I will overlook it in the spirit of Xmas Queb.

Wanting something for free that a club have built over the years? Scott Allan anyone?

Don, every now and then I hear some non O/F fan whinging for gate sharing or a more equitable share of the TV money. Why?
I figure if the O/F has 60% of the paying fans in the country, then they should get 60% of all league revenues.

I used to hear that in the 90s but not anymore.

More worryingly I see united have appointed a new financial advisor to the board today. He's called Stephen Bain. Wonder if he is any relation of Martin

Gate sharing and TV money are separate issues QB. And I've never heard anyone seriously suggesting gate sharing.

TV money however should be shared more evenly. If a game between celtic and St Johnstone, for example, brings in £100,000, why shouldn't it be split 50/50? Both teams took part. Why do you think almost every televised game rangers or celtic play is away from home? Coincidence?

I commonly hear old firm fans moaning about the standard of the rest of the league. You can either take as much money as possible and play against poor teams, or try and share it out to make things more competitive. You can't have both.

"I figure if the O/F has 60% of the paying fans in the country, then they should get 60% of all league revenues."

Yeah, things don't work like that.

Don, you want to hear some ideas for equity in the league?
They'll never happen because 41 pro teams CANNOT exist in a country of 5 million.
Will teams combine like the 2 Dundee teams? No chance.

But have a youth "draft"
Like in American sports the last team in the league gets 1st pick and up the table.
Salary cap.
Problem is this won;t raise the Scottish game. It will just drag the top 2 down a level.

FFS get rid of more than 1/2 the "pro" teams and the product might not be so diluted.

Oh and don't sell your players to O/F.
Why would any team sell their best players to a team who are in the same league?

West coast

Why do you think almost every televised game rangers or celtic play is away from home? Coincidence?

====

The reason is viewers

If its a home game then 50k would be at the game where as an away game perhaps 5k

So thats a potential 45k extra folk watching on TV.

They will have worked it out and can charge more for advertising and the pubs get a better return on the investment.

Im not sure how the TV money is split at the moment.

Quebcelt, it's not as simple as just selling your players to the old firm. Do you think that the likes of Spurs and Villa have enjoyed losing all their best players tot he top 4 over the last 20 years?

Don is right, you can't take the best young players from the other clubs, the majority of the TV revenue and then complain that the league is not competitive.

You surely recognise that the standards at the OF are already rapidly declining in the current environment. Moving to another league will never happen, therefore all clubs must work together to improve the league.

Duke, the OF take 50% and the rest is split between the other 10 clubs. That is my understanding of it.

Its the sad reality though

Look at Hibs

Whitty Rangers
Thompson Rangers
Brown Celtic
Murray Rangers
Riorden Celtic

Celtic even stole the youth coach Parks.

What chance do they have

comment by Arabian Knight (U4850)
posted 1 minute ago
Duke, the OF take 50% and the rest is split between the other 10 clubs. That is my understanding of it.

---

I assume there is some logic in that and the clubs agreed.

"Oh and don't sell your players to O/F.
Why would any team sell their best players to a team who are in the same league?"

Do you really need me to answer that?

"They'll never happen because 41 pro teams CANNOT exist in a country of 5 million.
Will teams combine like the 2 Dundee teams? No chance."

There isn't 41 professional teams in Scotland. Many teams in the 3rd Division (and 2nd I think) are semi-pro. Should the two Dundee teams combine? Maybe, it seems to have gone well for Inverness. But they shouldn't have to lose 100 years of history to merely survive.

Wage caps can't work in one country alone, unless you want to dramatically reduce the standards. Which would means even smaller attendances, sponsorship and TV money. Which would mean a lot of clubs going out of business.

Draft systems create a completely artificial competition. There maybe be more competition, but its moved away from sport and become sports entertainment.

"They shouldn't have to lose 100 years history just survive."

Therein lies the problem.

