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Portable Badger
47 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

All pure speculation on my part, of course, but for progress to be made in the running and financing of our game, someone with the knowledge, respect, and most importantly, in it not for himself but to better the game he obviously loves, I doubt there's anyone out there better than James Andedson to, at least, shape the future of Scottish football, even if he doesn't want to actually head up the SPFL, himself. 

I concur. In fairness to the four Americans, involved with the other clubs, they also bring a wealth of knowledge and experience exploiting marketing channels and streams. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian Maxwell on there. He says we are already maximising revenue. But there is no sponsor of the Scottish Cup. Way I heard it he sees it as acceptable for sponsors to throw baubles at the game. A very unconvinced individual.

Edited by Riccarton3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why Doncaster is still in a job as the clubs employ him including Hearts. Is the review getting done to prove how incompetent the buffon is so there is grounds to sack him I wonder. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
south morocco
On 18/09/2021 at 15:10, GMEdinburgh said:

I just don't understand why Doncaster is still in a job as the clubs employ him including Hearts. Is the review getting done to prove how incompetent the buffon is so there is grounds to sack him I wonder. 

Scottish football is undersold by the current authorities. The reason is so the OF can continue to control it for their own gain. Don’t shake the bush ffs.

 I applaud this initiative, was listening to sportsound on Saturday before our game. Willie Miller is a dinosaur and has no relevance or credible input in the modern game. The fact he’s given air time is evidence of the status quo.

His statement of, to paraphrase , nothing will change unless  the OF agree.

I think that’s the point Willie. We need fxxxxg change!!


Anyway, Leeann Crichton nailed it in her summary and I’m not her best fan. 
We need change, both in the governance and also just as important, the media, attitudes, and the clubs themselves not taking it up the backside from the OF, social media is a great platform for this. If we can open up new revenue streams and distribute the money on a more constructive way, clubs won’t be as reliant on the OF etc etc

I hope something gives but won’t be surprised if the barriers come up.Rant over 😀

 

 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone on this review panel who wants to see how to "market" a team to the public in a league like ours (or understand why people watch sport and what they want from it) should watch the documentary on the Portland Mavericks baseball team, when Kurt Russell's dad bought them. He basically made it all about the love of the sport rather than the money, and build a team the fans could relate to and get behind, creating connections between the players and fans until they were almost the same thing.

 

That needs to be the approach in Scotland, not trying to be an EPL light or something and chasing TV and sponsorship money - when basically that money's just going to get sunk into higher player salaries. Foster the creation of a competitive league filled with teams with character and run by people who love and know the sport.

 

If this review doesn't recommend changes to make the league more competitive, we'll know it was just a box ticking exercise. Any idiot can see that Rangers and Celtic dominating is what's holding us back.

 

 

 

 

Edited by ToqueJambo
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mercer Takeover
On 16/09/2021 at 21:25, WageThief said:

 

It isn't just the competitiveness that makes it difficult to market to be fair.  You are right what you said about England but I will use them as an example anyway.  In Scotland we have 5 big clubs, a sixth in between, and about six others smaller than Luton, then loads that make Luton look like a massive club.

 

An 18 team league has a bit of an obvious downside in terms of evenly split tv money in that we get less of it.  Interestingly if the game was made fairer, one of the two main  advantages (in my mind) would be negated.  Currently an 18 team league is better because we only play the best teams twice, and because even a weak Hearts side can usually win away against whoever the bottom six is.

 

I think a media strategy would be to try and create an actual "big 5" however so.  I mean it already exists, but an actual competitive one would be exciting and it would have a knock on effect on a bottom 7 (or 13) if you even wanted to show such games.  In the current league setup, there are 40 big 5 games per year which is unbelievable really when you do the maths.

 

Nope 

 

The reason we introduced the Premier League in the first place was because there were too many teams in the league. 

 

For almost all teams, the season was  finished by Christmas and attendances would collapse.

 

You need something meaningful to play for or the threat of relegation or fans are not interested. What we have now is just about the best possible.

 

 

 

Edited by The Mercer Takeover
Link to post
Share on other sites

The current administrators at the SPFL and SFA are happy with the level of competition. At the top, just below the top and at the bottom. They see Rangers and Celtic boosting their income through Europe and other 'stuff' so no need to go all out for investment to bring more competition. They made no effort when we had a one horse race. Absolutely no chance now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Mercer Takeover said:

Nope 

 

The reason we introduced the Premier League in the first place was because there were too many teams in the league. 

 

For almost all teams, the season was  finished by Christmas and attendances would collapse.

 

You need something meaningful to play for or the threat of relegation or fans are not interested. What we have now is just about the best possible.

