givememychoice Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 How far each top tier league has to go back to find their third winner (in our case Aberdeen) And, in case anybody is wondering, i have listed 52 of the 53 uefa member states, lichtenstein is not included as they have no league (they play in the swiss league, they do however have their own cup, but this was won by a 3rd team in 1994) Listed oldest to newest Scotland 1985 Serbia 1989 Ukraine 1992 Greece 1994 Moldova 1997 Netherlands 1999 Armenia 1999 Lithuania 1999 France 2000 Portugal 2002 Croatia 2002 Northern Ireland 2002 Italy 2003 Turkey 2003 Switzerland 2003 Estonia 2003 Macedonia 2003 Iceland 2003 Israel 2003 Kazakhstan 2003 Luxemburg 2003 Slovenia 2003 England 2004 Spain 2004 Germany 2004 Bulgaria 2004 Belarus 2004 Hungary 2004 Latvia 2004 San Marino 2004 Wales 2004 Belgium 2005 Denmark 2005 Andorra 2005 Finland 2005 Russia 2006 Romania 2006 Czech Republic 2006 Norway 2006 Albania 2006 Austria 2006 Azerbaijan 2006 Bosnia Herzagovena 2006 Cyprus 2006 Faroe Islands 2006 Georgia 2006 Ireland 2006 Malta 2006 Poland 2006 Slovakia 2006 Sweden 2006 Montenegro N/A league is only in its 3rd year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Interesting but it shows that this century in only 8 countires is there a position where only two clubs have won the title. In 16 countries three different teams seem to have won the titke in the last three years. In England I guess there are three teams - and that's it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yep, our league is a disgrace. And yet the common belief in the media is that we should support the Old Firm in Europe because its good for Scottish football. Exactly how is widening the financial gap that has completely ruined Scottish football a good thing for our game? Give me 1 SPL title in every 10 for one of the SPL's other ten clubs over a decent European run for Rangers and Celtic, or anyone else for that matter, any day of the week. Something needs to be done; shared gate receipts and TV money or even no SPL prize money for those who qualify for Europe seeing as they'll make more than that anyway from being in Europe. I won't be holding my breath for any great change though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I briefly saw something on early news this morning that referred to the USA's 'Sporting Socialism' where there are a variety of measures in place to promote a leveller playing field than the wealthy clubs winning all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Interesting but it shows that this century in only 8 countires is there a position where only two clubs have won the title. In 16 countries three different teams seem to have won the titke in the last three years. In England I guess there are three teams - and that's it! well, before we get as far back as scotland having 3 different winners, England reaches 7. Man utd Chelsea Arsenal Blackburn Leeds Liverpool Everton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 the stat looks bad enough as it is but it's going to look an awful lot worse in 10, 20 or 30 years time. while all of the other countries will have 3 different winners within roughly the same number of years as is shown now, scotland will still have 1985 against it. unless of course someone can put together a side able to challenge the OF dominance of the league title and...... naaaaaaaa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'd have been delighted had it said '1986'. Buffalo Bill . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedbump Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I briefly saw something on early news this morning that referred to the USA's 'Sporting Socialism' where there are a variety of measures in place to promote a leveller playing field than the wealthy clubs winning all the time. A draft system? Where on earth do we draft the players in and you need a closed off league for the system to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 maybe the SFA might consider instructing their referees to heavily favour the non OF clubs in order to provide different winners? i'll just e-mail that to them now. no..... they didn't reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_vlad Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 A draft system? Where on earth do we draft the players in and you need a closed off league for the system to work. That is one measure, but there are others, like capping the total wage budgets etc . Again its not possible to use them over here because we would need closed off league systems. I would love some rule like - your total wage budget can only be 5 million, but its impossible because of legal reasons.There is no point of having a cap system that relates to turnover because again the biggest teams would win. If the **** were to get around the table and talk about a deal, that would be great but it would never happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 well, before we get as far back as scotland having 3 different winners, England reaches 7.Man utd Chelsea Arsenal Blackburn Leeds Liverpool Everton well, it's not a lot when you consider the population difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konrad von Carstein Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 peraps one way of addresssing the financial gulf would be for an equal split of tv revenues AND all teams benefiting from Euro qualification had tp pay a % of cash recieved to the other teams in the league. Looking at how gate money is split could be another way. After all the league needs the diddies to make the competition (using this term in the broadest sense)to enable euro qualification. A form of sporting communisim where all are treated equally....oh hang on I think I've found the one flaw in my proposal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamboinparis Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 The other idea in the NFL on that report is that all money prize money/TV money is shared evenly, so smaller teams can still compete. Isnt it currently true that the old firm get about 50% of the tv