Everybody wants change, but nobody wants to be affected by change.

1 or the other.

I've made suggestions re a draft and wage caps.

What are your suggestions? Or are you just having a moan?

Duke, how did Celtic steal John Park?

I think he might have run out his contract at Hibs and wanted bigger and better for himself.




At least Celtic didn't steal the Scotland manager.

See what I did there?

you did

and so did we

"I think he might have run out his contract at Hibs and wanted bigger and better for himself."

How is that different to celtic and rangers "stealing" players from the other teams, which you seem to be against?

"Everybody wants change, but nobody wants to be affected by change."

If the Dundee clubs want to merge to stand a chance of winning the league, that's their decision. They shouldn't be forced to merge just to stay in business because of the financial situation celtic and rangers (and others) have helped to build.

"I've made suggestions re a draft and wage caps.

What are your suggestions? Or are you just having a moan?"

And I refuted those suggestions because I don't think they are workable. I don't think I'm moaning. I've suggested TV money should be split more evenly to try and level the playing field a bit. I also think the league system should be restructured, maybe with two leagues of 16 and a regional pyramid system below that. But because of debts and falling revenue, I can see why chairmen are wary of taking a risk like that.

FFS in a country of 5 million and you want league pyramids and 2 16 team leagues?
WTF

queb

you asked for a suggestion

Dont moan when you get one

There are problems with all changes

Though we do need to do something.

Awrite, here goes.
Both O/F clubs are relegated to 3rd div.
Both are moved to 15,000 seater stadia
All O/F players to be divided out amongst other SPL teams by a draft system.
Murray Park and Lennoxtown to be taken over by SFA to train national teams.
Then in a couple of years when the O/F are winning everything again we can do it all over again.




Who knows maybe without Celtic and Rangers maybe some other team could win SPL.

"FFS in a country of 5 million and you want league pyramids and 2 16 team leagues?
WTF"

Yes. That why I wrote that.

If 32 teams is too many in your eyes, how many teams should there be in Scotland? 20? 16? 10? Maybe celtic, rangers and a "best of the rest' XI can compete in a round robin competition every year?

"Who knows maybe without Celtic and Rangers maybe some other team could win SPL."

If you look back up the thread, you'll see nine teams have won been Scottish champions with the old firm there.

Nine 9 ooft that would be over 120 odd years?

Who supports these 42 teams?

It is not sustainable as a business.
Football is a business. Like it or not.

How many teams would I like to see?

O.K. first a franchise league SPL. 14 or 16 teams

How can such a small country maintain 3 leagues?

But you don't want to change.

FYI Quebecelt -
Denmark, population of 5.5million, has 58 teams in their league system, with another 42 Highland League/Junior type teams.
Finland, population 5.4 million, has five league with well over 200 clubs.
Norway, population 4.9million, has two leagues of 16 and a regional pyramid system below that.
Croatia, population 4.2million, has two leagues of 16 with a regional pyramid system below that.

"Nine 9 ooft that would be over 120 odd years?"

Do you actaully read any of the threads you post in? 11 different winners isn't actually that bad. As I said upthread, Spain has had nine differnet league winners, Germany 12, Italy 16.

"O.K. first a franchise league SPL. 14 or 16 teams"

And nothing else below that? No promotion or relegation? Large swathes of the country would be left with no team to support and would enivitably flow to the old firm.

"How can such a small country maintain 3 leagues?"
See my post above. Plus, we currently have four leagues and I suggested changing to two. Where did you get three from?

"But you don't want to change."

I don't want the change you are suggesting. There's a difference.

Queb

I think the number 11 including the OF is comparable with most countries.

To be honest the more leagues the better
Thats no the problem

3 leagues means perhaps 6 or possible 10 going for championships
10 maybe 14 fighting relegation

This is what people want to see.

The issue I have with say 16 teams is the middle ground and meaningless games.

The first thing we should be doing is bringing back play offs.