 

 

 

 

I'm not old enough to remember, so you can appreciate that those of us under 40 might fancy giving it a chance.  I don't really dispute what you say though, and TV wouldnt want it anyway.  As I said, if you can make us, Hibs, and Aberdeen decent, you have 40 big league games a season in the current setup.  

 

Not seeing anyone but arsecheeks win the league has been very boring too.  As is 4 games against Ross County, or Motherwell.  It's not exciting to play Celtic 6 times in a season.  The only thing far-fetched about 8 OF games a season is the idea they could both get far enough in Europe to draw each other.  

 

For me, the bigger problem with an 18 team setup is the drop off it would create between the top and bottom division.  Getting relegated from the Prem would be more like getting relegated from the Championship now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I find the lack of competition boring but is it that different to any other league?

 

They mostly all seem dominated by 2 or 3 teams over the last decade. On occasion a single anomaly appears which I appreciate we don't have but it's not spread amongst their top 50% of teams or anything like that.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay

16 team top league, play everyone home and away once. Have a split of top 8 and bottom 8. Of the teams you face in the split, if your last game was away against them then you play them at home, if your last game against them was at home, then you play them away.

I know there won't be an even number of home and away games, there seldom is now anyways. Gives you a 37 game league season, which is More than enough, gives you no more than three league games against any opponent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Libertarian
7 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

16 team top league, play everyone home and away once. Have a split of top 8 and bottom 8. Of the teams you face in the split, if your last game was away against them then you play them at home, if your last game against them was at home, then you play them away.

I know there won't be an even number of home and away games, there seldom is now anyways. Gives you a 37 game league season, which is More than enough, gives you no more than three league games against any opponent.

A 14 team top league.  Play everyone home and away. Then split into top 8 and bottom 6. Play one another home and away. 40 games for the top 8. 36 games for the bottom 6. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fozzyonthefence
On 17/09/2021 at 19:41, Portable Badger said:

I concur. In fairness to the four Americans, involved with the other clubs, they also bring a wealth of knowledge and experience exploiting marketing channels and streams. 


I don’t think the Aberdeen guy (Cormack?) is American?

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Findlay
1 hour ago, Libertarian said:

A 14 team top league.  Play everyone home and away. Then split into top 8 and bottom 6. Play one another home and away. 40 games for the top 8. 36 games for the bottom 6. 

I think all teams should play the same number of league games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I think all teams should play the same number of league games.

Yes, agreed.

 

Also, how do you sell ST's if you don't know how many games you may be playing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taffin said:

Of course I find the lack of competition boring but is it that different to any other league?

 

Yeah it's different I think.  I think the different countries are very different tbf.  Scotland has a league with massive, big, medium, small, and diddy clubs put together.  The only thing that really changes is the diddy teams.  

 

Dunfermline could feasibly switch places with St Johnstone as they are comparable clubs, but they are in a different league to us.  The only thing in Scotland that is exciting is the thing we could expect to be exciting.  Who makes up the diddy teams?  Is it Livi, Raith, Dunfermline, Hamilton, or?

 

Anyhoo, in the same time that only two teams have won the Scottish league:

 

Italy: Napoli, Lazio, Roma, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter, Sampdoria

 

England: Leeds, Liverpool, Man Utd, Blackburn, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Man City

 

Netherlands: Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, FC Twente, AZ Alkmar

 

Belgium: Brugge, Genk, Gent, Anderlecht, Standard Liege, Lierse

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I think all teams should play the same number of league games.

 

But you don't worry about the relative advantage of getting more games at home?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Libertarian said:

A 14 team top league.  Play everyone home and away. Then split into top 8 and bottom 6. Play one another home and away. 40 games for the top 8. 36 games for the bottom 6. 

 

It would be better than the current setup as it would make it (slightly) less silly.  Would probably go with bottom 8 as 40 games for the teams not playing the OF four times would be small bit of compensation.  Livi could try selling out three stands to Hamilton fans I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/09/2021 at 13:19, Rods said:

I often wonder if the Old Firm TV deal is as good as its made out to be.

 

say we told Sky that it would no longer be four old firm games and they said they are no longer interested. We would have other offers I would hope and also the option of broadcasting on our own. Scottish football unlike England as someone alluded to earlier is a different kettle of fish. We have fans in the stadium rather than arm chair fans.

 

The only issue I see would be the St Johnstone's of this world who rely on the OF pound.

 

SPFL TV is the way forward. 

The last year has shown that it is possible to produce multiple games across Scotland simultaneously for ClubTV platforms. There is an entire company dedicated to the match production and onward transmission of multiple SPFL games. 

 

There is absolutely zero reason that an SPFL TV App could not be produced alongside a linear TV channel that is owned by clubs.

 

If we don't see the start of SPFL TV in the next 18-24months then it will be for one of two reasons:

Sky are lining up a pay increase or

The people running the game have no vision or ability to promote the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

Yeah it's different I think.  I think the different countries are very different tbf.  Scotland has a league with massive, big, medium, small, and diddy clubs put together.  The only thing that really changes is the diddy teams.  

