Bluedell 5,679 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I actually agree. Overlooking his clear hatred for a moment, the idea that every team should get an equal share is a good one. It would allow everyone to start on an even footing, and would put the good of the game over any individuals. The money is minuscule anyway -- how much are we really giving up? We would still have bigger revenues because of the ST sales, but the increased competition -- that's still a big 'if', no matter what happens -- could give us better TV deals etc. If things are going to change, the ones that benefit the most have to take a hit for the good of the game. (We've almost been restructured towards lower income streams, so it could benefit us anyway!) Following on from your logic, we should also give away 50% of our matchday income to the opposition to make them stronger. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 (edited) Gordon Waddell is one of our better journalists but as has been pointed out his comparison with the NFL is wrong or at least it's only half right. And it doesn't prevent dynasties such as the SF 49'ers, the Green Bay Packers or the New England Patriots. A similar system applies in baseball but it hasn't prevented the SF Giants winning 3 out of the last 5 World Series or the Red Sox 3 in 9 nor did it prevent the Yankees doing 3 in 5, 4 times in their history. But he is 100% correct about what our game needs and that is competition. Competition boosts attendances, increased attendances bring increased revenue, increased revenue brings better players........ But the gate money is only part of the story. The distribution of the TV and SPFL commercial money is still heavily weighted towards the the top few teams in the SPFL. If all the teams in each division got the same money that would be a start, then the old firm would still prosper from their much higher gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial deals, but not at the expense of the other Clubs. Edited October 4, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,732 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Gordon Waddell is one of our better journalists but as has been pointed out his comparison with the NFL is wrong or at least it's only half right. And it doesn't prevent dynasties such as the SF 49'ers, the Green Bay Packers or the New England Patriots. A similar system applies in baseball but it hasn't prevented the SF Giants winning 3 out of the last 5 World Series or the Red Sox 3 in 9 nor did it prevent the Yankees doing 3 in 5, 4 times in their history. But he is 100% correct about what our game needs and that is competition. Competition boosts attendances, increased attendances bring increased revenue, increased revenue brings better players........ But the gate money is only part of the story. The distribution of the TV and SPFL commercial money is still heavily weighted towards the the top few teams in the SPFL. If all the teams in each division got the same money that would be a start, then the old firm would still prosper from their much higher gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial deals, but not at the expense of the other Clubs. The problem is that there is simply not enough TV and commercial money in the SPFL. And the ten SPL chairmen who decided to vote Rangers out the SPL in 2012 must take most of the blame for that decision which was commercial madness. However they will all soon be made accountable for that decision when the BTC is won & if Whyte gets convicted. For 'sporting integrity' they can then read ' contingency liability' which their clubs may well end up facing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Gordon Waddell is one of our better journalists but as has been pointed out his comparison with the NFL is wrong or at least it's only half right. And it doesn't prevent dynasties such as the SF 49'ers, the Green Bay Packers or the New England Patriots. A similar system applies in baseball but it hasn't prevented the SF Giants winning 3 out of the last 5 World Series or the Red Sox 3 in 9 nor did it prevent the Yankees doing 3 in 5, 4 times in their history. But he is 100% correct about what our game needs and that is competition. Competition boosts attendances, increased attendances bring increased revenue, increased revenue brings better players........ But the gate money is only part of the story. The distribution of the TV and SPFL commercial money is still heavily weighted towards the the top few teams in the SPFL. If all the teams in each division got the same money that would be a start, then the old firm would still prosper from their much higher gate receipts, sponsorship and commercial deals, but not at the expense of the other Clubs. Premiership Sunday October 4 Hamilton 1-2 Celtic Att: 4,910 Saturday October 3 Aberdeen 1-5 St Johnstone Att: 13,405 Dundee 2-1 Motherwell Att: 5,152 Hearts 1-1 Kilmarnock Att: 16,461 Partick Thistle 3-0 Dundee United Att: 3,675 Ross County 1-2 Inverness CT Att: 5,473 Championship Saturday October 3 Dumbarton 2-1 Livingston Att: 819 Q of South 0-3 Hibernian Att: 2,745 Raith Rovers 2-1 Morton Att: 1,754 Rangers 3-1 Falkirk Att: 45,135 St Mirren 1-1 Alloa Athletic Att: 2,994 League 1 Saturday October 3 Airdrieonians 0-1 Stranraer Att: 847 Ayr United 5-0 Cowdenbeath Att: 1,171 Dunfermline 3-0 Albion Rovers Att: 3,086 Peterhead 2-2 Forfar Athletic Att: 573 Stenhousemuir 2-2 Brechin City Att: 348 League 2 Saturday October 3 Arbroath 0-2 Annan Athletic Att: 492 Berwick Rangers 2-1 E Stirling Att: 423 East Fife 1-1 Stirling Albion Att: 673 Elgin City 1-1 Clyde Att: 672 Queen's Park 0-1 Montrose Att: 342 "If all the teams in each division got the same money that would be a start" Okay, if you're serious about this then you have to give 'Thinker's' point in post #7 more weight. That means we cut away 20 teams and keep 22. Look at yesterday's crowd totals and just say for the sake of argument that this is a weekly representation of crowd attendance, which of course can vary, but we need a point of reference. I would say all teams below 1000 attendance should be cut from professional status ( given a couple of season's notice ). They are no more that community clubs, and should be treated as such. They should have no more funding that any other semi-professional or amateur team in the Scottish game. Right then, this leaves the Premiership and the Championship. Now if you want to talk about sharing a TV purse then you are getting closer to a truly viable group. The teams who are close to being able to sustain full-time clubs - such as Ayr Utd. and Dunfermline can compete in a playoff for promotion. There are all kinds of permutations that can be brought into this new picture for competitive purposes. This would also concentrate future talent