money to themselves? I was thinking about things after seeing that report (you can read it on the bbc.co.uk/football site) that a European league might not be such a fantasy. Instead of the champions league there would be a top league of Europe's best teams, ie the usual suspects who go far in the CL. The fantasy of this would be the old firm expecting they be invited along Who knows, the top clubs could decide that their best interests were served by breaking away and setting up an independent competition like the NFL or the NBA with similar ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 The SPL is the mostly dull and the quality has decreased to the extent that I won't watch any games unless Hearts are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 maybe the OF might consider bogging off and joining the EPL or some new and exciting european league. after all.... whoever ends up with them will welcome them with open arms.... wouldn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Stinkfinger Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Nuke the Weeg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'd have been delighted had it said '1986'. Buffalo Bill . Don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I briefly saw something on early news this morning that referred to the USA's 'Sporting Socialism' where there are a variety of measures in place to promote a leveller playing field than the wealthy clubs winning all the time. Exactly the sort of approach any visionary Chief Executive of the SFA should be considering to address what is blindingly obviously the biggest problem with the Scotish game. But why not a campaign for use of video evidence against cheating diving foreigners instead? A failed campaign at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 The other idea in the NFL on that report is that all money prize money/TV money is shared evenly, so smaller teams can still compete. Isnt it currently true that the old firm get about 50% of the tv money to themselves? I was thinking about things after seeing that report (you can read it on the bbc.co.uk/football site) that a European league might not be such a fantasy. Instead of the champions league there would be a top league of Europe's best teams, ie the usual suspects who go far in the CL. The fantasy of this would be the old firm expecting they be invited along Who knows, the top clubs could decide that their best interests were served by breaking away and setting up an independent competition like the NFL or the NBA with similar ideas. The bottom team in nfl league get the first pick of the college players coming through to the pro ranks to stop any 1 team becoming 'untouchable' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Heritage Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Whilst agreeing with the OP, Historically the Scottish League has always been thus with the exception of 1950-65 and the late 70s early 80s 1904-05 Celtic 1905-06 Celtic 1906-07 Celtic 1907-08 Celtic 1908-09 Celtic 1909-10 Celtic 1910-11 Rangers 1911-12 Rangers 1912-13 Rangers 1913-14 Celtic 1914-15 Celtic 1915-16 Celtic 1916-17 Celtic 1917-18 Rangers 1918-19 Celtic 1919-20 Rangers 1920-21 Rangers 1921-22 Celtic 1922-23 Rangers 1923-24 Rangers 1924-25 Rangers 1925-26 Celtic 1926-27 Rangers 1927-28 Rangers 1928-29 Rangers 1929-30 Rangers 1930-31 Rangers 1931-32 Motherwell 1932-33 Rangers 1933-34 Rangers 1934-35 Rangers 1935-36 Celtic 1936-37 Rangers 1937-38 Celtic 1938-39 Rangers 1946-47 Rangers 1947-48 Hibernian 1948-49 Rangers 1949-50 Rangers The same analysis can be applied to most other leagues in Europe there are a couple of teams that dominate e.g. Real Madrid, Barcelona. However what has happened now is that with the formation of the CL the elite are getting richer and richer via prize monies and TV revenue. Even within that the EPL are creating their own super elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Whilst agreeing with the OP, Historically the Scottish League has always been thus with the exception of 1950-65 and the late 70s early 80s The same analysis can be applied to most other leagues in Europe there are a couple of teams that dominate e.g. Real Madrid, Barcelona. However what has happened now is that with the formation of the CL the elite are getting richer and richer via prize monies and TV revenue. Even within that the EPL are creating their own super elite. I dont have the figures (yet), but i suspect those 2 have won as high a percentage of league campaigns as any other 2 clubs. Also, I agree that there are always clubs that dominate (true of any sport), its the level of domination. only once in the past 10 or more years has an OF team not been in the top 2. I dont actually think there is a huge difference due to the CL money. I suspect that the premiership is the most affected by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think the whole setup of the spl is aimed at the old firm, for them to win it. There needs to be changes more teams less games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas-voss Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Think the Netherlands will soon be wiped from that list as AZ a romping that league are they not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