 

Dunfermline could feasibly switch places with St Johnstone as they are comparable clubs, but they are in a different league to us.  The only thing in Scotland that is exciting is the thing we could expect to be exciting.  Who makes up the diddy teams?  Is it Livi, Raith, Dunfermline, Hamilton, or?

 

Anyhoo, in the same time that only two teams have won the Scottish league:

 

Italy: Napoli, Lazio, Roma, Juventus, AC Milan, Inter, Sampdoria 

 

Yet only 3 in the last 20 years.

 

4 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

 

 

 

England: Leeds, Liverpool, Man Utd, Blackburn, Arsenal, Chelsea, Leicester, Man City 

 

For me, the EPL is the one anomaly, but again, in the last 20 years 6. 

 

4 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

Netherlands: Ajax, PSV, Feyenoord, FC Twente, AZ Alkmar 

 

All single wins for anyone outside PSV or Ajax in the last 20 years and then only 3 winners (one outlier) in the last decade.

 

 

4 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

Belgium: Brugge, Genk, Gent, Anderlecht, Standard Liege, Lierse

 

The Belgian league does seem better, but am I right in thinking they have playoffs for the title? That feels a little manufactured to me, but appreciate others may feel otherwise.

 

You've then of course got Spain and Germany which are largely the same as our league.

 

 

Good post though as it's more varied than I thought, and I don't disagree that what we've got isn't good. I'm certainly all for a bigger league and playing teams less (ideally twice).

 

My feeling is that those leagues are becoming more like ours in terms of domination by a few teams as the years progress but it is still better than we have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Yet only 3 in the last 20 years.

 

 

For me, the EPL is the one anomaly, but again, in the last 20 years 6. 

 

 

All single wins for anyone outside PSV or Ajax in the last 20 years and then only 3 winners (one outlier) in the last decade.

 

 

 

The Belgian league does seem better, but am I right in thinking they have playoffs for the title? That feels a little manufactured to me, but appreciate others may feel otherwise.

 

You've then of course got Spain and Germany which are largely the same as our league.

 

 

Good post though as it's more varied than I thought, and I don't disagree that what we've got isn't good. I'm certainly all for a bigger league and playing teams less (ideally twice).

 

My feeling is that those leagues are becoming more like ours in terms of domination by a few teams as the years progress but it is still better than we have.

In Portugal since the 2000-1 it's been Benfica , Porto and occasionally Sporting that have been champions. Bigger nation but same pattern as Scotland.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Portable Badger
2 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:


I don’t think the Aberdeen guy (Cormack?) is American?

You’re correct - American based more correct?

 

👍🏻

Link to post
Share on other sites
colinmaroon

 

Champions League entrenched the advantages of the bigger clubs and as each season goes by it gets worse, financially speaking.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nookie Bear
6 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

Champions League entrenched the advantages of the bigger clubs and as each season goes by it gets worse, financially speaking.

 

 

 

 


Spot on, which is why any real change to the financial imbalance in football needs to come from UEFA. 
 

Obviously they want the complete opposite: a group of elite clubs and then the rest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Libertarian
6 hours ago, John Findlay said:

I think all teams should play the same number of league games.

No system is perfect, but the 14 team premiership with an 8/6 split not only increases the number of clubs in the top league, but maximises the chances having more big city derbies which increases the chances of increasing tv revenues. It also ends the farce of some clubs playing more home games than others, which is the case now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Byyy The Light
7 hours ago, John Findlay said:

16 team top league, play everyone home and away once. Have a split of top 8 and bottom 8. Of the teams you face in the split, if your last game was away against them then you play them at home, if your last game against them was at home, then you play them away.

I know there won't be an even number of home and away games, there seldom is now anyways. Gives you a 37 game league season, which is More than enough, gives you no more than three league games against any opponent.


image.jpeg.bda2b7e6f6143a58e92f31ef9f8d0efc.jpegI’d go 16 teams home and away and award a champions league spot to the winner of the 30 game league. 
 

Then have play offs in the above format to crown grand champion or whatever folk want to call it. Winner gets the better of the  Champions league spots.

 

Aim for teams would be undisputed champion and win both.

 

For relegation do 2 up 2 down automatically and then have relegation playoffs for 12th, 13th, 14th and 3rd, 4th and 5th in league below.

 

6th-11th in top league have a mini tournament for a cash bonus

 

All 3 finals played at Hampden over 1 finale weekend.

 

Decent size league, something to play for most of the time and more than 30 league games. Also give the likes of Hearts a decent chance of nicking Champions league spot. If marketed properly the playoffs could make great tv and potentially attract better money. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...