coming through into a smaller pool, which should help competition (remember each club would have more TV money for wages and could help the talent drain to England). Obviously this is an arbitrary proposal and would need more attention to detail, but the object is to sell Scottish football to a bigger tv audience and hence gain more income. The hope would be that there would be more competitive self-sustaining pebbles that support the boulders - Rangers and Celtic - that are known globally as Scottish football. Honestly, who in their right mind would contemplate paying to see, e.g. Stenhousemuir vs Brechin City? Kids have never heard of them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,801 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Put me in the Gordon Waddell camp too. Scottish football requires a revolution and soon before it withers on the vine, improving the overall quality of team in the top league would be a start. Impressive crowd that for Dunfermline, especially considering the opposition won't have brought many. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 PremiershipSunday October 4 Hamilton 1-2 Celtic Att: 4,910 Saturday October 3 Aberdeen 1-5 St Johnstone Att: 13,405 Dundee 2-1 Motherwell Att: 5,152 Hearts 1-1 Kilmarnock Att: 16,461 Partick Thistle 3-0 Dundee United Att: 3,675 Ross County 1-2 Inverness CT Att: 5,473 Championship Saturday October 3 Dumbarton 2-1 Livingston Att: 819 Q of South 0-3 Hibernian Att: 2,745 Raith Rovers 2-1 Morton Att: 1,754 Rangers 3-1 Falkirk Att: 45,135 St Mirren 1-1 Alloa Athletic Att: 2,994 League 1 Saturday October 3 Airdrieonians 0-1 Stranraer Att: 847 Ayr United 5-0 Cowdenbeath Att: 1,171 Dunfermline 3-0 Albion Rovers Att: 3,086 Peterhead 2-2 Forfar Athletic Att: 573 Stenhousemuir 2-2 Brechin City Att: 348 League 2 Saturday October 3 Arbroath 0-2 Annan Athletic Att: 492 Berwick Rangers 2-1 E Stirling Att: 423 East Fife 1-1 Stirling Albion Att: 673 Elgin City 1-1 Clyde Att: 672 Queen's Park 0-1 Montrose Att: 342 "If all the teams in each division got the same money that would be a start" Okay, if you're serious about this then you have to give 'Thinker's' point in post #7 more weight. That means we cut away 20 teams and keep 22. Look at yesterday's crowd totals and just say for the sake of argument that this is a weekly representation of crowd attendance, which of course can vary, but we need a point of reference. I would say all teams below 1000 attendance should be cut from professional status ( given a couple of season's notice ). They are no more that community clubs, and should be treated as such. They should have no more funding that any other semi-professional or amateur team in the Scottish game. Right then, this leaves the Premiership and the Championship. Now if you want to talk about sharing a TV purse then you are getting closer to a truly viable group. The teams who are close to being able to sustain full-time clubs - such as Ayr Utd. and Dunfermline can compete in a playoff for promotion. There are all kinds of permutations that can be brought into this new picture for competitive purposes. This would also concentrate future talent coming through into a smaller pool, which should help competition (remember each club would have more TV money for wages and could help the talent drain to England). Obviously this is an arbitrary proposal and would need more attention to detail, but the object is to sell Scottish football to a bigger tv audience and hence gain more income. The hope would be that there would be more competitive self-sustaining pebbles that support the boulders - Rangers and Celtic - that are known globally as Scottish football. Honestly, who in their right mind would contemplate paying to see, e.g. Stenhousemuir vs Brechin City? Kids have never heard of them. I agree entirely and would go further. If you take 92 teams in the English "senior" divisons and consider the population equation then we should have 9 of 10 senior teams max. However, as we've seen that does not work in terms of a "proper" league without a split and a convoluted play-off system. So I would go for a 16 team Premier League which would be all or mostly full-time; and a 16 team Championship/2nd Division all or mostly part-time. That would cover all the teams in the current top 3 divisions, so shouldn't be hard to push through. The rest, the current League 2 would go down to a regional league set up along the lines of the Highland and new Lowland League. I would start it in season 2017/18 and allow next season to sort out the positions. Four teams would come up automatically and I would have play offs between the botom two in the Premiership and the nos 5 & 6 in the Championship. That way every team who thought they would be in the Premier League next season would fancy their chances of staying there and vote for it. The extra games would be made up by a regional/sectional league cup, which would mean that there would still be 4 old firm games for TV, albeit two would be played at the start of the season and the other clubs would have a chance of playing one of the old firm in the knock out stages. I have written about this on here more than once in the past and it is largely taken from the Supporters Direct Fan's Plan which I helped write in 2012. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Scottish football lacks one main ingredient - Competition. Over the past 30 years and up to 4 years ago there were two teams dominating the league, today it is only one now, due to you know what. If Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen and the Dundee clubs amalgamated as one club right now, the Old Firm would still dominate for the next 30 years. Two teams that are too big and we can't do nothing about it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The only thing that I would change about Scottish football would be to ban any opinion columns on the subject. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Scottish football lacks one main ingredient - Competition. Over the past 30 years and up to 4 years ago there were two teams dominating the league, today it is only one now, due to you know what. If Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen and the Dundee clubs amalgamated as one club right now, the Old Firm would still dominate for the next 30 years. Two teams that are too big and we can't do nothing about it. The Dutch TV once sent out a documentary when Rangers were doing 9 in a row, "Glasgow Rangers, too big for Scotland. Too small for Europe" i think that about sums it up for both the OF teams 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 I fail to see why so many Rangers fans are happy for us to give cash away to all of these clubs who so recently shafted us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.