givememychoice Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Think the Netherlands will soon be wiped from that list as AZ a romping that league are they not. Wont really be wiped from the list, as it covers all UEFA nations, they will just move further away from scotlands shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think the whole setup of the spl is aimed at the old firm, for them to win it. There needs to be changes more teams less games Agree , a bigger league would stop this 8 games a season nonsence against the old firm making it a much tighter league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Agree , a bigger league would stop this 8 games a season nonsence against the old firm making it a much tighter league. Which is exactly why it wont happen any time soon IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Which is exactly why it wont happen any time soon IMO. They certainly cant have the best interests of Scottish football in their agenda , purely whats best for the OF . We must be the only league in Europe that has 12 teams in it , surely all the top footballing nations in Europe cant be wrong. OK we dont have big population but 2 leagues of 18 would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo66 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 There are several changes which would help provide a more level playing field:- 1. a larger SPL with teams playing each other twice instead of 4 times. Most teams are good for one decent result aginst the OF in a season. Unfortunately, that's not much use if you have to play them 6 or 8 times. 2. go back to 2 points for a win. Why should a win be 3 times as good as a draw? Since 3 points for a win was introduced to the SPL, the OF have won the title every year. Only twice (Motherwell 1994-5; Hearts 2005-6) have the OF not finshed first and second. The teams at the top already win more games than the teams at the bottom (obviously!). 3 points for a win just widens the gap further. 3. TV money should be shared equally among all the teams in the SPL. I don't give a stuff if the OF have more fans at the game or watching on TV. If the opposition don't turn up, they get no TV money. Inspite of what OF followers might think, 38 OF derbies a season is less appealing than having your eyeballs eaten by a crow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 The SPL is the mostly dull and the quality has decreased to the extent that I won't watch any games unless Hearts are involved. As a kid I remember when the FA cup and Scottish cup were played on the same Saturday. Praying the FA cup would go to extra time and we could watch it. Sad commentary on our game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnie_fife Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 How far each top tier league has to go back to find their third winner (in our case Aberdeen) And, in case anybody is wondering, i have listed 52 of the 53 uefa member states, lichtenstein is not included as they have no league (they play in the swiss league, they do however have their own cup, but this was won by a 3rd team in 1994) Listed oldest to newest Scotland 1985 Serbia 1989 Ukraine 1992 Greece 1994 Moldova 1997 Netherlands 1999 Armenia 1999 Lithuania 1999 France 2000 Portugal 2002 Croatia 2002 Northern Ireland 2002 Italy 2003 Turkey 2003 Switzerland 2003 Estonia 2003 Macedonia 2003 Iceland 2003 Israel 2003 Kazakhstan 2003 Luxemburg 2003 Slovenia 2003 England 2004 Spain 2004 Germany 2004 Bulgaria 2004 Belarus 2004 Hungary 2004 Latvia 2004 San Marino 2004 Wales 2004 Belgium 2005 Denmark 2005 Andorra 2005 Finland 2005 Russia 2006 Romania 2006 Czech Republic 2006 Norway 2006 Albania 2006 Austria 2006 Azerbaijan 2006 Bosnia Herzagovena 2006 Cyprus 2006 Faroe Islands 2006 Georgia 2006 Ireland 2006 Malta 2006 Poland 2006 Slovakia 2006 Sweden 2006 Montenegro N/A league is only in its 3rd year ** Obilic won the "Yugoslav First League" in 97/98 followed by Partizan in 98/99 and then Red Star in 99/00. Which puts Ukraine the closest to us with a 7 year gap. Makes our league look even more pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Heritage Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 There are several changes which would help provide a more level playing field:-1. a larger SPL with teams playing each other twice instead of 4 times. Most teams are good for one decent result aginst the OF in a season. Unfortunately, that's not much use if you have to play them 6 or 8 times. The whole reason for the establishment of the Premier League back in the mid 70s was to make it more competitive than the tired old 18 team format. It could be argued that this was successful it the first 10 years or so with the success of the 'New Firm'. However since then it lapsed into a 2 horse race. The problem is NOT structural it is Financial. It is the sheer size / influence / media domination of the OF. Consider the changes over the last 30 years The OF now have the biggest average crowds ever in their History whilst the smaller seater stadium capacity of their rivals has meant the gap in gate money between the OF and the rest is getting wider. The switch to home teams keeping all their gate revenue The split of TV money / Prize money vastly favouring whoever finishes 1st and 2nd .. 2. go back to 2 points for a win. Why should a win be 3 times as good as a draw? Since 3 points for a win was introduced to the SPL, the OF have won the title every year. Only twice (Motherwell 1994-5; Hearts 2005-6) have the OF not finshed first and second. The teams at the top already win more games than the teams at the bottom (obviously!). 3 points for a win just widens the gap further. The gap in points terms is wider in terms of places it is exactly the same. We could make it 0.5 points for a draw and 1 point for a win that would make the gap smaller. 3. TV money should be shared equally among all the teams in the SPL. I don't give a stuff if the OF have more fans at the game or watching on TV. If the opposition don't turn up, they get no TV money. Inspite of what OF followers might think, 38 OF derbies a season is less appealing than having your eyeballs eaten by a crow. The nub of the problem, it is all about finance not structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I would argue that the reason for Old Firm domination is both financial as London Hearts describes above and also structural with current League format favouring them however there is also the bias factor where they receive more favourable decisions both in the refereeing of games on the pitch and the administrative decisions that govern our game off the field. For the record not every decision goes their way but more go for them than against them and when they don't action is taken to correct the situation....one example being Rangers dispute with the SPL over fixtures last season remedied by Rangers CEO Martin Bain joining the SPL management committee this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.